Joe I like you I really really do…

Readability

Joe I like you I really really do...

…and I think your morn­ing show with the hand­some and bright Mika, and the pleas­ant team of Willie Geist and my brother from the king­dom Mike Bar­ni­cle is the best morn­ing show on TV.

But I think you are mis­rep­re­sent­ing Sarah Palin, if you don’t know bet­ter you should.

Now that my modem has been replaced I’ve had the chance to look at your col­umn in politico and frankly it’s worse than what I thought it would be.

Your claim that Sarah Palin mocked Ronald Reagan’s cre­den­tials is bla­tantly false (she actu­ally noted that lib­er­als were con­stantly mock­ing Rea­gan, you know lib­er­als, those are the guys lion­iz­ing your col­umn today).

As for not­ing the Bush fam­ily were blue bloods, that’s actu­ally true, they come from a long line of Blue bloods although W has more of Texas in him. She did not com­ment on the Bushes until Mrs. Bush choose to com­ment first. Again the great love of the left for George Bush and the cel­e­bra­tion of his fly­ing days in WW II you might remem­ber were not high on the lib­eral list of things to talk about in his days. Lib­er­als mocked him as a wimp mer­ci­lessly once; yet now that he is not a polit­i­cal lia­bil­ity to them, they safely com­ple­ment him.

Fur­ther­more frankly Palin has suc­ceeded and I want to put this as politely as I can, beyond your wildest dreams. Your cri­tique of her abil­ity to make money sounds a lot like sour grapes (how’s that rank­ing for Last Best Hope on Ama­zon doing?). You know and I know and any­one who fol­lows this stuff knows that you hit Palin because it pro­duces rat­ings for you. It pro­duces atten­tion for you, she how­ever con­tin­ues to ignore MSNBC in gen­eral because frankly she is smart enough to know what is going on and knows enough not to punch downwards.

Be hon­est; how many peo­ple would have cared about your piece if it was a cri­tique of Mitt Romney?

As for polit­i­cal advice that you gave to repub­li­cans in gen­eral and Palin in par­tic­u­lar this year, it was great advice…if your goal was to cement the demo­c­ra­tic hold on con­gress. You preached com­pro­mise and a move to the left. Palin how­ever along with Rush Lim­baugh choose to stand and fight, and through 2009 fought nearly alone. With­out that will­ing­ness through­out 2009 there is no huge repub­li­can major­ity in the House this year. She held the line while you coun­seled retreat, that’s what a leader does.

As for 2010 does it no occur to you that many of those gut­less repub­li­cans unwill­ing to say on the air what you state they say pri­vately are work­ing as sur­ro­gates for other Repub­li­can can­di­dates seek­ing the nom­i­na­tion but afraid of offend­ing Palin’s sup­port­ers? Their job is to play stalk­ing horse and you are hap­pily oblig­ing. Never once have I heard you bring up that fact. Granted I am off tak­ing my son to school for at least 30 min each morn­ing so I may have missed some­thing but I think not.

BTW remem­ber all last year when you kept call­ing Palin a liar over the “death panel” remark. Now that Paul Krug­man is now talk­ing about “Death Pan­els” openly any comment?

Hate to say it Joe but when it comes to Sarah Palin you are very near a case of Sullivan’s Syn­drome with­out the OBGYN fas­ci­na­tion. The Blog Eye of Polyphe­mus may have it right:

So what can we con­clude from Scarborough’s rant? Palin’s play­ing the polit­i­cal game under mod­ern rules and play­ing it well, but she is not play­ing it the Inside the Belt­way. Method Does com­par­ing her­self to Rea­gan, or crit­i­ciz­ing the Bushes dam­age her cred­i­bil­ity among the rank and file vot­ers? Is she really an embar­rass­ment because of her media exploits? Con­sid­er­ing the zeit­geist , I can­not imag­ine so. Maybe to the polit­i­cal dinosaurs. That, I think, is the root of Scarborough’s prob­lem. Real­ity is chang­ing for the old guard. If Palin is suc­cess­ful, they become extinct. That is scarborough’s real prob­lem. He is not afraid a nom­i­nated Palin will lose in 2012. He is really scared she will win.

I’m sure we’ll touch on your quaint lit­tle piece this week on DaT­e­chGuy on DaRa­dio (Sun­day 5 p.m. due to UMass Bas­ket­ball). I am not a pro­fes­sional writer like Robert Stacy McCain so I won’t com­ment on Ghost Writ­ing or no (UPDATE: Stacy Backed away from that), but I agree with this line:

To all you peo­ple who want to send me e-​mails: Don’t waste your time. I’m not going to read it.”

In other words: “My mind’s made up. Don’t try to con­fuse me with your so-​called ‘facts.’” An atti­tude we might call … uh, anti-​intellectual.

I would be more wor­ried about this: You have Charles John­son on your side, Sarah Palin has Robert Stacy McCain, I’m sorry but you lose BIG.

…and I think your morning show with the handsome and bright Mika, and the pleasant team of Willie Geist and my brother from the kingdom Mike Barnicle is the best morning show on TV.

But I think you are misrepresenting Sarah Palin, if you don’t know better you should.

Now that my modem has been replaced I’ve had the chance to look at your column in politico and frankly it’s worse than what I thought it would be.

Your claim that Sarah Palin mocked Ronald Reagan’s credentials is blatantly false (she actually noted that liberals were constantly mocking Reagan, you know liberals, those are the guys lionizing your column today).

As for noting the Bush family were blue bloods, that’s actually true, they come from a long line of Blue bloods although W has more of Texas in him. She did not comment on the Bushes until Mrs. Bush choose to comment first. Again the great love of the left for George Bush and the celebration of his flying days in WW II you might remember were not high on the liberal list of things to talk about in his days. Liberals mocked him as a wimp mercilessly once; yet now that he is not a political liability to them, they safely complement him.

Furthermore frankly Palin has succeeded and I want to put this as politely as I can, beyond your wildest dreams. Your critique of her ability to make money sounds a lot like sour grapes (how’s that ranking for Last Best Hope on Amazon doing?). You know and I know and anyone who follows this stuff knows that you hit Palin because it produces ratings for you. It produces attention for you, she however continues to ignore MSNBC in general because frankly she is smart enough to know what is going on and knows enough not to punch downwards.

Be honest; how many people would have cared about your piece if it was a critique of Mitt Romney?

As for political advice that you gave to republicans in general and Palin in particular this year, it was great advice…if your goal was to cement the democratic hold on congress. You preached compromise and a move to the left. Palin however along with Rush Limbaugh choose to stand and fight, and through 2009 fought nearly alone. Without that willingness throughout 2009 there is no huge republican majority in the House this year. She held the line while you counseled retreat, that’s what a leader does.

As for 2010 does it no occur to you that many of those gutless republicans unwilling to say on the air what you state they say privately are working as surrogates for other Republican candidates seeking the nomination but afraid of offending Palin’s supporters? Their job is to play stalking horse and you are happily obliging. Never once have I heard you bring up that fact. Granted I am off taking my son to school for at least 30 min each morning so I may have missed something but I think not.

BTW remember all last year when you kept calling Palin a liar over the “death panel” remark. Now that Paul Krugman is now talking about “Death Panels” openly any comment?

Hate to say it Joe but when it comes to Sarah Palin you are very near a case of Sullivan’s Syndrome without the OBGYN fascination. The Blog Eye of Polyphemus may have it right:

So what can we conclude from Scarborough’s rant? Palin’s playing the political game under modern rules and playing it well, but she is not playing it the Inside the Beltway. Method Does comparing herself to Reagan, or criticizing the Bushes damage her credibility among the rank and file voters? Is she really an embarrassment because of her media exploits? Considering the zeitgeist , I cannot imagine so. Maybe to the political dinosaurs. That, I think, is the root of Scarborough’s problem. Reality is changing for the old guard. If Palin is successful, they become extinct. That is scarborough’s real problem. He is not afraid a nominated Palin will lose in 2012. He is really scared she will win.

I’m sure we’ll touch on your quaint little piece this week on DaTechGuy on DaRadio (Sunday 5 p.m. due to UMass Basketball). I am not a professional writer like Robert Stacy McCain so I won’t comment on Ghost Writing or no (UPDATE: Stacy Backed away from that), but I agree with this line:

“To all you people who want to send me e-mails: Don’t waste your time. I’m not going to read it.”

In other words: “My mind’s made up. Don’t try to confuse me with your so-called ‘facts.’” An attitude we might call . . . uh, anti-intellectual.

I would be more worried about this: You have Charles Johnson on your side, Sarah Palin has Robert Stacy McCain, I’m sorry but you lose BIG.