NationStates Jolt Archive

On Joe Scarborough After hours last night: guests Joe Trippi, Will Durst, Art Alexakis, Carl Bernstein, Pat Buchanan a VERY interesting exchange occured between a couple of credible, long-standing, hard-core Republicans who are as disillusioned with GW as so many others, speaking to the fracturing of this party and an upcoming revolt therin:


BERNSTEIN: All right. Do you think that if Bush were to lose this election that the Republican Party might move toward being a real centrist party and might move even away from the right in a major way?

BUCHANAN: No. I‘ll tell you what‘s going to happen. There‘s a civil war going to break out in the Republican Party and after this election, whether Bush wins or loses. There‘s a huge constituency, Carl, which thinks—when you talk about outsourcing, there are a lot of populists that are outraged on that. You talk about Bush‘s amnesty on immigration, people are outraged on that. A lot of them don‘t like the neo-conservatives. They don‘t like this imperial foreign policy. They are ready to go to war.

We‘re going to have a battle in the Republican Party along the trench lines of the Goldwater-Rockefeller fight. Now, there‘s no doubt the Rockefeller forces or the Bush Republicans are stronger than they were in ‘64. But I think a real battle royal is coming up.

SCARBOROUGH: You know, Pat...

SCARBOROUGH: You know, Carl, you know, also, you know what? You know what? I haven‘t been...

BUCHANAN: Carl, you...

SCARBOROUGH: ... talking about Rockefeller and Goldwater in ‘64. What I‘ve been saying, and the "Wall Street Journal" is saying the same thing, that there is a war that‘s going to break out. And I‘ll tell you why the war is going to break out for people like me. It‘s because of the big spending.

BUCHANAN: Oh, yes, that‘s another one.

SCARBOROUGH: Because of the $7 trillion debt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: Because of the $500 billion deficit. But and I actually say it‘s more like 1976 when Ronald Reagan, after years of moderation by Richard Nixon on domestic policy, and then Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, 1976 said you know what? We‘re taking our party back.

TRIPPI: But, Joe...

SCARBOROUGH: But I don‘t think they‘re going to be become more moderate. I think they‘re going to become more conservative on spending issues.

TRIPPI: But, Joe, listen to what you guys are all saying. I mean we‘re sitting here, the most unified Democratic Party in this convention that I can think of in our memory. And you guys are talking about a war about to break out in the Republican Party, which means those fractures are there. There are a lot of Republicans who are upset about this deficit.

I mean I think there are a lot of Republicans who are upset about the policy overseas. So I think you‘re actually pointing to exactly why Kerry can win this election. There‘s a unified Democratic Party and beneath the surface in the Republican Party there really are some cracks that are beginning to show.

BUCHANAN: You know, Joe...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are...

SCARBOROUGH: Yes, Pat?

BUCHANAN: Joe, let me say that, back—I‘ve just been rereading the Goldwater speech. He refused to nominate Nixon at that convention because of the PAC to 5th Avenue. He was bitter. The conservatives were yelling at that convention. Goldwater had to get up there and he said listen, let‘s grow up conservatives. This is our home. We can take this party back. But, in effect, now we‘ve all got to get behind Nixon. It‘s his turn. But after this is over, friends, it is starting.

I sense that same thing going on inside the Republican Party right now. I think they‘re going to come home to Bush, but after that, Katy, bar the door.

SCARBOROUGH: And I, you know what, that‘s the question are they going to be able to hold it together until after the election? But I‘ll guarantee you, whether George W. Bush is reelected president or whether John Kerry is elected president, in January when the next Congress convenes, there‘s going to be some infighting in the Republican Party like we haven‘t seen since some troublemakers ran Newt Gingrich out of town.


Transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5548189/


So, according to well-connected insiders, a vote for GW is a vote for a fracturing party that is about to devolve into infighting that might very well handcuff the administration from getting anything done.

Now THAT'll help get the things done that need to be done....

And like the liberals are always united. Ever heard of a man named Nader?

Bush is a hated man.

Bush is a hated man.
I salute you, Captain Obvious. I think everyone knows that by know.

And like the liberals are always united. Ever heard of a man named Nader?


Why yes I have. However last time I checked he was not a Democrat, so your point is rather moot.

I salute you, Captain Obvious. I think everyone knows that by know.

Thank you.

*Ties him up and flogs him on the ship.*

Buchannan isn't a Republican, however. He's farther right than even the farthest right of us. He believes that the Republican party, as a whole, is not right enough for him. I think he may be trying to discredit the Republican party, and convince more conservatives to join the Reform party.

Buchannan isn't a Republican, however. He's farther right than even the farthest right of us. He believes that the Republican party, as a whole, is not right enough for him. I think he may be trying to discredit the Republican party, and convince more conservatives to join the Reform party.

Haha okay, then explain Joe Scarborough ???

Buchannan isn't a Republican, however. He's farther right than even the farthest right of us. He believes that the Republican party, as a whole, is not right enough for him. I think he may be trying to discredit the Republican party, and convince more conservatives to join the Reform party.

and Joe?

Buchannan's been saying this for years now and it's yet to happen (not that there wouldn't be a small, gleeful part of me that would jump in ashamed joy if it did).

and Joe?
Oh, I thought that was Buchannan. Anyhow, I'm not sure that there is a large number of liberal Republicans. They've had no real place in the party since Reagan, and I generally don't think of the party as being liberal.

Oh, I thought that was Buchannan. Anyhow, I'm not sure that there is a large number of liberal Republicans. They've had no real place in the party since Reagan, and I generally don't think of the party as being liberal.

No, it seems that Joe has a problem with the current admin's spending habits.. you know the old saying.. "Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like"

Buchannan's been saying this for years now and it's yet to happen (not that there wouldn't be a small, gleeful part of me that would jump in ashamed joy if it did).
Don't get your hopes too high. There are some disgruntled liberals, and even socialists, in the Democratic party. They're angry at the industrial workers and rural voters, who would be Republican, but they love the idea of handouts and government planning, so thhey are Democrats.

Don't get your hopes too high. There are some disgruntled liberals, and even socialists, in the Democratic party. They're angry at the industrial workers and rural voters, who would be Republican, but they love the idea of handouts and government planning, so thhey are Democrats.

The Democrats haven't been this united in our life times.. :fluffle:

And like the liberals are always united. Ever heard of a man named Nader?

Yes, but Nadar isn't trying to start a 'civil war' in the democratic party-- he just wants a chance at the presidential debates. I also question your implication that John Kerry is a liberal.

No, it seems that Joe has a problem with the current admin's spending habits.. you know the old saying.. "Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like"
A few do, but most Republicans feel hesitant to criticize Bush. But if we want to solve the spending problem, let's try Congress, this time. No one seems to want to criticize them, as they are the originator of all spending bills. So much energy is flowing to Bush on the issue, but I feel that it isn't entirely fair that just one part of the lawmaking process is criticized. We need to move to Congress as well.

The Democrats haven't been this united in our life times.. :fluffle:

Yes, but it's not a unification with any purpose other than "Knock Bush Off Capitol Hill." It's going to be a terrible blow if they lose in November. I also think the Democratic party was more united and in a stronger way during Clinton's run up to his first term.

A few do, but most Republicans feel hesitant to criticize Bush. But if we want to solve the spending problem, let's try Congress, this time. No one seems to want to criticize them, as they are the originator of all spending bills. So much energy is flowing to Bush on the issue, but I feel that it isn't entirely fair that just one part of the lawmaking process is criticized. We need to move to Congress as well.


You mean the Republican-controlled Congress is the problem?

What happened to GW's veto power? Is it hiding with the WMD?

You mean the Republican-controlled Congress is the problem?

What happened to GW's veto power? Is it hiding with the WMD?

Ha! I was just going to say that.

The Democrats haven't been this united in our life times.. :fluffle:
Neither have the Republicans. There are a few Democrats that see their party splitting into pieces, and a few Republicans see the same. However, I doubt either party will fracture anytime soon.

Don't get your hopes too high. There are some disgruntled liberals, and even socialists, in the Democratic party. They're angry at the industrial workers and rural voters, who would be Republican, but they love the idea of handouts and government planning, so thhey are Democrats.

They're not too high. Don't worry. The Repubican party has long known exactly where it's bread is buttered and I have a hard time crediting them voluntarily leaving the gravy train because of ideological principles. It's interesting that Scarbrough is speaking this candidly, given the tenuous nature of this election, but the fact that Buchanan is back on the war path makes it hard to take either one of the seriously when they claim to understand the deep currents swirling in the murky depths of the Republican Political Juggernaught.

You mean the Republican-controlled Congress is the problem?

What happened to GW's veto power? Is it hiding with the WMD?
He's a link of the chain, not the whole chain. If we had a Congress that constantly passed spending cuts, like Congress under Gingrich, then we'd know to blame the White House. However, are they doing that? If a ,ajor spending reduction was ever put in front of Bush to sign, would he sign it? We don't know, because no bill like that has ever been passed in Congress.

Neither have the Republicans. There are a few Democrats that see their party splitting into pieces, and a few Republicans see the same. However, I doubt either party will fracture anytime soon.

Ya know..I've never been fond of multiple parties...I've seen how some of the Euro and Asian countries with the 20-something party system..all kissing ass in order to get anything done...ughhh..seems like chaos to me. For example...with Israel's Likud coalition...there is one ultra orthodox party with something like 4 seats..and yet the entire coalition kisses their ass in order to get bills done..oy vey what a system.

They're not too high. Don't worry. The Repubican party has long known exactly where it's bread is buttered and I have a hard time crediting them voluntarily leaving the gravy train because of ideological principles. It's interesting that Scarbrough is speaking this candidly, given the tenuous nature of this election, but the fact that Buchanan is back on the war path makes it hard to take either one of the seriously when they claim to understand the deep currents swirling in the murky depths of the Republican Political Juggernaught.
I'm sure he's a bit of a minority in that sense. I've watched Scarborough a few times, and I see him as more of a maverick Republican than John McCain. Indeed, I know of a few Republicans with kooky ideas, such as the construction of the Interstate Highway system was the death of our nation.

He's a link of the chain, not the whole chain. If we had a Congress that constantly passed spending cuts, like Congress under Gingrich, then we'd know to blame the White House. However, are they doing that? If a ,ajor spending reduction was ever put in front of Bush to sign, would he sign it? We don't know, because no bill like that has ever been passed in Congress.


So, in other words, you are going to continue to vote in a Congress of supposed conservatives who can't contain their penchant for pissing your money away, and a President who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to them - and that's just fine with you?

That is the leadership you want for your country and this lives up to your own ideals?

Tell me it ain't so!

He's a link of the chain, not the whole chain. If we had a Congress that constantly passed spending cuts, like Congress under Gingrich, then we'd know to blame the White House. However, are they doing that? If a ,ajor spending reduction was ever put in front of Bush to sign, would he sign it? We don't know, because no bill like that has ever been passed in Congress.

Well, Bush did spearhead two huge tax cuts. Of course, the common man didn't see any more money in their pocket, but it does seem like he has power when he chooses to exercise it. As for not "blaming Bush", I'm sorry, if you are going to clamber to the seat of control of the United States, you're going to have to take responsibility for what happens. People are still trying to pin things on Clinton for that reason, so it's perfectly permissable to say this is Bush's doing.

Well, Bush did spearhead two huge tax cuts. Of course, the common man didn't see any more money in their pocket, but it does seem like he has power when he chooses to exercise it. As for not "blaming Bush", I'm sorry, if you are going to clamber to the seat of control of the United States, you're going to have to take responsibility for what happens. People are still trying to pin things on Clinton for that reason, so it's perfectly permissable to say this is Bush's doing.

Hey...I'm common...I got money back...was great to finally have my money come back to me..

Hey...I'm common...I got money back...was great to finally have my money come back to me..

Hey...I'm common too! I didn't. :)

Ya know..I've never been fond of multiple parties...I've seen how some of the Euro and Asian countries with the 20-something party system..all kissing ass in order to get anything done...ughhh..seems like chaos to me. For example...with Israel's Likud coalition...there is one ultra orthodox party with something like 4 seats..and yet the entire coalition kisses their ass in order to get bills done..oy vey what a system.

and a single party system has worked sooo many times in the past? 'Politics, the art of hiding the Real problems.'
MS

Ya know..I've never been fond of multiple parties...I've seen how some of the Euro and Asian countries with the 20-something party system..all kissing ass in order to get anything done...ughhh..seems like chaos to me. For example...with Israel's Likud coalition...there is one ultra orthodox party with something like 4 seats..and yet the entire coalition kisses their ass in order to get bills done..oy vey what a system.
I guess the two parties can be described that way. They are two giant coalitions. The Democrats consist of blue collar workers, socialists, and of course, their essential base of liberal urbanites on the coasts. The Republicans consist of businessmen, Evangelicals, libertarians, and of course, neo conservatives. None of the groups in any party has much in common, but, as in all coalition parties, they need eachother to live. Plus, the groupd in the parties are close enough in ideaology to tolerate the other's existence. For example, a factory worker fearing he may loose his job has more in common with a die-hard communist than a libertarian.

So, in other words, you are going to continue to vote in a Congress of supposed conservatives who can't contain their penchant for pissing your money away, and a President who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to them - and that's just fine with you?

That is the leadership you want for your country and this lives up to your own ideals?

Tell me it ain't so!
Well, Kerry's plans will make our finances worse, and he hasn't quite said where the money is coming from. Then again, this isn't about Kerry, for even though he'll be worse, he's not president. Bush is. The Congress has always a penchant for spending, ever since the days of LBJ. I read about it in a Fareed Zakaria book, that Congress spends so much not because they want to, but because they are forced to. Of course, you won't believe me, and ask me who the hell Fareed Zakaria is.

Well, Kerry's plans will make our finances worse, and he hasn't quite said where the money is coming from. Then again, this isn't about Kerry, for even though he'll be worse, he's not president. Bush is. The Congress has always a penchant for spending, ever since the days of LBJ. I read about it in a Fareed Zakaria book, that Congress spends so much not because they want to, but because they are forced to. Of course, you won't believe me, and ask me who the hell Fareed Zakaria is.

Wait a minute. First you were saying Congress was the problem, now you're saying they're being forced to bloat government? Which one is it?

And how do you know Kerry's plans will make our finances worse? One of the major attacks against him is that no one seems to know what is plans actually are?

And, I'll bite because I'm always interested in learning new things, who the hell is Fareed Zakaria? :)

Wait a minute. First you were saying Congress was the problem, now you're saying they're being forced to bloat government? Which one is it?

And how do you know Kerry's plans will make our finances worse? One of the major attacks against him is that no one seems to know what is plans actually are?

And, I'll bite because I'm always interested in learning new things, who the hell is Fareed Zakaria? :)
I'm saying the problem is Congress because they've allowed themselves to be subjected to lobbyists. It isn't entirely their fault, but they are the only ones who are able to change it.
As for Kerry's spending plan, there's a $900 billion/year healthcare plan in the pipeline. Add that to a deficit of $400 billion, and it isn't quite clear where any new money will come from. Add that to the fact that a lawyer is in the White House, and lawyers will sue doctors more and more, or at least that's what I believe the message from the White House will be. It'll raise healthcare costs, and guess who pays for it? You do. Or Social Security does.

I'm saying the problem is Congress because they've allowed themselves to be subjected to lobbyists. It isn't entirely their fault, but they are the only ones who are able to change it.
As for Kerry's spending plan, there's a $900 billion/year healthcare plan in the pipeline. Add that to a deficit of $400 billion, and it isn't quite clear where any new money will come from. Add that to the fact that a lawyer is in the White House, and lawyers will sue doctors more and more, or at least that's what I believe the message from the White House will be. It'll raise healthcare costs, and guess who pays for it? You do. Or Social Security does.

I'm already paying for higher health care costs and there's no signs that's going to slow down. Are you suggesting that if Bush gets a second term then my raise this year won't be eaten up by substantially higher copays for the less comprehensive health programs we've had to go to just to make them vaugely affordable for a not-for-profit's salary structure? It's even worse in the corporate world. And that deficit is the product of those Bush tax cuts because he pushed them through Congress and then decided to have a war with no idea when it would be over, how much it would cost or where this money was coming from. How is Bush proposing anything better? At least there's a price tag on Kerry's overspending. For Bush it's just been one blank check after another.

I'm already paying for higher health care costs and there's no signs that's going to slow down. Are you suggesting that if Bush gets a second term then my raise this year won't be eaten up by substantially higher copays for the less comprehensive health programs we've had to go to just to make them vaugely affordable for a not-for-profit's salary structure? It's even worse in the corporate world. And that deficit is the product of those Bush tax cuts because he pushed them through Congress and then decided to have a war with no idea when it would be over, how much it would cost or where this money was coming from. How is Bush proposing anything better? At least there's a price tag on Kerry's overspending. For Bush it's just been one blank check after another.
With universal healthcare comes a massive bureaocracy to oversee it all, and in many nations that have it, healthcare quality has actually declined. Healthcare prices may go up during a secoond term of Bush, but if the Tort Reform bill is passed, rising costs will come to a screeching halt. If Edwards, the lawyer, gets into the White House, there's little chance that Tort reform will be passed, and this healthcare program will surpass $1 trillion easily.
BTW, $25 billion was included in the Defense Department's spending budget this year for Iraq and Afghanistan alone. Subtract that cost, and the rest of our defense spending is only slightly more than last year. There are signs that the Bush administration and Congress are more fiscally conservative, but they need to be better than that. They need to reform the entire system to curb the influence of the many lobbies.

With universal healthcare comes a massive bureaocracy to oversee it all, and in many nations that have it, healthcare quality has actually declined. Healthcare prices may go up during a secoond term of Bush, but if the Tort Reform bill is passed, rising costs will come to a screeching halt. If Edwards, the lawyer, gets into the White House, there's little chance that Tort reform will be passed, and this healthcare program will surpass $1 trillion easily.
BTW, $25 billion was included in the Defense Department's spending budget this year for Iraq and Afghanistan alone. Subtract that cost, and the rest of our defense spending is only slightly more than last year. There are signs that the Bush administration and Congress are more fiscally conservative, but they need to be better than that. They need to reform the entire system to curb the influence of the many lobbies.

I completely agree that there needs to be Congressional reform, but I don't see that happening with Bush and Dick "Kickback" Cheney running the show.

I also don't see how Tort Reform is going to magically remove rising health care costs, not to mention that it would require Congress to take a huge leap out if it's mandated political arena and snatch back state's rights. The argument that rising health care is simply a result from overzealous and sue-happy patients has never held much sway. And how likely do you think it is that, even if Kerry is elected, his Universal Health Care plan would get through a Republican-controlled Congress or even a Democratic Congress, for that matter?

I'm not a pat republican or bush. I have nothing against immigration like pat and I have nothing against outsourcing. I do however have something against foreign policy with the current republicans I'm more of an isolationist on that I say no intervention or foreign aid mind our own damn business and only intervene or get involved for our defense.

I look forward to this battle and seeing if I should join up with any of the republicans or with libertarians because I don't like the pat's enough but more than the neo cons but, how about a third group of conservatives which are libertarians? heh

Liberals indeed are also pretty split up with nader and others out there but not to bad I think republicans are more so but then again democrats platform is a bit chaotic