But just a bit later, Scarborough seized on a question Matthews posed to John McCain yesterday to illustrate a classic bit of MSM bias: the way the liberal media only speak of a "litmus test" when it comes to Republicans choosing pro-life nominees, never in regard to Dems picking pro-choicers.
McCain was a guest yesterday on a special College Tour edition of Hardball, live from Villanova University near Philly. Matthews teed up the "litmus test" question by posing the possibility of McCain choosing pro-choice Republican Tom Ridge as his VP running mate. Morning Joe rolled the tape of the exchange, then kibitzed the issue.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Would you put a person on the ticket with you like the former governor of this state, who is very popular, Tom Ridge, even though he may disagree -- even though he may disagree with you on the issue of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights? Would you put somebody on the ticket like that, on that one issue would it stop him?Back in the studio, Scarborough made his point.
JOHN MCCAIN: I don't know if it would stop him but it would be difficult.
MATTHEWS: Why is there that one litmus test that's an issue?
MCCAIN: I'm not saying that would be necessarily but I am saying that it's basically the respect and cherishing of the right of the unborn is one of the fundamental principles of my party. And it's a -- a deeply held, deeply held belief of mine.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: You know it's very interesting. I watch political shows a good bit. And I have through the years. I have never called it a litmus test in the mainstream media when a Democrat only chooses somebody who is pro-choice. It's only a litmus test when a Republican chooses somebody who is pro-life.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: I've never heard that. I wonder why that is? Because, of course, the Democrats have been much more closed to people who are pro-life than Republicans have to people who are pro-choice, despite the fact that America is evenly split on this issue.
BRZEZINSKI:Yeah, yeah. That one is -- I can see why he feels the way he does.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. When you move further to the left, of course, "you evolve, you grow." But I think that's because -- I could ask you all this question but I don't want to out you if you feel free talking about it, let me know. How many people in the news business in Manhattan, Georgetown and Los Angeles have you ever met in positions of power who were pro-life?
BRZEZINSKI: Hmm. I've met some.
SCARBOROUGH: Ha! What? Did you go over to Fox for an afternoon? Have you [addressing Willie Geist]?
WILLIE GEIST [ever the diplomat]: I've met many, many fewer of them, than the other way, I'll say.
SCARBOROUGH: That is a legitimate thing to say. I think when we talk about the news media, which tries extraordinarily hard from everybody I've seen, professionals try to be fair [surely Joe jests]. But one thing I've noticed, though, on social issues, that's where there's the biggest gulf. You don't see a lot of people who are pro-life, you don't see a lot of hunters, you don't see a lot of people who believe the Second Amendment is a constitutional right. And I think sometimes it shows in those type of issues. That's why some people are surprised by voters in the fall [the Pauline Kael phenomenon, however apocryphal]. Hey, we'll be back with weather and a look at the morning papers. Now, Mika, you believe in the Second Amendment.
BRZEZINSKI: Absolutely.
SCARBOROUGH: Annie Oakley.
BRZEZINSKI: I got my gun right here!
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
DUCT TAPE ALERT!!!!
April 16, 2008 - 09:16 ET by motherbeltScarborough is dead on target! The iberal position is always portrayed by the media as the default position, with the conservative view depicted as being the dissonant one.
Perspective
April 16, 2008 - 09:41 ET by KC MulvilleThe media claim to present the viewpoint of America. But it isn't. It's their own viewpoint, which they assume is the same as America's. And as we keep trying to tell them, that's a bad assumption.
Let the viewer beware.
The are a couple of reasons
April 16, 2008 - 10:20 ET by marpelThe are a couple of reasons I watch this show. 1. Fox and Friends sucks the big one. 2. More times than not, Joe Scarborough will be the voice of reason for that network. He'll point out how absurd the MSM can be, and I love that many times it horrifies Mika...and if Mika's horrified or genuinely insulted, then I know it's going to be a good day. ;o)
After spending a couple
April 16, 2008 - 10:35 ET by Chris NormanAfter spending a couple years of "growing and evolving" into a "moderate" and frequent Bush critic - typical of MSNBC - Scarborough seemingly has "devolved" back into being more reliably conservative. I wonder what happened.
Chris, you're absolutely
April 16, 2008 - 11:37 ET by marpelChris, you're absolutely right about Scarborough. I still don't think he's as conservative as he used to be, but maybe there is still hope for him.
Hi marpel... As a side
April 16, 2008 - 13:33 ET by bigtimerHi marpel...
As a side note here as I agree with you and Chris....
If I hear Mika say okaaaay like she does incessantly one more time along with her other side affects or effects making pointless noise.. I am going to scream...she drove me nuts this morning!
Again.
I wished CBS would replace Katie with her in the worst way....problem solved.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Marpel & BT, Maybe
April 16, 2008 - 13:48 ET by Chris NormanMarpel & BT,
Maybe hanging around with Mika has demonstrated to Scarborough the worst inanities of liberalism. Maybe, at his most non-conservative, Scarborough was told they needed at least one conservative at MSNBC. Who knows?
Chris... I think you're
April 16, 2008 - 13:55 ET by bigtimerChris...
I think you're right, I also think Joe reads some of the emails he got early on when he started the show, plus let's don't forget he (they?) reads NBs!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Have to agree...
April 16, 2008 - 11:02 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltAs much as I like Brit Hume and a couple other Fox personalities (can't think of any on the other networks who I can appreciate), Fox & Friends is "nitwits on parade". It pains me to think that they represent a conservative bunch to many on the left.
Here's another example
April 16, 2008 - 13:24 ET by KrisFormer Foxer, now CNNer, Kiran Chetry is one of my favorite liberals to pick on. While conducting an interview with John McCain back some months ago, Chetry asked McCain why Rudy Giuliani was the only one of the Republican field who was "willing" to keep Roe V Wade as it is now. McCain went on to explain that being pro-life is one of the main principles of the Republican Party.
Now, would we hear Ms. libby Chetry ask one of her Democrat Party friends why none of them are "willing" to perhaps ponder even just a small reduction in the powers of Roe V Wade? You know, let a few more babies live?
The ignorance and bias of Chetry and the rest of the MSM knows no bounds.
One more reason.....
April 16, 2008 - 13:29 ET by motherbeltDon't forget the fun of laughing at Mika!!
Abortion is an absolute litmus test for Dems
April 16, 2008 - 11:35 ET by c5thenWay Way more then it is for Repubs. A Democratic candidate would NEVER EVER chose a running mate who was pro-life. Never in a million years. It's an absolute test for them. There are plenty of Republicans who whould concider a person who was pro-abortion if there were other more important factors that out-weighed it.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Litmus-Schmitmus
April 16, 2008 - 11:39 ET by mattmI'm glad Scarborough pointed out the double standard, but it's pure stupidity to assume 'litmus tests' are somehow bad.
A 'litmus test' is nothing more than a check to see how a candidates record accords with the party's platform.
It's kind of like how they
April 16, 2008 - 13:53 ET by Chris NormanIt's kind of like how they can turn having principles into "inflexibility and stubborness".