Joe Scarborough Tells Colbert He’s Leaving the Republican Party

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 20, 2009
814
15,173
Wow. I guess I kind of saw this coming but still, when you lose a vocal supporter of your party, you're doing something wrong.

Time and time and time again, they’ve turned the other way. And they’re doing the same thing now. And it’s actually disgusting, and you have to ask yourself, “What exactly is the Republican party willing to do? How far are they willing to go? How much of this country and our values are they willing to sell out?”
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/07/joe-scarborough-leaving-republican-party-colbert-late-show

Now I know some won't care, and a lot hate him anyway, but again, when you lose a major voice in your party, you're doing it wrong. It's a symptom of a problem.
 

adamneer

macrumors 6502
Apr 18, 2013
421
743
Chicago, IL
Meh, when you're a TV republican who's marrying a TV democrat, I don't really think your political affiliation holds as much weight as a member of congress' would. I see this more as a man trying to ease tensions going into a marriage, than a sign of meaningful change.

When McCain or Graham grow some old man balls and actually do something about the party that "disturbs" them, I'll be impressed.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,307
29,723
Catskill Mountains
Heh bad enough the Russians messing with Trumpian heads nowadays; now they got Joe Scarborough (a former Congressman) chiming in...

Well me, I miss the days of the powerflush toilet in my old apartment in NYC. We used to read some tabloid piece about Nixon's latest woes thanks to the cave-in by some aide or decision by some court, and go flush the head as punctuation: whoooooooooosh! and then tape the cover of that edition newspaper onto the bath wall as part of the rogues' gallery up there.

For awhile durimg Watergate there was a certain level of mournfulness about the impact on the country of our having an apparently impeachable president. By the summer of his resignation that was gone and we all just wanted it to be over. And, we became kind of crude about how we responded to the continued fall of the dominoes. I'm surprised some of that feeling is showing up on Trump''s side of the benches in Congress so early in his term in office. I would have expected far more party-line attitude of to-the-last-man support on the GOP side of the Hill, but it's only showing up as a solid wall out amongst his core voters.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,361
UK
Meh, when you're a TV republican who's marrying a TV democrat, I don't really think your political affiliation holds as much weight as a member of congress' would. I see this more as a man trying to ease tensions going into a marriage, than a sign of meaningful change.

When McCain or Graham grow some old man balls and actually do something about the party that "disturbs" them, I'll be impressed.
Plenty of people are married to people who have different political views to them. It's standard.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,361
UK
The issue is the Republicans are still standing with Trump after it has become quite clear he was happy to get dirt on his opponent from a hostile foreign power.

Continued attempts to defend it just make the Conservative movement look foolish in the eyes of anyone remotely credible.

And if the Conservatives flush their own head down the toilet completely good luck keeping the expansive gun rights you have etc. etc.
 
Last edited:

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
889
4,858
Red Springs, NC
Wow. I guess I kind of saw this coming but still, when you lose a vocal supporter of your party, you're doing something wrong.



http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/07/joe-scarborough-leaving-republican-party-colbert-late-show

Now I know some won't care, and a lot hate him anyway, but again, when you lose a major voice in your party, you're doing it wrong. It's a symptom of a problem.
I tend to like Joe, but lets not pretend this is some great loss to the Republican party.
 

nebo1ss

macrumors 68030
Jun 2, 2010
2,734
1,242
Meh, when you're a TV republican who's marrying a TV democrat, I don't really think your political affiliation holds as much weight as a member of congress' would. I see this more as a man trying to ease tensions going into a marriage, than a sign of meaningful change.

When McCain or Graham grow some old man balls and actually do something about the party that "disturbs" them, I'll be impressed.
You do realise that Joe Scarborough was a Republican member of the house from 1995 to 2001.
 

adamneer

macrumors 6502
Apr 18, 2013
421
743
Chicago, IL
You do realise that Joe Scarborough was a Republican member of the house from 1995 to 2001.
6 years, big deal. That's not even 2 presidential terms. McCain has been a senator since 1987. Like I said, it's one thing to denounce the party when you're a TV host, it's an entirely different case when you're going against a large number of your colleagues in a governing body.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,361
UK
6 years, big deal. That's not even 2 presidential terms. McCain has been a senator since 1987. Like I said, it's one thing to denounce the party when you're a TV host, it's an entirely different case when you're going against a large number of your colleagues in a governing body.
He's more of a republican than any of us are.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,019
16,464
The Misty Mountains
Meh, when you're a TV republican who's marrying a TV democrat, I don't really think your political affiliation holds as much weight as a member of congress' would. I see this more as a man trying to ease tensions going into a marriage, than a sign of meaningful change.

When McCain or Graham grow some old man balls and actually do something about the party that "disturbs" them, I'll be impressed.
Scarborough was a Congressman from Florida and a vocal high profile GOP cheerleader and Democrat detractor since the beginning of Morning Joe ...until Supreme Leader pushed him over the edge.

The establishment GOP in their calculations although they can't stand Trump, with the White House, and control of Congress, those who have not denounced Trump are trying to make the best of this ongoing disaster to push their agenda through. So far Health Care has been a smash. :)

What riles me to no end, is the group of Republicans who made use of the ACA, but let the GOP bad mouth it, say they were going to kill it, without verbalizing a better replacement. The GOP only made half an argument, just like when they promise to lower your taxes, only half an argument besides that the average American will save a dollar in taxes while the big boys will save $100k and 20M people will lose out. :oops:

What's so wonderful about this is that the GOP stripes are now exposed for what they are even to the dimist, politically agenda unaware Republicans who like or want affordable health insurance.
 
Last edited:

jpietrzak8

macrumors 65816
Feb 16, 2010
1,053
6,082
Dayton, Ohio
I congratulate anybody leaving either party and am puzzled by those who remain. Unless you are rich, then you are good with either party.
The problem, of course, is that people who don't collaborate with at least one of the two major parties are effectively not represented at all (at least at the federal level). The "winner-takes-all" mechanism in Congress ensures that only a party that can acquire more than 50% of the vote will have any control over legislation.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

macrumors regular
May 13, 2016
202
2,798
The problem, of course, is that people who don't collaborate with at least one of the two major parties are effectively not represented at all (at least at the federal level). The "winner-takes-all" mechanism in Congress ensures that only a party that can acquire more than 50% of the vote will have any control over legislation.
This country is long overdue for a viable third party and that isn't going to happen if people are going to continue their abusive codependent relationship with the existing 2 or thinking big change will happen if they can get a handful of fringe representatives to infiltrate the parties. Its clear the establishment doesn't want them but see it as an appeasement that could prevent a viable third party.

Personally I feel a whole new party needs to be created, not just joining the ranks of the green, libertarian, or tea parties. There's already too much baggage and negativity associated with those parties and people will just reflexively marginalize them because they've already been doing it for so long. We need something fresh and I think more than ever the country is ready for it.
 

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 20, 2009
814
15,173
Personally I feel a whole new party needs to be created, not just joining the ranks of the green, libertarian, or tea parties
Totally agree. And not filled with wacky candidates that have no chance of success. We need competent leadership that actually has American's best interest in mind, not their own and not some sort of adherence to some sort of ideology at all cost. Instead we need competent people who will listen, who will follow the constitution, who will work with others and who are not just in it for themselves.
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
889
4,858
Red Springs, NC
This country is long overdue for a viable third party and that isn't going to happen if people are going to continue their abusive codependent relationship with the existing 2 or thinking big change will happen if they can get a handful of fringe representatives to infiltrate the parties. Its clear the establishment doesn't want them but see it as an appeasement that could prevent a viable third party.

Personally I feel a whole new party needs to be created, not just joining the ranks of the green, libertarian, or tea parties. There's already too much baggage and negativity associated with those parties and people will just reflexively marginalize them because they've already been doing it for so long. We need something fresh and I think more than ever the country is ready for it.
You could join the Jacksonian National Party, if I could ever win the Powerball, and thus have the money to fund it.

It all comes down to money, around 1/3rd of the American electorate identifies as "Independent", but the other two parties have an established ground game, and financial backers.
 

jpietrzak8

macrumors 65816
Feb 16, 2010
1,053
6,082
Dayton, Ohio
This country is long overdue for a viable third party and that isn't going to happen if people are going to continue their abusive codependent relationship with the existing 2 or thinking big change will happen if they can get a handful of fringe representatives to infiltrate the parties.
Again, people are not "dependent" on the existing two-party scheme. It is, instead, a result of the way the government has been designed that two parties will dominate. There is no room for a third party in the American system of government!

Personally I feel a whole new party needs to be created, not just joining the ranks of the green, libertarian, or tea parties. There's already too much baggage and negativity associated with those parties and people will just reflexively marginalize them because they've already been doing it for so long. We need something fresh and I think more than ever the country is ready for it.
Hear hear! I agree that now is a perfect time for a new party to appear on the scene. However, the only way for that to happen, without completely overhauling the Constitution, is for the new party to cannibalize one of the existing parties.

In a sense, this has already happened to the Republican party -- Donald Trump is in no way a member of the classic Republican party, and has attracted a significant backing from people with grievances against both parties.

I don't think he can construct a lasting party himself, though, as he's mostly running a "cult of personality" at this point, which will fade as soon as he leaves the stage. It's probably a good time for someone to pick up the shattered remnants of the old Republican coalition and knit it into something new, especially if they can pull some moderates away from the Democratic party in the process (which has been veering leftward recently itself). Maybe something can coalesce around an Evan McMullen or a Mitt Romney for a figurehead. Financing should be no problem, as I doubt any of the major backers of the classic Republican party have any interest any more in remaining aboard the SS Trump as it slowly founders...
[doublepost=1499869603][/doublepost]
It all comes down to money, around 1/3rd of the American electorate identifies as "Independent", but the other two parties have an established ground game, and financial backers.
Well yeah, that's the thing! People don't just wake up one morning and say "hey, why don't I join party X?" In order to have a viable political party, you've gotta have an infrastructure available to go out there and proselytize for your cause. A good slate of policies by itself is not enough; It takes effort, and boots on the ground, to convince people to vote for you...
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
What does the Republican party stand for? What is their goal or mission?

It seems they want to take healthcare away from people, remove consumer protections, remove employee protections, outlaw labor organization, remove financial regulations, give corporations more power, lower wages, allow monopolies to form, penalize abortions, protect gun owners only if they are white, and impose religious moral codes into law. Am I missing anything?
 

Plutonius

macrumors 604
Feb 22, 2003
7,838
5,885
New Hampshire, USA
Plenty of people are married to people who have different political views to them. It's standard.
Plenty of people with different political views also get divorced.

I can't see people on PRSI with opposite political views even hanging out together :).

A successful marriage is hard enough without politics intruding.

How many people on PRSI wouldn't have an issue if their partner had completely different views ?
[doublepost=1499871163][/doublepost]
Totally agree. And not filled with wacky candidates that have no chance of success. We need competent leadership that actually has American's best interest in mind, not their own and not some sort of adherence to some sort of ideology at all cost. Instead we need competent people who will listen, who will follow the constitution, who will work with others and who are not just in it for themselves.
Any new party needs to start from the bottom up (local, state, federal, and then president).

The libertarian party fails because it doesn't have a base.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

macrumors regular
May 13, 2016
202
2,798
What does the Republican party stand for? What is their goal or mission?
I'd argue both parties currently stand for the same thing. First, where they can get the most money from and, second, what kind of lip service will get them the most votes.

I know this is a tall order, but I think a third party needs to find way to create a platform that is not a lite or extreme version of the 2 parties. The common voters who aren't rich who currently affiliate with either party probably have more in common with each other than they don't. They need to really look at their self interest and have a strong voice, not just reflexively going Republicans/Democrats are good/evil.