Race For The White House Debut: Good, Bad & Ugly
By Logan Murphy Sunday Mar 16, 2008 9:00pm
MSNBC debuted the program Race To The White House today in Tucker's old time slot and the review from the C&L staff is mixed at best. We realize that it's the first run for this show, but the faces and format are all familiar and there is definitely room for improvement. Host David Gregory does an admirable job, although he loses control of the panel, allowing the lone wingnut to dominate the conversation by yelling and spewing delusional talking points over the other panelists -- something we were hoping to see less of.
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson and Chuck Todd were spot on, as usual. Where the show stumbles is the presence of Joe Scarborough and his rampant, fact-free ranting which drops the IQ of the show by double digits. The panel discusses the tanking U.S. economy and the mortgage meltdown and the Scar defends President Bush saying it wasn't deregulation that caused the current crisis, it was greedy homeowners:
Scar: "This is not the type of economy it was in 1992 when Bill Clinton got elected. It's not the economy stupid, yet, for most voters out there."
Gregory:"Rachel, there's a big disagreement about that."
Maddow:"Yeah, Joe, if you were running for reelection on the basis of a platform right now that the economy's actually secretly awesome, we just can't tell, I don't think that you'd be reelected. [snip]
Scar:"This did not happen because of deregulation, this happened because homeowners got more home than they could afford, they got interest only loans, they gambled wildly because they wanted to turn it around and make hundreds of thousands of dollars and guess what? The market changed! [snip] You know what, no consequences. Gamble, go to Vegas, lose your money and you know what? We're going to blame it on GEORGE BUSH!"
Joe has his own MSNBC morning show where he can yell and brow beat his co-hosts all he wants, isn't that enough? The cheesy graphics are distracting and the sound effects and music are a little annoying. We give Race For The White House a C+. Lose the Scar and it automatically jumps into B territory.
UPDATE: The Huffington Post has another clip from the same show with Scarborough getting caught on-air stuffing a brownie in his face. Watch the clip here.
Login or Register to post comments.
Dodd!
the content could be marginal - the big thing here to remember is "So long, bowtie!" and good f'ing riddance
Wow. Scarborough is actually almost partially right for once.
Yeah, those devious homeowners, tricking the poor banks into loaning them too much money - suckers!!
Jesus, how do people like Scarborough get through the day without their brain leaping out of their body out of pure shame?
Oh, and Rachel still kicks ass. She needs her own show - anywhere.
I thought the show moved well. Joe Scarborough was off the wall, on how Obama should not address John Hagee's involvement with McCain's campaign, and his view that the economic problems were not created or greatly enhanced by the Bush administration. His comments about Rachel and Air America will completely inappropriate. It was great not to have Tucker, and I can't believe there is a place for him on MSNBC. He is generally off the wall.
When I tried to borrow money to buy a house, the bank wouldn't loan it to me unless I could afford to pay back the loan. What happened since then? And don't tell me it was the homeowners. I ain't buyin' it.
[deleted - off topic. please take it to an open thread. thanks. sitemonitor]
Joe "maidkiller" Scarborough is utterly unwatchable in the morning. I tried to watch this clown at the gym but everything he says come out of the far right side of his ass. The only choices that early is Joe, Sportscenter and Informmercials.
Maddow:”Yeah, Joe, if you were running for reelection on the basis of a platform right now that the economy’s actually secretly awesome, we just can’t tell, I don’t think that you’d be reelected."
Rachel got it wrong. If Joe were running for re-election, he wouldn't lose because of the dead economy thats actually secretly awesome. He'd lose because of the dead chick thats actually secretly in his office.
Have any of Joe's guests ever called him on this?
Scar:”This did not happen because of deregulation, this happened because homeowners got more home than they could afford, they got interest only loans, they gambled wildly because they wanted to turn it around and make hundreds of thousands of dollars and guess what? The market changed! [snip] You know what, no consequences. Gamble, go to Vegas, lose your money and you know what? We’re going to blame it on GEORGE BUSH!”
If Bill Clinton were in office now who would Scar blame? BILL CLINTON!
Left&Left @ 9:
That's so unfair. She wasn't his maid. She was his administrative assistant.
Too much Obama bias on MSNBC to watch but of course deregulation is the problem.
Pretty much anarchy on Wall Street with the gop in the WH and this will end in another disaster.
Got gold?
Could use another Clinton economy, don't ya think?
I never bother watching joe he is just another stupid lying republican scumbag.
No honor no integrity no honesty no intelligence.
Only other brain dead morons would watch this idiot!
Joe is right on this one. Personally, I took out 3 subprime loans in my insidious homeowner's plot to destroy the economy. I felt I was going to earn thousands of dollars, but BOOM, the market changed!
Tried and true, withstands the test of time: JP Morgan wins again!
SCAR: "The market changed! [snip] You know what, no consequences. Gamble, go to Vegas, lose your money and you know what? We’re going to blame it on GEORGE BUSH!”
Go to Vegas, gamble all of America's money on tax cuts for the rich and runaway spending for the military industrial complex. Tell 900 lies of why you lost the money. Then when you're done loosing all of America's money, bomb Vegas on the way out killing 4,000 Americans and countless other civilians.
That's how George Bush would play Vegas.
Let’s run with Scar’s blame game. All of these crap-shooting home buyers just so happened to purchase these risky gambles in a time period that coincide with the Bush Presidency. That is one hell of a coincidence.
Roket @ 18:
And the Wall Streeters were raking in tons of money off these shaky loans. Go figure.
Is joe blaming homeowners for the bad economy... why doesn`t he blame the banks that raised the prices of houses and then gave out more and bigger loans to people who couldn`t possibly give it back.
its the banks who gambled
Don't like the name of the show. The media WANTS to make this a horse race.
Me, I've had primary fatigue ever since it got nasty, and NOW they start a new show with the word "race" in the title. C-SPAN does something called "Road To The Whitehouse" where they show the candidates at campaign events w/o the pundits.
Joe was obnoxious as always, especially when he tried to talk over Rachel's comments about Hague and the double standards. Joe kept asking what that had to do with anything.
Is he really that clueless or does he just arrogantly think everyone else is?
Bottom line (for me), these two new shows, Gregory's and Dan's Abrams' "Verdict", put me that much closer to canceling cable tv.
What caused the mortgage meltdown was lenders making loans without any consideration of whether the borrower could actually repay the loan. This happened because the companies making the loans then sold the loans and someone else, like pensions funds and so forth, would take the hit if the mortgage wasn't repaid. The bundled mortgage backed security was graded AAA in order to facilitate the swindle. Now, the wingnut may say "let the buyer beware", but buyer beware policies have been deemed not in the public interest, specifically conning or misrepresenting what was in the borrower's interests by these lenders in order to obtain notes to be bundled into securities.
There should have been regulations controlling these mortgages so that none would have been granted that a "prudent man" wouldn't do, to extend a concept from trust management.
The irony here is, because of the imprudent mortgages made, and the economics of supply and demand, a real estate valuation bubble developed, due to supply/demand economics. Prudent borrowers stayed out of the real estate market, or bought cheaper properties to reflect the economic reality. And, now, the government is to bail out the extravaganza facilitated by these mortgages, and in the process, perpetuate the real estate valuation bubble? I'm not so sure these houses should be priced other than what they're worth.
What we have here is a crime, or it should be a crime. Of course, the Congress only seems concerned with blue collar crime. The sub prime mortgage affair certainly has a criminal effect on the country, with lots of economic damage, and no matter how it winds up, homeowners, or taxpayers or both are going to pay for it.
The only fair way to do it is to pull joe off, have Rachel take over and have guest like Noam Chomsky, Ted Kennedy and Karl Marx III, then we will finally get good coverage
Yeah Joe, keep blaming the American people. It's all their fault right. Nevermind the piss-poor leadership of G.W. Bush and his failure to reign in predatory lending. Oh no, it's all the fault of hard working Americans. Yeah, keep it up Joe and Republicans won't see the White House for another 100 years.
The big firms that gambled on the loans get bailed out but the rank and file Americans who loose their homes are left to fend for themselves.
Compassionate conservatism.
Scarborough doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut when it's not his turn.
Joey needs to go back to the sandbox and play. Or time out.
Oh, yes, all those nice gentlemanly Wall Street firms were snookered by low-income cheats! That is why we must rescue the banks. And it has nothing to do with deregulation or banks taking idiotic risks!
No, I'm not buying it, either. Chuck, you sound like a first-rate loser.
Well, we can call agree that Scar has the beadiest eyes, probably foretelling other parts that are teensy. Hey Joe, just some news...whomever the occupant of the WH is, at any given time, will get credit for successes that aren't his doing and get blamed for failures that aren't his fault. The same goes for GWB. For him, more of the 'fault' side because he is the WORST president, ever. If you want to sit there and whine about your buyers remorse on W be my guest. But if you voted for him, then you are partly to blame for all that W has wrought. Yes, good and bad. and Rachel is excellent.
i will tell you one thing though, joe wasn't *entirely* wrong about the arm problem though. while it certainly wasn't the root cause of the meltdown i personally have seen tons of people buy and build bloated homes with arms while i bought a much more modest home with a fixed rate mortgage. a lot of those arm people are going to go belly up because they were greedy and gambled and i'm a bit ticked that they might get a freebee bailout while me, little miss buy smaller at a higher fixed rate gets nothing except to pick up the tab thru taxes.
no one held a damn gun to these homeowners heads to get them to sign the mortgage. there *is* a thing called personal responsibility you know.
Tom (Not Tom) @ 4:
Amen. Love the "brain leaping out of their body out of pure shame" line. I watch these people and think they really can't be dumb enough to believe what they're saying and your line sums up that feeling perfectly. Can't wait to borrow it.
LOL,
Scarborough really, really, really is an idiot.
He makes me laugh when I hear him talk. Who knows, maybe Joe will get a case of Tucker virus and make a quick exit to the Conservative happy farm.
Great to see C&L on top of it. I shot this off to their mailbox right after the second segment:
During tonight's premier, Rachel Maddow was making an excellent point on the media's obsession with Rev. Wright's comments while virtually ignoring the histories of McCains whacky religious sponsors. Joe Scarborough would not allow this valid note to sound, further undermining any intelligent discourse on the subject.
I hope that David Gregory will work to referee the exploration of these topics in a way that will add to the public's understanding of the issues, rather than continue the unhealthy mode of empty blather that political coverage is devolving into.
Lastly, I would never promote the words of Rev. Wright in damming America in any way. The view that he was expressing is one that is valid in much of the world however, and I think that this should be an opening for the discussion of policy mistakes that we have made, and the impact they have on our global image.
Instead of talking heads, how about a show that represents the thoughts of Americans.
I don't feel a need to consume the sound-bited opinions dished out by the pundit class.
Especially when it's presided over by a guy who spent a lot of time laughing along with George W. Bush at White House press conferences.
I love how JoeScarb blames this mess on home owners gambling on the market and Maddow calls him out. (Yeah, let's blame those greedy home owners!!!)
Why don't the pinstriped douchebags on Wall St. ever call what THEY'RE doing "gambling"?
.
porkchop @ 2:
Could not have said it any better! Perfect!
It seems so unfair to put Maddow... a Stanford grad and Rhodes Scholar on the same platform with those turkeys. She is about the brightest and fastest pundit on the tube these days... she needs her own show.
Where are all of the Libertarian Pauletts to tell us stupid country folk that Scarborough was exactly right and it is all part of the evil Federal Reserve's plan rule the world? Regulation only makes things worse. Let the market set things right, if people die well people die.
Joe Scarborough is just a genuinely dumb person.
chris @ 24:
We know that the use of the Hitler analogy when losing an argument is Godwin's Law. What is the official name of the right wing talking point which equates questioning our government with communism?
Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job.
I thought maybe it would be something with a reporters edge .Boy was I wrong a total waste of time.
Least he's not blaming it on the liberals, which all my Republican friends are doing.
I am excited. These are momentous times. We have to face the adult challenge. It is time for Americans to grow up.
"Race" is a red herring issue. It can be used in our political system whenever the real issues don't work to get people what they want. Hillary is using the "race" card against her Democratic opponent, Obama. She is obviously not interested in issues that matter to the voters. This is as plain as the sun in the sky. She just wants to be president. She sits back and enjoys the mess when she could come out forcefully against the racial attacks on Obama.
Obama is a human being. If anything, his being 50% "white" is more important than the "black" part, since he was raised in Hawaii by white grandparents. The "human" part is where we all connect. Christians should know this, right? Scientists have proven that there is no scientific basis for "race" divisions. It is all nonsense. Obama can bring us together. He possesses a unique background with which he could unite us all. People have got to want to be united first. We need to learn that if we're not working for the unity and cooperation among people of different, that we're doing the opposite. It should be clear. By supporting Civil Rights, no one is taking rights away from "white" people. I would be considered "white" I guess, but I resent having to state that on a form. "Black"
joe is such a good little neocon. For a minute there, I thought he was starting to see the light.
But once you put your feet in that repug political hack mode, it's impossible to see the reality again, and you lie and bullshit with the rest of them.
Let him have his fantasy world...just get his pompous ass off the tube so other people don't have to suffer his "fantasy view" with him.
onceler @ 38:
Yep, his logic falls in line with the republican "base"...
I'm really dating myself here, but Scar reminds me of Clutch Cargo. Clutch is the cartoon equivalent of Joe. Same little slits for eyes and a mouth that moves like some cheesy animation.
For those of you who have no idea who I'm talking about, check it out.
Don't they have other people? I mean, it's the same faces.
Joe says he's not a repug but he's lying. He's not fair at all. Yeah we are going to blame the chimpy decider because he's
responsible.Why blame the home owners? I guess he hasn't seen tent city and the little home people were evicted from. Get the fuck off your high horse Joe. The air is too thin for Joey.Doesn't Joe know there are gambling taxes and government gambling exemptions?
Free shit, man, free shit.
chris @ 24:
I thought you were leaving. I thought the reason you were leaving was because you were "making good talking points" and nobody would address your points.
I guess, in all fairness, Ted would be a good replacement for Joe. they both have super questionable, super shady histories of dead chicks.
***
so seriously - do you want to discuss the issues? or just goad the posters so you get that self-satisfactory feeling of "everyone on this site being out to get you".
Just like Bush's brother, Neil, who took down the savings & loan companies - we, the taxpayers will bail their sorry asses out. It' sickening and I'm so close to moving to France, it isn't funny. Hurry UP election.
Underwriter's have a basic obligation to the depositors to verify the information on loan aps to secure a loan. When a banking institution puts itself in a position to simply accept whatever is documented on loan aps, then it is taking a risk. Would they allow an armored service not to be bonded? Why not bypass the application process altogether and just shake hands over a cup of coffee? No, because obviously, an acceptance of trust without verification puts the solvency of the bank at risk.
The lack of verification for debt ratio is entirely the lenders fault.
How can I give ALL my money to the rich as quickly as possible?
I hear its the best way for me to help my bank account.
Maybe Gregory lost control but Tweety would be cheering Scar on.
Okay, let's take Scar at his word (just for a minute, suspend reality and imagine Scar is right):
Basically, what he's saying is these homeowners were trying to become capitalists. They were trying to make $$$ to joint the upper classes who buy and sell property for a living. They were buying more than they can afford as a way to make $$$ and become productive members of a capitalist society.
This is Scar's argument.
So if low-mid class people don't try to make $, they are leaches on society. If they do try to make $ like the wealthy do, it's their fault when things go wrong. Damned if they, damned if they don't.
Between the average hard-working, tax-paying American citizen and greedy banking CEO's, I'm in the corner of the citizen.
I love the talk about personal responsibility! Why is that citizens are the only ones ever asked to be responsible? Where the hell is the responsibility on the banks and lenders? Do they not have a responsibility?
Oh, wait, this is America... greedy CEO's are only responsible for lining their own pockets. My bad, I almost forgot! Silly me!
A (by definition) a fascist media corporation like msnbc can not do a good job reporting anything that is in the public interest.
I mean I just watched the clip again. Really Joe? its your viewers' fault the economy is sketchy? but its really secretly awesome but all the MSNBC viewers are just too dumb to get it? really??
Enron
War (Afgh)
Invasion (Iraq)
destruction (anywhere they damn please)
Plane disasters
Telecom
losterased emailscrime family
recession
depression
Are we having fun yet?
that's joe for you, always shoving in a cheney/bush butt brownie for
that added IQ lift.
Scarborough is assuming all these "greedy" homeowners wanted to turn around and sell their homes for huge profits. Maybe some did, but not all. Some folks are losing the homes they live in. Are those people greedy, Joe?
[crickets]
No. 44 @ 35:
A panel of political blog owners would be great. Our voices would be head.
I would say there is enough blame to go all the way around on this one. True, there were many people who got into an interest only loan simply to flip that property and turn a profit. I know some of those people. That was all they talked about in fact.
Still others, who were able to meet their mortgage loan payments took out lines of equity on their homes thinking that they could pay it back later because housing prices were going to continue to go "up and up and up". Now, they are stuck with a mortgage and lines of credit that they have to pay back that well exceed the actual value of the home itself.
On the other hand though, you can't tell me that those lenders did not see this coming. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you require no documentation of proof of income and credit history up front that odds are you are giving money to someone that will not be able to pay back that loan. Those lenders were simply doing it to gain on commissions.
This whole real estate mess just smells of rampant greed. The true losers in all of this however are the people that simply wanted a home to live in and the tax payers who are left to bail out the lenders.
Is there no blame at all for someone who takes loans s/he can't pay back and then eventually loses the house that they couldn't afford to buy in the first place?
Ninja mortgages (no income, jobs or assets) were a risky gamble for both the lenders and the borrowers. I know most of you seem to automatically line up against lenders, but do you really think none of the borrowers are culpable? If so, what are you basing that on?
Remember, we're having fun criticizing Scarborough for suggesting that American borrowers are stupid. If, instead, I'm supposed to believe that people borrowing money to buy a home they can't afford are actually fairly bright, then I guess they were gambling and should just take their lumps when their gambles fail.
Can America afford another GOP Administration in the WHite House?
I blame the homeowners. You would think... at a certain point... they would think to themselves...hmmmm... a half million for a tarpaper shack... ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND!!! Oh No! Not these lemmings, they bought into this scam hook line and sinker.
The mindless masses have another suprise coming. You know all that money that is supposedly in your 401K plans. You know what I am talking about. That hundred thousand dollars you invested over a lifetime that is supposedly worth 5 million now. Your little nest egg. Guess where that 5 million is invested. Give you a hint. Most of it was used to artificially inflate realestate prices. The 2 are linked. Your nest egg is empty.
Think back to when you were 20 years old; a creepy middle-aged man in a brand new white mercedes convinced you to put $100 a month into an IRA. He showed you on fancy charts how when you were 60; you would be a multi-millionaire. You bought into it hook line and sinker.
Never once did you think about where was getting the money for his fancy home on the hill or his brand new mercedes. Never once did you think; perhaps he would steal the money and be long dead by the time you retired. Trusting lot aren't you.
I invested all of money in Swiss banks. Backed by gold (record prices) The more your bubble burst, the richer I become.
I warned everyone I knew about this credit scheme.
They called me nuts!
They called me a loon!
They called me paranoid!
Now Whose Paranoid!
I worked for mean, stingy bosses my whole life. A month or two from now. I will be the mean stingy boss.
That's right!
Me!
The guy working at the McDonalds drive up window.
Welcome to my world!
Joe does have a point in that we can't necessarily put all the blame on George Bush. I don't like the guy, but he's not the only one that opened the market up to the predators. There was Mr. Clinton's lest we forget. Bill had a chance to nip this before it got started, but his administration promoted no sort of regulation. Back then everybody was so excited at how easy it was that they got themselves in trouble. So to a point, I have to agree with Joe in that people still had the power to think in advance. It's hardly an easy feat to say no to a good salesman, so we have two worlds that needed a leader to stand up and make a decision. So far that leader has not shown. Dodd and Obama look good in their legislation that's floating around, though it's not the best answer, it's a start to the debate.
Hmmm...several days ago, when Goff wouldn't let Pat Buchanan speak (interrupting and talking over him) until he reacted with frustration, Buchanan was the bad guy and Maddow was praised for criticizing him.
Yet, when Scarborough interrupts and talks over others, Scarborough is the bad guy and Gregory is criticized for not keeping him in line.
For many of you, it sure looks like it's all about ideology and whose side the speaker is perceived to be on, rather than how they handle themselves on a panel.
Imagine if you will the following: a young family who has never owned a home before. They go to the bank WRONGLY ASSUMING the bank will be honest with them (that's the point where the family is stupid: trusting the lender). The lender shows them this interest only loan or an arm, says interest rates will not go up anytime soon, they'll have more $ in the future, the payments won't go up that high, they don't need any $ down, they're just throwing their $ away in rent, and won't it be much better if they were in a house.
Young family considers these statements and says they are throwing $ away, interests really are low now, they don't need any $ down, and it would be much better if they were in a house.
Who is at fault?
The banker/lender.
On balance, the lender is the one with the power and influence in this fiduciary relationship. Are you shocked that the average homeowner didn't know the awful details about an arm or interest-only loan? Are you shocked they trusted their bank?
Should the homeowners have read up on these loans beforehand? Yes. I'm not saying they are 100% at fault. I'll give them 5% fault, based on purely random numbers.
If the government is willing to bail out BearStearns for their excessive greed, then the government should not complain for a damn minute about helping out the average homeowner. BearStearns is more at fault for this mess than the homeowner, yet no on on the right cries a word for their bailout.
But dare to mention helping out citizens who were fooled by BearStearns and the like and all talks of "welfare state" and "Socialism" come out.
Why?
Chuck @ 64:
Umm... wrong tense. I'd be surprised if those who were calling you a nutty, paranoid loon have actually stopped doing so....
At least they have Maddow. Better than Tucker.
Moral Compass @ 63:
This is what Hill and Barack need to keep repeating. . . . over and over again. It's time to send out the Howard Dean attack dogs in earnest.
Nothing makes me happier than the ascent of Rachel Maddow. I'd vote for her for president.
I hereby give this topic an econo-Haiku (yea its not about nature, so what)
Title: Republican Economics
_______________________
To quote Hale Stewart,
Bear Stearns: privatize profits
Socialize losses
_______________________
30 billion here, 12 billion a month in Iraq, trade deficits, 12 or 13 TRILLION dollar public debt?
$100 dollar a barrel oil and $4.00 a gallon gas, so what?
Folks it takes money to finance a fascist state, and we are losing sight of the important stuff. Exxon's 40 billion dollar year in 2006. Priorities please.
Seriously, Maddow should be running for President. What is she arguing with these dorks for? Truly a goddess among mortals.
Republicans love welfare, just as long as its corporate welfare.
Bush is the worst president I've ever seen. He takes no responsibilty for anything.
For the first four years chimpy blamed everything on Clinton that went wrong. Sorry chimpy but you're losing the blame game these days.
The real crisis is not about housing but labor. It's the fact that we outsourced jobs and imported H1B workers to displace US workers. Underemployed, unemployed, down and out US workers cannot or can barely afford their mortgages. We make nothing in the US. Nearly everything is made in China. And there's massive consolidation of money in this country that goes to elite. Who own's the Home Depot's, the Wal-Mart's, the McDonald's, etc...? The elite.
tHeGaMeHusseinOfLiFe @ 57:
you forgot:
torture
fascism
and all the other wonderful things the Republican party has brought to America!
Ellie @ 36:
The pinstripes aren't gambling, because gambling involves a chance that you could win or lose. They'll be bailed out every time by Shrub and his ilk. As long as the Republic party controls the economy the pinstripes will always win and those of us who actually work for a living will pick up the tab.
yeah, I think it's time to tell David Gregory... "thanks but no thanks"
Time to give Rachel the slot. David lost credibility with me when he went to the morning news-free zone.
Or maybe a Rachel Maddow / David Shuster double header!
You wrote: "The Huffington Post has another clip from the same show with Scarborough getting caught on-air stuffing a brownie in his face."
Well, at least he has good taste in desserts.
It's a shame that the rugged Machine is exploiting this ill advised comments by Rev. Wright to discredit the presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama. At this point in the election, he is as close to winning the nomination as he will be at the end of the primaries and short of xeroxing a Bush v Gore move, there is no way the Clinton's will deny him and the majority of the Democratic voters the nomination.
That said, I'm rather glad all this is surfacing at this time against the Clinton's whose social record is as solid as a brick house on sand; by the time the general elections come around, the GOP will need more meat to attack Obama with as the Clinton's will have exhausted all the negatives associated with Obama.
Ofcourse this is being optimistic; the ubiquitous truth is that all this relentless antagonism especially from the Clinton's is fodder for Lazarus McFury. The Machine is working tirelessly for Lazarus McFury while he focuses on the important task at hand; fundraising and campaigning for the general elections.
McFury no longer has to go negative in his campaign as the two zealots in the Democratic Party have that base covered for him and have the millions to fund it. Shame on the Democratic Party and Shame on its leadership for not asserting itself for the good of the Party.
According to Chaos, where there exists the potential for something to go wrong, it probably will. The Clinton's have not been known to be very gracious loosers. In the event that they succeed in their arm-twisting of the Snoopadelegates and deny Obama the nomination, they will not only risk alienating the youth, the future of the Party, but will definitely kiss goodbye to their other solid base players; the black voters.
On the same token, if the Clinton's are unsuccessful in their concerted arm-twisting, there is always the possibility that Hillary might run as an independent. She is so close to the promised land that she can almost taste it. Having lived in the Whitehouse for 8 years, Hillary would love nothing better than to control it even if it is just one term. She will not give up easily and at the pinnacle of her career, she has nothing to loose for there isn't another office she could possibly aspire for. Not even the Senate leadership would satisfy her zeal.
Thus, the Party leadership is failing its members by not acting decisively. Nancy Pelosi came close to outwardly endorsing Obama when she suggested that the Superdelegates vote in tandem with the pledged delegates.
If the fight is for change, as all candidates seem to suggest, then they should remember the all important rule of thumb, "Change starts from within".
Clinton should recalibrate her approach to this race and realize that in helping the Party stay united, she helps the common American.
I think Hillary would serve America best as the Secretary of State in Obama's cabinet. That would be the most powerful post, she would have; together with Bill, American interests abroad would be well served.
http://www.McAnger.com
Jasper von Holywater @ 71:
i'd love it if there were more equally smart and crafty conservative pundits to match wits with maddow on a regular basis.
I was a mortgage originator in Texas in the early nineties, if you didn't have 20% down and a loan income ratio of a certain percent AND good credit, you didn't get a loan. The people who wanted loans are the same, the difference is the banks used to say no, you can't have a loan. Now, or lately I should say, they say, hey no problem, we'll give you a loan, and heres a teaser rate while we'll bleed you dry when the arms hit or the balloon payment is due. The originators got greedy trying to rope the consumer into a loan that would screw them down the road and the banks got greedy buying these loan servicing accounts and then they repackaged them and sold them as if they were backed by solid credit and debt. Sure people want the bigger car and house but really, it's the banks money, they should have standards that protect their investment, since as we all know the banks money is really it's depositors money. I invested a bunch of money and lost it, what are the chances I can call up DC and get a bailout? Right, socialized medicine is a big no-no but socialized losses and privatized profits for Wall Street is ok..... sheesh.
The banks raise interest rates, causing people to default on their loans.
So why don't the banks just lower their interest rates?
Could it be this is just a big scam to rob the treasury?
How much of this money is going to end up in the hands of Bush and his minions?
jwf @ 12:
Her name was Lori Klausutis.
I don't think she was his administrative assistant. She was a Congressional aide. She was found dead in his Florida office. The local police and newspapers all lied and covered up for Scarborough. Even her pictures were mysteriously removed from her college website.
Scarborough had just won re-election, there were rumors of an affair and suddenly he quit Congress to "spend more time with his family". He promptly left his family in FL and moved to NY, where he got to be a paid TV mouthpiece for the GOP.
And Lori Klausutis' life has been wiped away, like she never existed.
Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson and Chuck Todd were spot on, as usual. Where the show stumbles is the presence of Joe Scarborough and his rampant, fact-free ranting which drops the IQ of the show by double digits.
Thank you. EXACTLY my reaction. I was going to call in or email. But didn't want to waste the time. Scarborough is letting his morning gig go to his head. He talked over everyone on Bill Maher two weeks ago. He cuts off Mica.
BUt I'd take Pat Buchanan over Joe any day. Buchanan is annoying but he's smarter.
The whole MSNBC gang, except the prison shows, has become the cable equivalent of The Brady Bunch.
Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar and has a PhD from Oxford.
Bob Roberts @ 66:
Who the hell is Goff? I've seen more than my share of Scarborough. He's one of the most rude people on the tube, Hannity included. Watch his morning show sometime. Mica(sp?) can't finish one sentence without his interrupting. Constantly. Incessently. Joe Scarborough (my wife calls him "Pinchface")--an ego as big as all outdoors.
The problem with the show is Gregory. He's Green. He's played wingman his entire life. And he went for the most provocative, like that Kristol bit. He gave it too much straight-up play.
He has to fill 22 minutes of talk every 30. That's a real grind unless you know what you're doing. Anyone know if Gregory has any radio training?
Thank who ever that Joe is not in Congress anymore.
Predatory lending is not in his vocabulary.
Joe refuses the reality of the lenders making (gambling) with no rules, no holds barred, and the full backing of the American tax payer.
For Joe, someone who wants the American dream and lenders that want their money. Even though they haven't enough to keep up payment. The lenders loan it anyways?
They absolutely know Bush will bail them out. After all, it was the Bush Adm that made it possible.
Your FREE MARKET at work on TAXPAYER dollars............ And these big bankers/lenders are paid how much money for this ?
If Katrina victims is supposed to pick itself up from its bootstraps, why not these lenders? Didn't these lenders have the wealth and education to know to get out when the storm was coming?
Bush-the poster child (left behind) of the FREE MARKET ?
Just a note. Bush likes to play with the employement numbers. How many are employed over Iraq and Afganistan?
That brownie bit is friggin' hiliarious, especially with the crinkling sound! It's pure Homer Simpson!
buchanan would be a much better guest than scarborough.....
sassafra @ 82:
Truth is, there ARE no equally smart and crafty conservative pundits. They're all delusional gasbags. As has been frequently and correctly noted, facts (and reality) have a liberal bias.
Wow, what a contrast: calm, cool and cogent Maddow vs. stumbling, bumbling Scarborough.
Very clear picture of a bitter Scarborough. It must suck to be so wrong.
Wow, they actually discussed economic issues? I wouldn't know because I left during the umpteenth endless rumination over Obama's pastor's sermons presided over by Joe Scarborough. (Apparently since John Edwards is no longer in the race they can't keep yammering on and on about his haircut so Obama's pastor is the next best thing.) This is exactly what MSNBC needs - another wheel-spinning "politics" show with one overriding (and usually trivial) topic. Gregory was a non-entity on his own show, Robinson got an occasional sentence in but not often, Chuck Todd was non-existent, and Scarborough never shut up. I'd love to see a real survey on what the average person thinks about Obama's pastor. Give the respondents a list of issues: the war, the economy, NAFTA, Obama's pastor, etc and see ask them which is the most important to them. Want to guess how far down the list Obama's pastor would be? But you'd never know it listening to these MSNBC people.
hope @ 32:
Comment is actually backwards in Scar's case:
His body is actually smarter than his reptilian brain, and would be the one deserting his brain for the nearest gorilla brain available!
I've gotten to the point where I can't watch TV without a DVR. When either Scarborough or Buchanan speak, I press pause, wait a minute, then fast forward past them to the next person.
It's even better to record the whole thing and watch it later. Minus them and the commercials you can view the parts that are worth listening to in just under thirty minutes.
Poison is more palatable in smaller portions.
UPDATE: The Huffington Post has another clip from the same show with Scarborough getting caught on-air stuffing a brownie in his face.
===>>I always try to do that when no one's looking. Brownies-- yum. Oh well, he's human (I guess).
Without the MUTE button, I'd be in a padded cell by now. MUTE is my GOD.
Scarboy yelling and trying to dominate the conversation? No! Say it ain't so! Did you see him on Bill Maher? Does he have any other mode?
Would it be possible to persuade Gregory to let someone beside Joey Scar have the last word once in a while?
Tom (Not Tom) @ 4:
The banks were shits to allow this sort of thing to happen, but many homebuyers were complicit in their own downfall. Neighbors of ours bought homes they clearly could not afford, got seconds in order to buy expensive cars, expected to flip the houses in short order, and got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Jesus Christ, there were even shows on the home channels about flipping your house, the best ways to go about it, etc. Yes, the banks were doing everything they could to maximize their profits, but if you don't know how to protect yourself in a real estate deal, and how to deal intelligently, maybe, just maybe, you should either get some education or stay away. Or maybe you should just buy the house you need, not the dream house you know you can't afford.
Gimmeabreak! @ 54:
I've always been of the opinion that just because someone is willing to take advantage of you, that's no reason to let them. Most of the houses in foreclosure around here are NOT the smaller, sized-to-suit-the-buyers'-needs types. they are the over-sized, over-priced McMansions that people envisioned flipping in a couple years for big bucks. they weren't bought with the idea of living there for a decade or more, but as a gamble to make a profit.
The purchase of a home should always, first and foremost, be for the purpose of providing yourself with a place to live, to raise a family (if you're so inclined), a place to put down roots. that has always been the "American Dream". This idea of a home a a path to riches is bullshit, and stupid.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, we looked at lots of houses, dreamed about a big fancy one, and in the end, we bought what was right, what was practical, and what was sensible. We don't have any problems meeting our mortgage payments.
Denny's @ 76:
Actually, Home Depot is probably a pretty poor example to include here. With their profit-sharing plan, many of the original employees are worth millions now. Such as the Administrative Asst of the president/founder of the company.
[[[103 bajasteve Says:]]]
I’ve always been of the opinion that just because someone is willing to take advantage of you, that’s no reason to let them.
====>>>I agree. So how about the $9 trillion debt. 300,000,000 people sat by and said, basically, NOTHING.
has there been a sq.ft vs foreclourse study done ? . I know several people who bought house's on spec and just barely where able to sell them,and then the crunch hit .
Being a boat builder and boat bum , I like things that are practical , never liked big houses , esp new one's , why have a 30 mortgage on a house that will only last 20 ? .
jdw @ 25:
That will put a huge kink in McSplain's plans to keep us in Iraq until 2108. On the other hand, we'll have plenty of time to build the Temples of Syrinx. We've got the great computers already.
Who do you replace Scar with?
Buchanan?
I don't think so, he's a screamer in soprano which is even more annoying.
The truth is that talking over guests and co-hosts is a staple for the right wingnuts. I really think it was part of the Atwater/Rove game plan because every one of them does it except George Will who pretends he's a professor, not a pundit
(Greed greed greed) There are lots of guilty parties in this whole mess: politicians, bankers and (some greedy) home purchasers.
Joe blames home purchasers, only. He says they may as well have gambled the money in Vegas. OK.?.!.?. But, isn't that exactly what the banks did too? They gambled their money on risky customers. And the politicians... no need to 'splain. We've seen 'em.
Let's face it. The nail in the coffin was the Fed's raising of rates 17 times by a quarter point each time, raising the Fed rate from 1% to 5 1/4%, which translates into prime rates from 4% to 8 1/4%.
The effect was to double the interest on the loan, which at the start of a mortgage is about 99% of the payment due.
Should the buyer have known about that? Probably. Should the lender have warned the buyer? Most certainly. Should the broker have warned the buyer? Also most certainly, but the broker is most interested in his commission, therefore he jacks up the price of the house as much as possible.
The Feds should find some other way to counter possible future inflation than to willy nilly raise interest rates which serves to hurt the poor and benefit the rich - as far as savings and borrowings are concerned. The rich save and the poor borrow to make it between paydays.
Roket @ 18:
The difference between being the house and a homeowner.
Back to Scarborough --
Several times I tried to watch Morning Joe, but the constant lecturing and preaching, and condescending remarks to Mika and non-republicans is more that I could stomach. I wrote off that show.
Edwin Hussein (not a scary black Reverend) @ 98:
Tip to show's producer: Add some hash in today's batch of brownies, at least Scar's share.
jwf @ 40:
McCartheybullfascism
bryancri @ 92:
Whenever farrightties call anti-war, pro-humanity people "tree hugging liberals who hate Bush", I ask them if they think Pat Buchanan is a liberal.
soon after that, I get the deer in the headlights look.
Scarborough never fails to give the republican party line, all the while telling the viewers he's owned by no one! He continues to be what's wrong with MSNBC. When this network has the cojones to finally and once and for all remove Scarborough, it will have moved in the right direction. Scarborough is a republican embarrassment.
If this is going to have any credibility, david gregory needs to have the ability to expel unruly and disruptive members from the broadcast. Scarborough is going to reduce this to the level of propaganda.
For the first time,I have to lean Joe Scar. on this one.When we were looking at new houses,before we finally bought our's,we looked at interest only mortgage loans.The bottom line came down to this.An individual would have to have SHIT for brains to even consider this type of mortgage.We secured a conventional loan for our house,which means that we put down 10% with a fixed rate and we didn't get in over our heads.While I feel for folks who got suckered, you should live within your means. Sorry folks-Bite the bullet and take your lumps.
Just as Tucker 'showed' on Countdown Joe showed on Gregrory's show....thats show business and not politics....trying to spread the brand around... Yes...Joe is a complete idiot...even more than sidekick Slick Willie, who knew enough to dump tucker and run to daytime...probably after getting advice from Dadday Geist. Got to admit watched Joe on the morning show a bit...now it's either not on or volume off until someone other than Joe or Willie is on. Yes..Rachel is a comer....but she has been getting sage advice on going slowly and building a name.....was. The dustup with Pat last week and her head to head with Joe could be a no no....'don't make our big name talent look any more idiotic than they are' She very well should be frustrated by the crap out of most of those mouths....she does not get Keith's show enough.
Joe's feeling marginalized...much as the Bush Administration and the whole right wing agenda has...bless his heart.
Shit for brains or not, regardless of the reason that home-buyers bought into the various adjustable rate scams out there, this is everyone's problem or not. So, no, Scar does not have a point. If regulation existed that a) required any adjustable rate to be clearly explained to the consumer and, more importantly and realistically, b) the securitization of loans was regulated so that banks no longer have such an incentive to scam the hell out the buyer without having to worry about forclosure (in economics jargon, to eliminate the "moral hazard"), we all would be in a much sunnier place right now.
Some people equate volume with intelligence - Morning Joe and Tucker - Tucker did not ever belong in the game - must be someone's nephew. Rachal Maddow is almost on par with Keith Olberman and that's saying something. We can only hope some of the top brass with finally see that the "people" do admire intellect and are not looking for a side show.
Now Keith (Olbermann) has been moved to 10 PM Eastern Do you think this change a better time, a good thing? We are subjected to Chris Mathews TWICE in the afternoon and evening. I'm interested to know what you guys think about it. We think they are rewarding his excellence with killing his show. Maybe we're wrong about that.
Ruthless People @ 11:
Why can't it be a combination of things? As irritating as Joe Scarsborough can be, he has a point. People have been buying more home than they can afford, then defaulting on the payments, though you have to ask why that is the case? What changed that made people able to purchase homes they can not afford because this was a relatively uncommon thing in the past.
Regulation, or the lack thereof. Kinda obvious, and Joe knows it.
The reason he cannot say so though is–if you have noticed–is that Republicans are rallying around the 'fact' that this economic downturn is of consumer's making, not the current climate of deregulation, the 'you get yours and I get yours' model of government so popular in this country.
You mean Scarsutis? He was on Real Time a couple weeks back and did the same thing. But he's really good at filibustering. It's not that he yells and screams, but that he talks on incessantly, saying little, but running out the clock so no one who actually has a brain gets to make their point.
I haven't liked David Gregory ever since he bailed on Imus. I used to think he was the new "reporter vs. Bush" like "Sam Donaldson was to Reagan". Then I saw David Gregory dancing on stage with Karl Rove (MC Rove??). Good Lord, did his respectibility fly out the window at that point. Five words: Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Oh, one more thing, Morning Joe has to be one of the worst morning shows I've ever seen. Joe sitting next to a rolling eyed milf with YES music piped in isn't my idea of a good time. Luckily they have Willie Geist on board for journalism integrity!
The top issue in the 2000 election was the national debt and economy, George ran on it. Who ignored it for the last 8 years? Biggest broken campaign promise ever.
#124
I agree that some probably bought homes they could not afford, but at the interest rate offered - 4% var - it looked affordable, and possibly would have been had it been a fixed rate. Many probably did not know that the Feds keep screwing with the interest rates and in this case rised it by 4 1/4% in just 2 years. A $1,500 house payment all of a sudden became a $3,000.00 [or more] expense.
Whose fault is that? Stupid buyers, greedy brokers, predatory lenders and finally the Feds.
Sweeeet Jebus on rubber crutches! I HATES me some Joe Scarborough...what a total choad.
Alden @ 123:
I don't doubt you're onto something...And Matthews is an idiot who should not have one show, let alone two.
Olbermann is the Murrow of our generation.
I think Keith is on at 5 and at 7 (Pac) - he was last night.
D.G. Bowman @ 93:
D.G. Bowman @ 93:
the real nub of the thing is, none of them are truly conservative, either the pundits or the vast majority of the gop. as an example a true conservative would never never have allowed the federal budget to bloat as it has and the balance of payments to have gone so awry. this is not traditional fiscal conservatism, it's bizarro fiscal conservatism.
That brownie probably was a Hashish brownie. Which explains Joe's "pig eyes" on the air.
Anyone asked him about that dead intern in his office when he was in Congress, yet?
as pointed out by robert scheer (no righty at all, pure lefty....) the deregulation started under William Jefferson Clinton, that being said, the fault is banks, speculators, people that couldn't afford a house, real estate agents, appraisers, and a whole host of others. this problem was caused by a greedy america that doesnt understand to live within its means, or know how to save money anymore.
Well, Scarborough DOES have a bit of a point; the subprime morgage chaos may not be the work of "greedy" homeowners per se, but definitely homeowners who should have known better. It's certainly not as simple as that, but we can't deny that many of the people we would have to bail out to right all the economy wrongs got in their predicament themselves. It seems silly to me that we should even consider spending hundreds of millions to billions of dollars paying for other people's bad decisions.
Barrett D @ 21:
Not much of a gamble if you know you are going to get bailed out and own the properties that get foreclosed. Scams, Scams and more scams.
The problem the banks face now is that the homes they financed (actually bought - then given to the buyer on payment basis), have now been significantly devalued.
el matador, the fighting chicken @ 134:
What's your point? Most people I have read have not mentioned Clinton (primarily because he isn't our current president, nor has has he been for almost eight years) but let's assume you're right...so you're saying that in almost eight years Bush could not have done something about it? Clinton has done many wrong-headed things (NAFTA, welfare-reform, firing a cruise missile into a pharmceutical factory in Sudan, etc) but then again he was a part of the Democratic Leadership Council (you know, essentially moderate Republicans) yet does that somehow excuse Bush?
It doesn't, because he obviously believes in the same crappy, myopic policies as Clinton did.
It's almost as if you're saying that because ________________ (insert problem here) was done by _______________ (insert person here) ______ years ago, we can't do anything right now.
If you're right, then we might as well kiss our arses goodby because full-on global warming is going to be a bitch.
Barrett D @ 21:
My thoughts exactly. When you allow deregulation, you allow a run to the bottom, if one bank starts taking risks, and gets more profits, then other banks have to up the ante to keep their profits up, and so riskier and riskier activity occurs until they are making stupid loans.
OT
Did anyone catch Keith taking Billo apart last night on his Spitzer segment?
I just posted it at my site.
Very enjoyable
Sorry but Scarborough is spot on, not this crazy bitch.
The people were stupid for buying high dollar items on credit and now when they default or foreclose on the item, the banks need bailing out. The people stop paying and the bank is left with the bill. Yet the people get a temporary scratch on their credit record that will be gone in 3 years, but it has and will take much more than 3 years for the banks and Wall Street to recover from their own stupidity of lending on credit.
How can the government be at fault for this? The people were stupid for buying on credit and the banks were stupid for lending on credit, but the problem is that the people are getting away with it. Hold both sides responsible for the credit lines and we won't see this happen again.
"Crazy bitch"?
Surely you're not taking about the decorous Ms. Maddow. If there's anybody in today's vulgar, vitriolic and rancorous media climate who's the antithesis of "crazy," it's her.
As others have cheekily said, I'd date her if she weren't a lesbian. ;)
mikek @ 141:
You answer your own question. If there were regulations in place against banks, for example, lending on credit then there would have been no crash because banks that made such loans would have been stopped or fined, serving as an example for the others.
Simple, really.
You take away the controls, banks are more likely to do things that increase their short-term profit, never mind how risky such things are.
Commonsense.
And don't be so quick to blame the consumer, btw; Consumers didn't create these loans, they only used what was made available to them. If banks (or morgage houses) were not offering them, people could not take advantage of them.
And banks (or morgage houses) only offered them because of greed, which regulation would have kept within reasonable bounds.
The deregulation is due to what they themselves (the lenders and Wall Street) pushed the House and Congress to pass which had overwhelming Democratic support and little GOP support. Banks and lending institutions are still bound by the same guidelines and controls that has been in place long before the current administration came into office without the checks and balances.
This is a perfect example of how the dumb banks are to blame for lending and dumb people for borrowing all on credit, and the dumb Democrats are blaming Bush for signing a bill that the Dems themselves created in support of the lending institutions.
If you want to blame a political body, blame the Dems who used their majority vote to push through the deregulation, not Bushco. I may not like him either but place blame where blame is due. Banks, Dems and consumers (in that order).
Catepillar--
So does this mean Catepillar will pour some of that money back into their now bankrupt retiree pension/health care systems?
Everybody is to blame.
Greedy banksters, greedy debtowners and 'house flippers.'
Remember when great men in our country said wise words like "Neither lender nor borrower be?"
Ha!
What a maroon.
And to think they put that guy on our money.
ronhohn @ 137:
No, the problem is they were never that valuable to begin with.
For twenty years, Wright was Obama's spiritual "mentor." In what way did Wright mentor Obama spiritually? Does Obama share Wright's views that America created the AIDS virus for the purpose of killing off certain minority groups? Does he believe America deserved the attacks on 9/11? For twenty years, Senator and Mrs. Obama and their children sat in that church week after week as Wright preached, yet today Obama announced that he was unaware of Wright's anti-American, conspiracy-filled sermons. No rational, intelligent American will buy that sorry excuse.
mikek @ 144:
Being that there hasn't been a Democratic majority in Congress in quite awhile, how are you blaming the Democrats? They may not have fought or voted for such a measure, but since when does the minority party advance legislation?
It was an artificially inflated price started by the lenders to begin with so when the credit started running out they screwed themselves. So now John Q Taxpayer has to bail them out because the powers in the House and Senate don't want to see their investments go down the tube and using our money to pay the bank a second time. Impeach the entire government and start fresh (with new corrupted officials and justices heh)
Login or Register to post comments.