|
DECEMBER 14, 2004
– Ah, poor, poor partisan hacks.
Right-wing hacks like
Joe Scarborough are all trying to steal a new mantle: that of being
an O’Reilly-brand faux independent. It is how the lying right that
got Bush and the GOP into power to begin with plans to escape blame
for the disaster they have helped to create, by somehow blaming the
Democrats for what Bush and the GOP has done.
That is not the
unfortunate part. The unfortunate part is that they have gone
unchallenged for so long that they simply expect to get away with it
without someone calling them on their game and nailing them for it.
Even more, they
expect that if someone does try to nail them on it, it will be only
in a polite, wimpy sort of liberal way, and that they can resort to
their standard bullying, grade-school level tone and whoever is
attacking them will back down.
Sorry Joe, you
obviously are new to The Moderate Independent.
Our loyal readers
know that we don’t just dish back, we dish front, and if someone
lies and bullies, we hit back twice as hard. Previous right-wing
puppets who’ve come under M/I’s wrath include Rush Limbaugh (see:
Rush Limbaugh Busted Red-Handed!
- He Runs Numbers About Tax Cuts For Thee Rich, But Even The Numbers
Show How Stupid His Argument Is),
Michael Savage Weiner (see: Talk Radio
Host Rush Limbaugh Joins His Buddy Michael Savage Weiner In Getting
Canned For Being Unacceptable Outside Of His Usual AM Radio Cave),
and Larry Elder (see: Larry Elder Proves Again To Be The
Biggest Pussy On AM Talk Radio.)
Well, MSNBC’s
right-wing hack Joe Scarborough took it on the chin from M/I late
last week (see:
Right-Wing Hack Joe Scarborough Admits He Was
Entirely Wrong In Supporting Bush,)
and he hasn’t stopped crying about it since.
In what has become a
marathon, now two-day e-mail debate, the TV talk show host has tried
to plead his case to The Moderate Independent’s editor-in-chief
Thomas J. Bico, saying that he is not such a bad guy after all.
For the amusement of
our readers, here is the massively long yet constantly amusing
exchange that has been going on.
It all began with
this e-mail from Scarborough (notes in bold are my comments):
I had a
column from your site emailed to me today. (M/I readers strike
again.)
A
couple of comments. First, John is a very angry man. (Who, me?
Couldn’t be.) Not the tone I would expect from a website that
says it can unite the nation. The name calling might unite a group
of 14 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto, but few others. (Few
others… such as you, Joe, who currently on your MSNBC blog call a
school “stupid” and talk about the need to “crack heads.”)
Second, he is wrong in saying I have just now started attacking
Republicans and the President for their spending habits. I wrote a
book reviewed by the NYTimes yesterday that kicks the hell out of
the President and the GOP. Not simply for effect either. They are
breaking their word to voters and running up massive deficits. The
critical book was released in September during a time when Kerry and
Bush were tied in the polls. Not exactly the work of a right wing
hack. (Note: Have not read the book, but New York Times review
he is referring to says, “honest
enough to recognize the problem (of the deficit spending,
but can't quite bring himself to the solution," kind of like the
column I wrote about in which he whines about deficits and the plan
to privatize Social Security but refuses to say the Bush/Limbaughians
need to go to fix it, instead pussyfooting around the issue to try
and blame Democrats and moderate Republicans just as fully.)
If John knew anything about me, he would know I have
been going after both sides in Congress and on TV for years now. But
judging by his tone, I don't know that he is really interested in
the facts. Thanks. Good luck with the site, and I hope you do
produce something that speaks to the middle in America. We have had
enough of people trying to turn into political cartoons those who do
not agree with their views 100% of the time.
Well we
all had a good laugh when we read this, and Tom being the head
honcho, he had dibs on getting to respond to this one. Tom is a bit
calmer than I am and more diplomatically inclined, and so he gives
Mr. Scarborough a fair chance in his first reply:
Thanks
for the note. John is a bit of a firebrand when he sees something
unfair. Regardless of tone, his observation is an accurate one:
there was not one mention in your column that it is not
"politicians" who are responsible for this, but specifically
Republican politicians, President Bush, and their disastrous
borrow-and-spend economic policies - which went against the advice
and counsel of the vast majority of Democrats. So why is it that you
didn't put the blame where it belongs in the referred-to column?
Also, the reality is that the President and GOP are not breaking
their word in doing what they are doing, they are simply carrying
out the exact policies they promised. It was always clear massive
debt would be the end result of Bush's tax, economic, and Social
Security policies, and they should never have been supported to
begin with. To act as if they pulled some trick and did something
they never talked about is disingenuine. We are not out to attack
you, we are standing up for fairness. So if you have an answer and
are willing to correct your column by laying the blame openly where
it belongs - with the Republican policies and President Bush - as
well as credit Kerry and the Democrats with being on the right side
of this one (and of course we know they are one the wrong side of
other issues,) we will gladly print an update to John Ashton's
story. Sometimes, to unite the nation, you have to take a hard line
against unfairness and those who would partake of it, as I'm sure
you are aware. If you are truly going to serve in the middle with
us, you will be a welcomed ally.
Like I
said, Bico gave Joe a real shot to simply make his article
accurately reflect the truth, and even welcomed him into our
Moderate Independent movement if he was prepared to truly be honest
and non-partisan.
Unfortunately, being a fair-minded and honest Moderate Independent
was not truly Joe’s plan. Joe’s reply:
The
suggestion that Republicans alone are responsible for the increase
in borrow and spend activities in Washington is laughable. As one
who served in Congress for almost four terms, I can tell you that
the record is filled with instances where Democrats attack
Republicans for not spending more money on appropriation bills. (That’s
nice Joe, and we don’t side with those fiscally irresponsible
Democrats of old. But we are talking about the present, the current
disastrously irresponsible new GOP and a more sane, in particular
with regard to tax cuts and Social Security, Democratic Party. So
stop with the flashbacks and changing the subject and stick with
present reality – a problem again and again during this conversation
with Joe.) Democrats vote for the President's tax cuts without
finding offsetting cuts (A flat-out lie, as you will see in
Bico’s response below,) and old bulls in both parties work
together to spend more money and pass the debt on to our children
(Of course there’s some truth to this, but it is one of those
Arnold-like silly generalizations which in this case is used to
avoid dealing with the subject, which is that the disastrous Social
Security plan his column was about is a GOP/Bush thing, with the
Dems opposed and that, regardless of the lie he told above, the Dems
did try to demand offsetting tax cuts for the GOP’s irresponsible
tax-and-borrow plan.) I detail this at length in my book and
one cannot read it without coming away with the feeling that I am
tougher on my own than Democrats. Regarding John Kerry, the
Massachusetts senator's voting record on spending was one of the
worst in the Senate over the past two decades. (Again,
flashbacks, Joe. Try sticking with the current millennium, in which
Kerry clearly espoused Clinton-brand moderate, fiscally responsible
policies and opposed the Social Security plan you rail on exactly
because it would cause us to borrow another $2 trillion. This is
all part of the game right out of the Reagan Playbook
(see:
The
Ronald Reagan Playbook - Deficits And War Were Part Of The GOP's
Planned
Platform)
in which the GOP creates
deficits with absurd, irresponsible tax cuts and then tries to blame
Democratic spending for the mess they made, and again, of course,
without being specific about which spending mainly pushed by
Democrats he could cut to balance things.)
However, the point I made in my book and on my show is this one:
Democrats don't get elected by promising to cut spending and taxes.
Republicans do. That's what makes their actions so hypocritical.
Bottom line is that the column was littered with factual
inaccuracies. I have attacked the President and my own party for
years. I do not fear the wheels are coming off the wagon (or
whatever metaphor he used.) In fact, my biggest fear is that both
parties will continue to spend our children into deeper debt until
America faces an economic meltdown which may not come for years.
Anyone who refuses to face the fact that both parties are to blame
for this fiscal crisis is neither moderate nor independent. Don't
defend the indefensible. I don't. No party or politician is worth
it.
Now if
you actually go a read all of the columns of
Joe’s current MSNBC blog,
you see that his claim to be as harsh on both sides is bunk. Bico
nails him for this later. Bico’s reply to the above:
Your analysis is
backwards - it is clearly not spending alone that caused this but
utterly irresponsible tax cut policies, tantamount to looting. This
is directly what has caused the vast increase in the debt problem.
In addition, the Social Security policies that are the center of
your article are almost entirely Bush/GOP-pushed, Dem-opposed.
Still you are trying
to spin things to blame Democrats' "spending" for part of this mess.
If you have particular programmatic issues, you should take them up
- this time you were taking up Social Security privatization. This
one fell on the GOP and Bush and you failed to hold them accountable
in the article. You seemingly played a game of trying to, as you did
in the e-mail below, make it seem as if somehow the Democrats are
just as much to blame as the Republicans. There is no truth to that
in this case.
It is nice that you
are willing to supposedly take on both sides, but if you don't
accurately nail one side when they are the ones responsible for
something, you are being dishonest and really just helping cover for
that side, as well as disparaging a party that did nothing wrong -
and, in fact, should be commended for being on the right side of the
issue.
The reality is
Republicans do run for office pledging to cut taxes and spending.
Yes, the part about the pledging to cut spending has been
hypocritical, but the issue about tax cuts being excessive beyond a
certain point needs to be addressed as well. The idea that you can
just cut and cut and cut and somehow the growth that will result
will grow us out of our debt is not accurate. Read our Ben Terton's
article on the reality, that because of Bush's tax policies, tax
revenue has continued to decline dramatically in the past few years
even as GDP has increased. The only growth that matters in terms of
balancing a budget is growth of tax revenue, and if you slash taxes
too far, that will never grow regardless of how the economy
performs. (See Ben's article:
Who Really Is The Majority When It Comes To Money, Red Staters Or
Blue Staters, And How Much Money Does The Nation Really Have To Work
With?)
It is good to see you
willing to take on both sides, but spreading blame around in
instances when it falls solely, or at least almost entirely, on one
side is not standing up for truth and America, which are the only
two things we at M/I care about.
God, Tom is a calm
guy. Time for yet another response by Joe (doesn’t he have a TV
show to attend to?) which will basically amount to whining “am not.”
My analysis is not
backwards. (Told you.) It is runaway spending and
tax cuts that have caused our deficits (Bico challenges him
to get out of unfair generalizations with this in a bit.) But
the bigger challenge is Social Security.
I agree with you on
tax cuts without offsetting spending cuts. You ignored my point that
Democrats decry these cuts but many vote for them. Remember right
before the election when most Democrats voted for a massive tax cut
program proposed by Bush and Democratic leaders said they would
support the bill because they didn’t want to be tagged as being
against tax cuts (Bico addresses Joe’s dishonest account of this
as mentioned above in his reply below.).
I am amused by your
conclusion that most of the blame falls on one side. I am looking
forward to the eventual vote on Social Security “Reform” if it
allows younger voters to invest in their own private accounts.
Though proposed by Bush, this program will be supported by
those on both sides who are more interested in getting reelected
than addressing the problems with the program. (Notice the two
words in bold, “will be.” Bico will nail Joe for both this lie and
lying about telling this lie in just a minute.)
Again, trying to
blame these problems almost exclusively on one side is a joke that
the American people are not laughing at anymore. They know that both
parties are letting them down and bankrupting America.
Joe obviously doesn’t
realize that we nail the Democrats just as hard as the GOP when it
is fair and accurate. But he is about to get schooled in a number
of things in Bico’s next reply:
You obviously look at
this part of the latest tax vote (from the
WashPost coverage of it): "The tax cut passed the House 339 to
65 last night. It then passed the Senate 92 to 3, with only retiring
Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) and budget hawks Olympia J. Snowe
(R-Maine) and Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) opposed," which is the part
you use to make your argument.
But your argument
ignores the reality mentioned in this part of the same tax cut
coverage: "Democrats did offer procedural motions to instruct tax
writers to offset the cost of the tax cut by raising taxes on
millionaires, but the motions were struck down along party lines."
(Let’s do a Joe-like
flashback to his earlier e-mail:
“Democrats vote for the
President's tax cuts without finding offsetting cuts.”
Oops, forgot to check in with reality, Joe. Democrats voted exactly
for such offsets, GOP wouldn’t allow it.)
So you see clearly
your assertion that Democrats didn't try to come up with offsets is
entirely inaccurate.
And the reality,
which it is hard to fathom why you pretend isn't real, is that the
Democrats have argued tooth-and-nail against privatizing Social
Security while Bush, the GOP, and the conservative media has pressed
for it. To blame to Democrats as equal partners is absurd.
(Now Bico schools
Joe in what it really means to be a Moderate Independent)
The Democrats are spineless and act as
cave-in eunuchs for certain, as we again and again nail them for in
articles like The Fall of the Democratic - And Republican - Parties
(see:
Inside The Fall Of The Democratic - And Republican - Parties)
In places like California you can clearly
see your argument play out, where both sides just want to borrow and
pander without regard for the state, only caring about their
political and personal wants. We absolutely have nailed them again
and again, and had hardline conservative McClintock as our Hero of
the Month last December for being one of the only people in the
state - on either side of the aisle - to stand up for what is best
for the state. (see: The
M/I Hero Of The Month Award Goes To Conservative Republican Tom
McClintock) This is directly in line with the
argument you are making.
But nationally the
Democrats are offering offsets - like the one above - while the GOP
and Bush are just spending utterly without conscience, and, in
particular, on the issue you raised, Social Security, the Democrats
are on the right side, the GOP/Bush on the wrong side for America,
and to say they should both be assailed equally because you are sure
the Dems will go with it in the end is just another game to try and
avoid saying the reality: the policies being pushed by Bush, the
GOP, and talk radio/FOX News are the ones that are bankrupting our
country.
And of course it all
comes to a very specific question to you: what exactly is your
solution, what exactly would you cut, which programs, how much from
each program, what would be cut within these programs to make this
plausible. As I said, Cali just got snowed by Arnold uttering
exactly the rhetoric you are using, that there is just so much
wasteful spending that all you need to do is do a comprehensive
audit and you will find so much easily cuttable waste you can
balance things no problem - and then he got into office and realzied
he was full of it, and so ended up borrowing just like Davis had. So
if you have a detailed accounting of how to balance things, please
direct me to it and we will assess. I hope you read our Terton's
article which lays out in great fiscal detail the reality of how
simply tightening our belts can not be the answer:
Who Really Is The Majority When It Comes To Money, Red Staters Or
Blue Staters, And How Much Money Does The Nation Really Have To Work
With?
If you can imagine,
Joe wasn’t done trying to twist and spin things yet. He was sure he
would at some point manage to run his game on our Tom Bico. Yet
another attempt – and this time, watch Joe desperately resort to
flat-out lying about what he had just said, a game it is easy to get
away with on a TV show, but when you are in M/I’s ball court, that
game gets slammed right back in your face:
Offering language and
then voting for a bad bill is the work of spineless political hacks
(Again, true as a generalization, but in dealing with the
specific issue at hand, there’s only so much you can accomplish when
dealing with a majority party hell bent on bankrupting the nation
with devastatingly irresponsible tax cuts. The Democrats fought for
offsetting tax cuts. Should they have told the GOP to entirely
shove it in the end, as a generalization, sure, but the GOP set it
up so that to do so would have been to take away things like child
tax credits right before an election. The vote was in September for
a reason, and the vote was all or nothing for a reason. The new,
determinedly bankrupting GOP plays hardball and uses any tactic they
can to ensure the nation goes further and further into debt.)
I saw it done all the time. If a bill is bad for America, vote
against it. Democrats who vote for these Bush bills have no right to
complain. Offer alternatives and then vote against the bad bill.
(Now for the big lie.) I said in my last email the Social
Security bill was Bush’s but let’s wait and see how Democrats vote
before trying to lay this all at the GOP’s feet. (Ut oh, now
Joe’s gone over the edge into complete lying lala land. Let’s do
another Joe flashback and remind him of what he actually said:
“Though proposed by Bush, this program will be supported by
those on both sides...” Remember those two words I told you to keep
in mind, “will be.” Not, “let’s wait and see.” The Democrats,
“will,” in Joe’s unfailing psychic eye, be just as bad, someday, and
so it is fair and honest to nail them for it now, even if they
haven’t done it yet. As you see, Joe actually said exactly the
opposite of what he is now claiming to say. In fact, our entire
problem with his article to begin with was exactly that he was
saying the opposite, that he was acting as if the Democrats
currently were just as much to blame for the disastrous Social
Security proposal before us – and we were telling him it was unfair
not to deal with actual reality, that the GOP/Bush are the ones
behind this and the Dems opposed, and that he should wait and see
before including the Dems in his attack.) It is their idea.
But will the D’s rubber stamp it our actually come up with a viable
alternative? (Wait, Joe, I thought your psychic vision had told
you the answer to that one already?)
What would I do? Read my book. (Those of you who read this satire
- AM Radio
Host Debate a Disaster - from our very first issue
are laughing out loud at that last sentence.)
Cut spending (again with
the Arnold-like rhetoric not backed up by specifics,) don’t cut
taxes unless they are offset (again ignoring the reality spelled
out for him in the Terton article Tom sent him above which shows how
simply not cutting anymore doesn’t add up,) adopt pay as you go
rules (nice as a generalization, but right now, what would you
cut and what taxes would you raise to get the extra $450 billion a
year we need,) and have the guts (back to the fourth-grader
tone with a school yard-like challenge – just “have the guts, man”)
to tell Americans under 50 that the Social Security program is
going bankrupt. Privatizing it is not the answer for all the
reasons stated in my blog. Raising the retirement age to 70 for
those under 50 years of age makes the most sense. American are
living longer. When Social Security began, retirement age was 65 and
life expectancy was 62. Now it is close to 80. In the 1950s there
were 15 workers for every person on Social Security. Now there are 3
for 1. Soon it will be closer to 2 to 1. (All generalizations
without numbers. Exactly when will Social Security go bankrupt?
Not included. Exactly how much rolling out his plan will save, not
included. And whether it is physically realistic to expect everyone
to work until they are 70, especially with obesity a national
epidemic, is truly a matter to debate. We would trust that Joe has
run the numbers and that his solutions add up, but he hasn’t shown
himself to be trustworthy thus far, and so we would have to do the
addition, subtraction first to determine if this is merely Rush-like
oversimplification which will lead to a wonderful-sounding but
existent-in-fiction-only solution.)
Want more answers, they’re in my book. (Um, as the New York Times
review said, “can't quite bring himself to the solution.”) But
don’t read it if you want to see one party praised and the other
slandered. It’s not reality. (No, we need only go as far as your
MSNBC blog to see that, Joe.)
Bico is finally done
with this game – he actually has more important things to deal with
than go back-and-forth with a right-wing liar, if you can imagine.
He sets Scarborough straight one last time and then ends it for the
day (but don’t worry, it doesn’t end after this.) Here is Bico in
done-with-your-lying-crap mode.:
1) You just wrote, "I
said in my last email the Social Security bill was Bush’s but let’s
wait and see how Democrats vote before trying to lay this all at the
GOP’s feet." That is not what you said. You wanted to lay half the
blame at the Democrats feet right now, when they are standing tough
against the plan, before they even vote. You did not say, "let's
wait and see," you said, to quote, "Though proposed by Bush, this
program WILL BE supported by those on both sides who are more
interested in getting reelected than addressing the problems with
the program." You claim to be fair and honest, how about covering
the situation as it actually is and not some situation that doesn't
exist except in your projections. The reality still is that Bush and
the GOP are arguing for this, Kerry and the Dems against it, and
your column on the subject failed to deal with this fact and
instead, inaccurately and unfairly, tried to blame both sides
equally. In fact, not one time in the article did you use the word
"Bush" or "Republican." That is a whitewash that can only be called
dishonesty. And your current response trying to claim you said "wait
and see" when in fact it was I who was telling you to do that gives
the impression you are not an honest person when it comes to arguing
a point.
2) I hope you are far
more specific about cuts in your book, specify exact amounts and
programs, otherwise it will just be another Arnold-like snowjob. You
can forward a copy of your book if you want a review.
And so ended day 1 of
the great Bico vs. Scarborough debate. Of course Joe wasn’t ready
to let it go (note to MSNBC: you think your employee has a bit too
much free time on his hands? Maybe he can do some hours helping out
in the mailroom rather than sitting around playing with e-mails.)
Joe counted on The Moderate Independent to be the sort of pushover,
bulliable news source he is used to dealing with. But M/I is not
bought and sold, and M/I will fight tooth and nail on behalf of the
truth and what is best for America without relent.
Stay
tuned tomorrow, as we fill you in on day two, in which Scarborough
resorts to the tactic he used earlier against Michael Moore,
implying that he may sue The Moderate Independent for calling him on
his game. |
