"Morning Joe" and Me
Weekdays, I frequently watch a part of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. It has had some of the best discussions I've seen on television about many of the issues confronting the nation. The show appeared a couple of years ago as a replacement for the "Imus Show," which was televised on MSNBC. It is hosted by Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, and Mika Brezinski, the daughter of former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brezinski. There are a variety of regularly appearing participants, like Pat Buchanan and columnist Mike Barnicle, among others, who sit in with Joe and Mika, commenting on some current events and asking questions of guests. Some very pointed questions are often asked of the various guests making appearances on the show, and to be quite honest, at times, things can get a bit chaotic. Unfortunately too, the group can get off topic, at times, not always, leaving a scheduled guest or two with little time to express their views or offer their expertise on what was supposed to be the matter at hand. Frequently these guests are asked if they can stay longer, or return to the show in the future. I'm not particularly fond of the show's tendency to have some participants in New York, and others in Washington. This adds to the "chaos" at times, as participants from both locations begin "talking over" each other.
What I really like are the tough questions that are asked. We NEED this!!! The show is not tilted toward any particular ideology or political party, although Scarborough is a Republican and is not the least bit shy in reminding the audience of his affiliation. He also claims to be a "conservative," although during the early part of the economic meltdown, I heard him "seemingly" side with Pat Buchanan, who has a kind of "economic populist" streak in him. Joe's biggest problem is his "inclination" to interrupt others and sort of monopolize the conversation, at times; but hey, he's a lawyer, what do you expect? He has some ideas I tend to agree with, and some I tend to be a bit skeptical of, but he's a thoughtful guy and, as I mentioned, he asks some tough questions. I just wish he'd asked some of those tough questions when he was in Congress in the 1990s. In fairness to him, he admits that there were mistakes made about economic matters, and I'm not sure he'll admit it, but while he insists he's a supporter of "free market capitalism," I have heard him utter some support for that word so brought into disrepute by "conservatives" in the last several decades...."regulation." Also, one morning, about two months ago, he certainly sided with Pat Buchanan when Pat mentioned "economic nationalism," regarding the auto industry. Joe also tries to boil down the positions of various politicians of both parties. His "what this really means" offerings are usually none too flattering. I like that, even though I don't always agree with his assessment,*** as I often try to do the same thing here, like when I say, "Is America going to provide national care to all citizens, or are we going to say, "The hell with 'em...let 'em suffer or die?" Bottom line folks; that's what it means!
As to Buchanan, I don't often find myself in agreement with him on social issues, but on many economic matters, he's closer to what I believe, although I think he might be a bit too tight-fisted over trade. Further, Buchanan opposed the Iraq invasion, and many of his concerns turned out to be valid. While he's been known for some maverick tendencies, it still could not have been easy for him to oppose a Republican administration on such a crucial matter. Maybe I'm wrong, but I also seem to detect a bit of weakening on some of his positions on social issues. Is it that he sees things differently now that he's a bit older, or is it that he's not a candidate for president, and therefore doesn't need to pander to parts of the electorate for votes? Maybe a bit of both? Then too, Pat was a regular on CNN's "Crossfire" at various times during the show's life, and he was expected to take strong conservative views. Maybe some of this was just for the show, and now that he's not expected to always offer a hard line point of view, he doesn't?
As to Mika, I like her very much, and she seems to enjoy the spirited and tough discussions, but she likes the discussions to be civil. She also seems a bit idealistic, but then again, I suppose it could be argued that some of Joe and Pat's conservative views are idealistic, too. Come to think of it, I suppose all of our views, if carried to their apex, could be considered idealistic. I'd certainly argue that "Reaganism" went too far after Reagan, although I wonder if he had not developed Alzheimer's, would he have supported the continued pushing of an agenda that dismantled so many regulations of business? That pushed the notion of "the government is the enemy?" That let income disparity grow to 1920s levels? Reagan talked tax cuts, but he raised taxes when he thought it necessary. He talked about "gun owners' rights," but he supported the "Brady Bill" after he left office, if I remember right. To me, the smart politician knows when to STOP pushing an ideological agenda. On the old television show "Fantasy Island," guests to the island got to live out THEIR idealisms, usually with bad results for them.
Anyway, Mika preaches against certain foods, especially sweet and fatty fare. Then, I believe it was Mike Barnicle, IF I remember correctly, who asked one guest, regarding possible health care legislation, that if America gets national health care, do each of us then have a "responsibility" to take better care of ourselves. Ah, we're back to the "idealism," which seems a bit like "nannyism," to me. What will we have... the "Nutrition and Exercise Police?" And speaking of Mike Barnicle, I like him a lot too, but at times, he seems a bit intimidated by Joe's strongly enunciated conservative viewpoint on certain issues. I would have liked to have seen him challenge Joe on some things, mainly economic, but then too, maybe he's lying back because its Joe's show?
Then there's Willy Geist, a regular who provides some comic relief for the show. Willy was once a regular on Tucker Carlson's show. Carlson is a kind of libertarian/conservative commentator, who has been on both MSNBC and CNN, and he makes occasional appearances on "Morning Joe."
If you like good political discussions, I highly recommend "Morning Joe." You can always record the show, if it is too early for you. (A "word history" is below)
***Sometimes I'm about to leap off the couch over his comments!
Word History:
Skirmish-I can't find the Indo European root for this word, at present, but "skirmish" goes back to Germanic, and Frankish, a Germanic dialect, gave a form of their word "skirmjan" to French as "eskermiss,"^^^ which itself was the present stem form of "eskermir," meaning "to fence, fight with a sword." So the French notion may have been "defend yourself with a sword." The Germanic meaning had been "to defend, protect," and indeed modern German has "Regenschirm," which means "umbrella;" that is, a cover/defense against rain, and a verb, "schirmen," which means "to protect, to cover." Whether Old English had a form of this Germanic word that may have died out prior to acquiring it from French, I don't know, but Old High German had "skirmen." English acquired "skirmish" during the 1300s from French.
^^^A couple of sources say that Italian got the word from Germanic and passed it on to French.
What I really like are the tough questions that are asked. We NEED this!!! The show is not tilted toward any particular ideology or political party, although Scarborough is a Republican and is not the least bit shy in reminding the audience of his affiliation. He also claims to be a "conservative," although during the early part of the economic meltdown, I heard him "seemingly" side with Pat Buchanan, who has a kind of "economic populist" streak in him. Joe's biggest problem is his "inclination" to interrupt others and sort of monopolize the conversation, at times; but hey, he's a lawyer, what do you expect? He has some ideas I tend to agree with, and some I tend to be a bit skeptical of, but he's a thoughtful guy and, as I mentioned, he asks some tough questions. I just wish he'd asked some of those tough questions when he was in Congress in the 1990s. In fairness to him, he admits that there were mistakes made about economic matters, and I'm not sure he'll admit it, but while he insists he's a supporter of "free market capitalism," I have heard him utter some support for that word so brought into disrepute by "conservatives" in the last several decades...."regulation." Also, one morning, about two months ago, he certainly sided with Pat Buchanan when Pat mentioned "economic nationalism," regarding the auto industry. Joe also tries to boil down the positions of various politicians of both parties. His "what this really means" offerings are usually none too flattering. I like that, even though I don't always agree with his assessment,*** as I often try to do the same thing here, like when I say, "Is America going to provide national care to all citizens, or are we going to say, "The hell with 'em...let 'em suffer or die?" Bottom line folks; that's what it means!
As to Buchanan, I don't often find myself in agreement with him on social issues, but on many economic matters, he's closer to what I believe, although I think he might be a bit too tight-fisted over trade. Further, Buchanan opposed the Iraq invasion, and many of his concerns turned out to be valid. While he's been known for some maverick tendencies, it still could not have been easy for him to oppose a Republican administration on such a crucial matter. Maybe I'm wrong, but I also seem to detect a bit of weakening on some of his positions on social issues. Is it that he sees things differently now that he's a bit older, or is it that he's not a candidate for president, and therefore doesn't need to pander to parts of the electorate for votes? Maybe a bit of both? Then too, Pat was a regular on CNN's "Crossfire" at various times during the show's life, and he was expected to take strong conservative views. Maybe some of this was just for the show, and now that he's not expected to always offer a hard line point of view, he doesn't?
As to Mika, I like her very much, and she seems to enjoy the spirited and tough discussions, but she likes the discussions to be civil. She also seems a bit idealistic, but then again, I suppose it could be argued that some of Joe and Pat's conservative views are idealistic, too. Come to think of it, I suppose all of our views, if carried to their apex, could be considered idealistic. I'd certainly argue that "Reaganism" went too far after Reagan, although I wonder if he had not developed Alzheimer's, would he have supported the continued pushing of an agenda that dismantled so many regulations of business? That pushed the notion of "the government is the enemy?" That let income disparity grow to 1920s levels? Reagan talked tax cuts, but he raised taxes when he thought it necessary. He talked about "gun owners' rights," but he supported the "Brady Bill" after he left office, if I remember right. To me, the smart politician knows when to STOP pushing an ideological agenda. On the old television show "Fantasy Island," guests to the island got to live out THEIR idealisms, usually with bad results for them.
Anyway, Mika preaches against certain foods, especially sweet and fatty fare. Then, I believe it was Mike Barnicle, IF I remember correctly, who asked one guest, regarding possible health care legislation, that if America gets national health care, do each of us then have a "responsibility" to take better care of ourselves. Ah, we're back to the "idealism," which seems a bit like "nannyism," to me. What will we have... the "Nutrition and Exercise Police?" And speaking of Mike Barnicle, I like him a lot too, but at times, he seems a bit intimidated by Joe's strongly enunciated conservative viewpoint on certain issues. I would have liked to have seen him challenge Joe on some things, mainly economic, but then too, maybe he's lying back because its Joe's show?
Then there's Willy Geist, a regular who provides some comic relief for the show. Willy was once a regular on Tucker Carlson's show. Carlson is a kind of libertarian/conservative commentator, who has been on both MSNBC and CNN, and he makes occasional appearances on "Morning Joe."
If you like good political discussions, I highly recommend "Morning Joe." You can always record the show, if it is too early for you. (A "word history" is below)
***Sometimes I'm about to leap off the couch over his comments!
Word History:
Skirmish-I can't find the Indo European root for this word, at present, but "skirmish" goes back to Germanic, and Frankish, a Germanic dialect, gave a form of their word "skirmjan" to French as "eskermiss,"^^^ which itself was the present stem form of "eskermir," meaning "to fence, fight with a sword." So the French notion may have been "defend yourself with a sword." The Germanic meaning had been "to defend, protect," and indeed modern German has "Regenschirm," which means "umbrella;" that is, a cover/defense against rain, and a verb, "schirmen," which means "to protect, to cover." Whether Old English had a form of this Germanic word that may have died out prior to acquiring it from French, I don't know, but Old High German had "skirmen." English acquired "skirmish" during the 1300s from French.
^^^A couple of sources say that Italian got the word from Germanic and passed it on to French.
Labels: English, etymology, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brezinski, Morning Joe, MSNBC, Pat Buchanan, politics
posted by Randy at 1:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home