SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
joe scarborough
Progressives Rip Morning Joe Corporate Duo for 'Ring-Kissing' at Mar-a-Lago
One veteran journalist called Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough's meeting with Donald Trump "a disgusting show of obeisance in advance."
Nov 18, 2024
On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Monday, hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough assured viewers that their recent meeting with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago was not meant to "normalize" the Republican leader, whose own former chief of staff said recently would govern as a dictator.
But Trump's warning to the media after the gathering underscored the danger of treating the president-elect as just another politician whose views differ from those of the liberal news network.
Trump toldFox News that the meeting with Brzezinski and Scarborough—who celebrated New Year's Eve with Trump in 2016, only to be called "crazy" and a "psycho" by him months later after their coverage angered him—was "extremely cordial," but then issued a warning.
He told Fox he believes he has "an obligation to the American public, and to our country itself, to be open and available to the press."
"If not treated fairly, however, that will end," Trump said. "The media is very important to the long-term success of the United States of America."
Trump also immediately used Brzezinski and Scarborough's "ring-kissing," as progressive news outlet The Tennessee Holler called it, "as a trophy and saying they praised him effusively."
The Holler wasn't the only critic to compare the hosts' meeting with Trump to a scene out of The Godfather. Krystal Ball, co-host of the online political news show "Breaking Points," accused Brzezinski and Scarborough of helping to "usher the fascists in" before going to Mar-a-Lago to "kiss the ring."
In addition to drawing Trump's ire by warning ahead of the election that he was a threat to democracy and accusing him of "lying every day and destroying the country" during his first term, the hosts and their network have been hostile and dismissive of progressives who have called on Democrats to try to appeal to working-class voters instead of "Liz Cheney Never Trumpers," said Ball.
On "Morning Joe" on Monday, Brzezinski said, "For those asking why we would go speak to the president-elect during such fraught times, especially between us, I guess I would ask back, 'Why wouldn't we?'"
"Joe and I realized it's time to do something different, and that starts with not only talking about Donald Trump but also talking with him," she said.
Scarborough said the trio discussed and expressed their different views on issues such as "abortion, mass deportation, threats of political retribution against political opponents and media outlets." He claimed Trump "seemed interested in finding common ground with Democrats on some of the most divisive issues."
The hosts suggested Trump has done an about-face in his views on the media since the election, when he called journalists "the enemy camp" and the days leading up to it, when he said he wouldn't "mind" if reporters at a rally he held were shot.
Ryan Grim of Drop Site News joked on social media that the meeting exposed the hosts as "resistance commanders" who had turned out "to have been collaborating double agents from the beginning."
"We've been played," he added.
While the two journalists said they believe it is "time for a new approach" in covering the president-elect, Julianne McShane at Mother Jonespointed out that journalists "have tried" for years to talk with Trump about his perspective on issues.
"Trump repeatedly rebuffed sit-down interview invitations during the campaign from CBS News and NBC News, both of which Harris did do; Instead, Trump gave interviews to a bevy of right-wing male podcasters. If Trump and his team are serious about respecting the press, they will have to engage with them—respectfully, and on the issues—rather than denigrate them," wrote McShane. "It's ultimately unclear if Trump's sudden friendliness toward the media can be attributed to the MSNBC reunion at Mar-a-Lago. But one thing remains certain: You probably can't trust this one, at all."
Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch wrote that Brzezinski and Scarborough's "capitulation is another of my worst fears about life under Trump 47."
"Those of us who plan to keep writing against Trump's autocratic ways are going to be marginalized as 'dead-enders' who aren't getting with the program, which will make it easier to shut us up," said Bunch.
Veteran journalist Jeff Jarvis denounced the "Morning Joe" hosts' Mar-a-Lago meeting as a "betrayal of their colleagues, democracy, and us all" and "a disgusting show of obeisance in advance."
Bunch quoted Yale historian Timothy Snyder, an expert on authoritarianism, who advised Americans as Trump took office for the first time in 2017: "Do. Not. Obey. In. Advance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Joe Scarborough’s Condescending, Irresponsible, and Ignorant Rant on Students Protesting Gaza War
The characterizations by politicians and cable TV personalities of the so-labeled pro-Palestinian protests by college students are over the top—and dangerous.
May 01, 2024
Sometimes in the morning with a cup of coffee I watch some of Morning Joe on MSNBC. I did on Monday (April 29) hearing Joe Scarborough’s condescending rant on college protests. On those today opposing Israel’s actions in the Gaza war, and on those earlier opposing the Vietnam war.
“Where are the adults!?” Scarborough asked after saying “it makes as much sense in 2024 having 18- and 19-year-olds running college campuses as in 1968, which is to say it doesn’t make any sense at all.” Any 18- and 19-year-olds protesting in 1968 and 2024 are not “adults” according to Scarborough, even though in 1968 they could be killed in Vietnam.
'Where are the adults?' Joe on continuing campus protests
Scarborough went on in his diatribe characterizing all so-labeled pro-Palestinian protestors as Jew-haters. His own brand of fearmongering as he blamed college administrators for, and I quote:
...letting their students and outside agitators run across the campus, shut down debate, scream whenever anybody tries to talk, reason to them, shout genocidal chants, hold up signs pointing to Jews saying Hamas’s next victims. Holding up signs talking about the “Final Solution.” Chanting constantly: “From the river to the sea”…Most of the students chanting it don’t understand that they are chanting genocidal comments.
Clearly Scarborough hasn’t read, or ignored, the article the day before in the Sunday Washington Post (available even earlier online) describing the experience of college students, in their own words, regarding today’s protests.
A 24-year-old Jewish student who talked to The Post reporters supported the protest at his school, UC-Berkeley, but with juggling two part-time jobs and coursework hadn’t joined the protest encampment there. But he said, his words, “things need to change in this drastic way to keep our eyes from averting away from what’s going on in Gaza” adding the “best way to do that is to mess up the status quo.” He rejected being a Jew meant automatic support for Israel’s war in Gaza. Of course, he doesn’t “want people to be hostages, either,” those taken by Hamas militants on October 7. But the children in Gaza also “don’t have any say in the fight,” so he has donated to funds supporting these Palestinian children.
As it is, Scarborough attributed antisemitism the dominant motive across today’s protest. His evidence? The fact protesters haven’t appeared concerned with known atrocities in other countries, mimicking Bill Maher’s related punchlines on Maher’s HBO show on April 26, Scarborough even showing a video clip where Maher asks why those protesting civilian deaths and starvation in Gaza today, in his words,
care so much about this particular cause? North Korea starves its people. China puts them in concentration camps. Myanmar brutalizes the Rohingya. Boko Haram kidnaps whole villages of women. The president of Burundi says Gays should be stoned to death because they, quote, ‘deserve it.’
On CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria on April 28, Columbia University professor Bruce Robbins had an answer for Maher (and Scarborough), saying:
I don't think that people think that Israel is unique example of evil in the world. I think what's special about it is it couldn't do what it's doing without the support of the United States. So students in the United States think we have a responsibility…I mean, the United States is not supporting North Korea…not supporting Syria...What's being done [in Gaza] is being done in my name as an American and…as a Jew.
Professor Robbins also said this about the phrase “From the river to the sea”:
So as I understand “From the river to the sea,” it means equal rights for all the people living between the river and the sea.
The role of the U.S. underlies protests today on the Gaza war as it motivated protests on the Vietnam war we participated in over 50 years ago. It was the U.S. engaged in the Vietnam carnage and drafting 18-year-old men to die there for a cause even their presidents knew privately was a losing cause. To needlessly die in Vietnam as civilians are needlessly dying in Gaza from bombings and starvation.
Here's how Professor Robbins characterized earlier pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University in the discussion on CNN:
[Students] at Columbia, they have not shouted out slogans, chanted slogans in support of Hamas or the wanton destruction of civilian lives on October 7th…It's a little upsetting I think to everybody at Columbia that the mainstream media, as well as the politicians, have confused things that are chanted outside Columbia's gates with things that the Columbia protesters are saying…I haven't heard anything even remotely like that…that are being chanted outside the gates.
In her statement on April 29, Columbia University president Nemat “Minouche ”Shafik also said this: “External actors have contributed to creating a hostile environment…especially around our gates, that is unsafe for everyone.” Even Scarborough in his rant mentioned “outside agitators.”
In Vietnam anti-war protests there were isolated incidents of violence, but those didn’t represent the vast majority of protests. Similarly, in pro-Palestinian protests there may have been incidents of antisemitic remarks, and even occupying an administrative building as protestors did April 30 at Columbia University, but it’s an exaggeration (unfortunately, often purposefully so) to paint the majority of these protestors with that same brush.
Hyperbole concluding antisemitism is THE defining characteristic of students in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Now, on the other hand, antisemitism was quite evident in Charlottesville in 2017 when white supremacists shouted “Jews will not replace us.“
Perhaps President Joe Biden could help end the pro-Palestinian demonstrations if he took a firmer stand against the genocidal conduct of the war in Gaza under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s direction. Stopping delivery of U.S. military aid to Israel until Netanyahu changes course, for instance.
Instead of conditioning military aid, House Speaker Mike Johnson in his speech at Columbia University April 24, aside from speciously attributing all protesting students antisemitic, said if the protests could not be “contained quickly…there is an appropriate time for the National Guard…to bring order to these campuses.”
Remember Kent State? When National Guard killed four students on May 4, 1970 as students gathered to protest President Richard Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia, expanding the Vietnam war. Kent State University’s professors Jerry Lewis and Thomas Hensley provide a detailed account of events leading up to, during, and after the Guard opened fire with life rounds. Here is a segment of their account:
Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.
You’re reading right. The Guard killed students more than a football field away.
After Kent State, demonstrations exploded across campuses leading to hundreds of colleges to temporary close.
Now think about the Guard being called in to break up the crowded close quarters of encampments pro-Palestinian protesters constructed on campuses across the country. What could possibly go wrong? A lot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Clinton Promises 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About in Wall Street Speeches
New York Times editorial joins those urging Democratic presidential candidate to release transcripts of controversial speeches
Feb 26, 2016
From the New York Times editorial board to a Republican-friendly super PAC, it appears unease is widespread over Hillary Clinton's continued refusal to release transcripts of recent paid speeches she gave to some of Wall Street's most powerful firms.
In a sharply worded editorial in Friday's print edition, the Times described Clinton's excuses for not releasing the transcripts as those of a "mischievous child, not a presidential candidate." The editorial argued that "public interest in these speeches is legitimate" and that by "stonewalling" their release, "Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she's not trustworthy and makes her own rules."
However, in an interview with MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough that aired Friday morning, Clinton again defended her relationship with Wall Street. He said the voting public does not need to worry about what she may have said in the speeches that earned her millions of dollars.
"Can you assure the American people that you didn't say anything in those speeches that would undermine your promise to be tough on Wall Street?" asked Brzezinksi.
"Absolutely, absolutely. Absolutely," responded Clinton. "And besides, I'm on the public record. I told them what I'm going to do. I said I'm going to go after big banks that pose a systemic risk. I want you to hold me accountable for that because I will do that exactly."
Watch:
Clinton's reasoning, however, runs headlong into what her critics are charging. How can they be sure that what she has said publicly as a candidate squares with what she told bankers in a more private setting?
As the Times editorial notes, even for those who might be eager to support her, Clinton "is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she'd run an accountable and transparent White House."
The editorial adds:
Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups. In July, her spokesman Nick Merrill said that though most speeches were private, the Clinton operation "always opened speeches when asked to." Transcripts of speeches that have been leaked have been pretty innocuous. By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches, Mrs. Clintonfuels speculation about why she's stonewalling.
Her conditioning her releases on what the Republicans might or might not do is mystifying. Republicans make no bones about their commitment to Wall Street deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Mrs. Clinton is laboring to convince struggling Americans that she will rein in big banks, despite taking their money.
The other issue, as evidenced by a new ad attacking Clinton over the speeches, is how the Republican Party and its surrogates will almost certainly exploit this weak spot during the general election if she secures the Democratic nomination.
As CNNreported on Thursday:
A conservative super PAC tied to a number of top Republican donors will start airing an ad Saturday that knocks Hillary Clinton for delivering paid speeches to Wall Street and corporate groups and refusing to release the transcripts of those speeches.
The ad, which will air on CNN and MSNBC through Super Tuesday and was made by the group Future45, is the most recent attempt by Republicans to force Clinton to release transcripts of her paid speeches.
"Hillary Clinton gave speeches to the biggest banks on Wall Street after one of the worst financial crises in American history," a narrator says over video of a Clinton look-alike opening a check from Goldman Sachs. "But Hillary won't tell us what she said to those banks. They paid her over 1 million dollars and are contributing millions more to elect her."
Watch their ad:
Questioned about the right-wing attack ad, Clinton's campaign told CNN they see it as just another attempt by Republicans to boost her rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"This is just another instance of Republican Super PACs echoing Bernie Sanders' personal attacks against Hillary Clinton," said Brian Fallon, Clinton's press secretary. "The Wall Street hedge funds bankrolling these ads are propping up Senator Sanders because it is Hillary Clinton they fear the most."
That may or may not be true. However, as many polls and much reporting have shown, Sanders continues outperforming Clinton regarding hypothetical match-ups against the remaining Republican candidates, including Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and frontrunner Donald Trump.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular