Scarborough Rails Against House Republicans That Opposed Debt Ceiling Agreement
Joe Scarborough on Wednesday railed about House Republicans that opposed Monday's debt ceiling agreement.
Although he agreed the final package "when it comes to actual debt savings [was] a real nothing-burger," the host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" said GOPers that voted "No" are "going to have to understand if they’re going to stay in the majority they’re going to have act more responsibly than that" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
JOE SCARBOROUGH: The thing that galls me at this point, I understand, Mika, that this was a, as Pat Buchanan said before when it comes to actual debt savings, a real nothing-burger.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: Nothing at all at the end of the day.
BRZEZINSKI: Coburn yesterday.
SCARBOROUGH: That said, if you were a Republican and you were in the House of Representatives and you were responsible for governing, I find it very hard to justify a no vote. I don’t care, nobody, you know what? They, let them stay in Congress for as long as they want. I, I challenge them to put their fiscal hawk credentials up to mine any time, but 24 hours away from a collapse, why is it that Republicans are voting no and as many Democrats vote yes as no? And the Democrats, everybody knows they got rolled. The President got rolled. This was a Republican package, they still voted no. I just got to say, as they move forward…
BRZEZINSKI: I can’t disagree with you.
SCARBOROUGH: …they’re going to have to understand if they’re going to stay in the majority, they’re going, they’re going to have act more responsibly than that.
So, as far as debt savings is concerned, Scarborough realizes this deal was a "real nothing-burger."
Then why is it irresponsible for someone concerned about the debt explosion in the last four years to vote against something that doesn't reduce the debt very much?
Isn't that actually the responsible thing to do?
As for the Democrats and the President getting "rolled," didn't the real fiscal conservatives as well?
As we heard from a number of Republican Senators during the pre-vote debate Tuesday, this package really does very little as far as either short- or long-term deficit reduction.
For those that left successful careers last year to come to Washington to solve the nation's fiscal crisis, this agreement did very little in that regard.
As such, if they were true to their principles, why would they vote for it? Exactly how are they the irresponsible ones in this debate?
If Scarborough thinks his "fiscal hawk credentials" are in the same league as the 66 House Republicans that voted against this package, he should ask himself how he could have voted for something that was a "real nothing-burger" in terms of deficit reduction.