Skip to main content

Jon Stewart and Joe Scarborough discuss the current state of the Republican Party

On last night's episode of The Daily Show, former Florida Republican Congressman and current co-host of the MSNBC show Morning Joe - Joe Scarborough - was Jon Stewart's guest. Scarborough was mainly on to promote his new book The Right Path, which seems to focus its attention on getting the Republican Party to go back to the ways of Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. 

Stewart and Scarborough engaged in an interesting conversation about the current state of the Republican Party. While Stewart stated he feels that the likes of Eisenhower and Reagan wouldn't make it through the Republican Primaries in the modern-day version of the party, Scarborough disagreed, saying that if history is any guide, Republicans whom stand up to far-right extremists will garner broader appeal - even from the likes of Independents and Democrats.

For the record, Joe Scarborough is one of the few right-wing commentators I can typically tolerate on a semi-regular basis. While he and I may not agree on much, he's definitely not a far-right extremist, isn't coy about blasting his party if he disagrees with a decision they made, and I respect that. However, while I really want to believe him in this instance and hope what he says comes true for the GOP, I think there's something of critical importance both he and Stewart neglected to discuss which has contributed mightily to the growing scarcity of moderate Republicans in Congress - the media. 

Something both Eisenhower and Reagan didn't have to contend with while in office were talking heads on right-wing radio and Fox News. Big business, evangelicals, and the Tea Party have been pushing the Republican Party further and further to the right over the previous three decades, and with the implementation of right-wing talk radio, Fox News, and the Citizens United ruling, this has pushed the modern-day Republican Party so far right, some medical professionals believe they can now be legally regarded as insane. 

Remember when John McCain was called a maverick? Then he ran for president in 2000, and was called out as being too liberal by Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talking heads. This contributed mightily to his defeat in the Republican Primaries, and why he changed his plan of attack for the 2008 election, as he ran as a die-hard conservative. This move perplexed Independent voters, moderates, and Reagan Democrats, however, as it depicted him as a flip-flopper. The same thing happened in 2012 with the once moderate Republican Mitt Romney, who tried to showcase himself as being far-right. Anymore, when a moderate Republican speaks out against his or her party's antics, they'll have to face the wrath of the conservative media, and be prepared for the far-right to find them a more conservative opponent in the upcoming primary. This is something neither Eisenhower nor Reagan had to face during their terms in office.

Also, the pay gap between the rich and poor (and middle-class) has been ever increasing and it will continue to do so unless some much needed changes are made. With the Citizens United ruling, large corporations are sending more money at the feet of extremist Republican candidates whom don't believe in increasing taxes for the wealthy. Some don't believe in taxes at all. They're also helping pay for ads which depict this country as a bunch of givers and takers - ironically enough, making people angry at the poor, while the rich steal more money from taxpayers in a year than the poor will make in their lifetimes.

I hope Joe Scarborough is right. I hope that, after the Tea Party's shutdown of the government, large donors shy away from the far-right Tea Party candidates and instead opt to donate money to more moderate ones. I hope that Chris Christie or a similar type of candidate is able to stand up to the extremists on talk radio and Fox News to represent the Republican Party in the 2016 election, and without having to flip-flop like McCain or Romney did in the previous two. I hope that Citizens United is overturned so we can limit corporations' influence on elections. I hope that with all this, and more, we can soon begin to see two reasonably sane, moderate parties whom are able to compromise for the good of the people, as opposed to attempting to provide good only for themselves. I'm not counting on this happening anytime soon, but can still hope.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"