Scarborough: Don't Read EJ Dionne, You Know He Supports Obama

Scarborough: Don't Read EJ Dionne, You Know He Supports Obama

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
December 24, 2008 - 12:36 ET

Conservatives still licking their wounds over the results of the November elections finally have something to cheer about: you don't have to read Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne's articles anymore because you know he's supporting Barack Obama.

So deliciously said MSNBC's Joe Scarborough to Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart on Tuesday's "Morning Joe" with the latter actually not disagreeing.

The context of the discussion was another Post writer's Tuesday column in which Richard Cohen came down strongly on Obama's decision to have Rick Warren give the invocation during the upcoming Inauguration.

This led to the following fabulous exchange between Scarborough and Capehart (video embedded below the fold, h/t Ms Underestimated, file photo):

JONATHAN CAPEHART, WASHINGTON POST: Look, I think Richard makes a very good point. And you haven't read E, I'm assuming you're going to read E. J.'s column because I think...
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Well, now we know E. J. always agrees with Obama.
CAPEHART: Not, not, well, yes yes...
SCARBOROUGH: Today he does...
CAPEHART: Yes he does. Yes he does...
SCARBOROUGH: What a shock.
CAPEHART: ...today, but, I think ...
SCARBOROUGH: That's a great thing about E. J. -- you don't have to read his columns anymore. You just know he's supporting Obama.

Delicious. Absolutely delicious.

Readers are advised to watch the entire video, for after this comical exchange a very interesting discussion ensued about gay rights and how they do and don't relate to civil rights.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Obama does NOT

December 24, 2008 - 13:15 ET by Delsa

have to worry about alienating ANY group!

HE aka THE ONE has ALREADY BEEN ELECTED!!!!

TOO LATE A$$ H*LES

What is it that gays don't

December 24, 2008 - 13:36 ET by benrand

What is it that gays don't have that they want, that is analogous to what blacks didn't have?

Answer?

Nothing...it's just a left wing push for disrupting America.

Translation:

December 24, 2008 - 15:14 ET by Utherpend

"Your vote only counts if you agree with what we believe in."

If this had passed all the liberals would be hailing it as a mandate from the people. Now since the people in the largest numbers ever seen on a vote, said "no way", the people are simply misguided.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you."

Dionne

December 24, 2008 - 16:35 ET by KC Mulville

I've made that same point about Dionne for years. But before I take credit, it's highly likely that I heard someone else say that, and Dionne's track record has only reinforced the criticism.

The gay marriage discussion with Capehart is revealing. It shows that we don't all start at the same intellectual starting line.

Gay marriage advocates start with the assumption that unless you support gay marriage, you must hate gays, and therefore you're a hateful bigot.
They cannot (or refuse to) consider the possibility that opposing gay mariage isn't based on some personal phobia about gays.
Of course, they think, no sane person can oppose the gay agenda - so whoever opposes them must be suffering from some neurosis.

That's where gay advocates begin their discussion, and they refuse to admit that other people may have a legitimate point of view. Advocates think the only remaining issue is whether we will allow bigotry.

SIGN JOE UP.

December 24, 2008 - 18:38 ET by FC DOBBS

I HOPE FOX WILL SIGN JOE ON AS A COMMENTATOR.

HE'S NOT PERFECT BUT CAN ADD TO THE LIFE

OF CONSERVATISM WE ALL CAN USE. EVERY DAY

HE HAS TO BATTLE THE LEFT AND I THINK

IT WEARS HIM DOWN. MAYBE THEY CAN TRADE

ALAN COLMES AND EVERYONE CAN BE HAPPY.

"NOBODY PUTS ONE OVER ON FRED C DOBBS"

B.TRAVEN

FC DOBBS said: "I HOPE FOX

December 25, 2008 - 13:33 ET by Rush Fan

FC DOBBS said: "I HOPE FOX WILL SIGN JOE ON AS A COMMENTATOR. HE'S NOT PERFECT BUT CAN ADD TO THE LIFE OF CONSERVATISM WE ALL CAN USE. EVERY DAY.

I don't want Scarborough anywhere near FoxNews. He is an idiot who will say and do anything to keep his job. Don't forget that it was idiot Joe Scarborough who aired a segment on his KOSMSNBC show titled: "IS BUSH AN ‘IDIOT’?".

As Tim Graham, Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center and senior editor at NewsBusters said at the time:

"It would be defensible to do a segment on whether Bush is intellectual, or intellectually curious, or stifles dissent, or is losing ground among conservatives. That’s a defensible debate starting point. It’s much less defensible to hype Bush’s potential sputtering idiocy to hold an audience (even Keith Olbermann's little audience of Kosmonauts). I’m quite sure from this Salon interview that Scarborough would not find it was a journalistic high point if Fox hosted a segment titled on screen "IS SCARBOROUGH AN ‘IDIOT’"? You don’t have to be a "Republican loyalist" to see that turnabout wouldn’t feel like fair play."

----------------------Thought for Today------------------------------

The surest sign that intelligent
life exists elsewhere in the
universe is that none of it has
tried to contact us.
--------------------------------------------------------

“The liberal mind does not work like the mind of a regular person. Their obsession with power and control is what drives them at all times.” ~ Rush Limbaugh

Who knew . . .

December 24, 2008 - 19:07 ET by gkm1959

Jonathan Capehart is a caulk suck air?

0.27 sec. mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HurEm5gb5NE&feature=related

Oh man, it's Christmas

December 24, 2008 - 19:32 ET by bigtimer

Oh man, it's Christmas Eve..I cannot listen to fifteen minutes of this...I did get through about half though.

Enough said.

Btw...Capehart and his agreeing with the need of the activist Judges to do the RIGHT is revolting, this is the problem in this country and will continue to be so...like Pat said, what's wrong with letting the people decide... like they have in the past, plus Joe pointed out, the people have over 30 times already on this gay rights BS...to leftist enemy within critters like Capehart, we the people are the peons who know nothing, the very people who support and protect their ungrateful no good arses to spew their leftist blather while making sure they and their buddies appoint/anoint these filthy no-good judges.

I am weary of it all.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Rule of law

December 25, 2008 - 11:48 ET by KC Mulville

Well, the argument begins with the admission that for all its evil, slavery was legal (before the 13th amendment). Therefore, you have to make a distinction between morality and the rule of law. The rule of law is created, ultimately, through popular vote (as expressed through elected representatives). It's a legislative, and therefore popular, decision of the people. And yet, we all admit now, the law at the time endorsed and supported an immoral atrocity against blacks. The rule of law could be immoral.

The second step in the argument is that in the 1950s - 1960s, judges took the lead in stopping discrimination. Even though it was unpopular, judges overrode the "will" of the people and enforced equality. Gays argue that judges should do the same for gays, since gays are just as much citizens as are blacks.

If you don't watch the steps they skip over, you might think that gays have a point. But they do skip over some steps.

First, the judges in the 1950s/1960s were enforcing laws that had already been passed. They weren't abrogating the law to enforce morality - the laws had actually been passed, and the judges were enforcing them. Remember, for all the stereotypes, we already had the 13th amendment. People in the 1860s had already declared that discrimination against blacks was unlawful. The judges were enforcing laws against discrimination based on race.

Opposing gay marriage is an issue where the people are fully against discrimination ... but we disagree that refusing gay marriage is an act of discrimination in the first place.

There are other side issues, but one thing remains clear. Through all the civil rights fights for racial freedom, from the Civil War itself to Little Rock to 1964, the judges enforced laws that were on the books. The gay agenda is not on the books. That's what these votes are about.

Anyone catch when Joe

December 24, 2008 - 21:17 ET by GregE

Anyone catch when Joe says............

"Jonathan, with all due respect, with all due respect, and you know I have great respect for you, especially your fashion sense..."

I don't know if Jonathan is gay, but I'll lay out a confident guess to say he is. No one on the panel flinched at Joe's comment, so maybe I'm correct on that. I just found Joe's comment to amusing.