Joe ScarboroughReseñas

Excellent history!

"The Right Path", by Joe Scarborough, provides a brief review of the Presidents from Eisenhower through Obama, emphasizing the best aspects of the Republican presidents who led best.

The point he makes is that the GOP of the moment bears little resemblance of the Party of Reagan, and given that the Republican party failed to win the popular vote in five of the past six Presidential elections, that negative trend needs to be examined and reversed. Scarborough's states that he's tired of the Republican Party losing the White House, and suggests a movement back to the paths set by Reagan and Eisenhower, i.e., principled pragmatism over ideology, is needed in order to win future presidential elections.

Scarborough recommends that the Party adapt to the changing times, and reach out to leaders who would govern from the middle rather than the fringes. Conservatism must take reality into account. There are voices in the Republican Party, Tea Party activists, who preach that the reason the Republican Party candidates have failed to gain the most votes in recent presidential elections is because they weren't conservative enough. That push further to the right is the wrong path, per Scarborough.

If more electable candidates were supported in 2010 instead of ideological favorites like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Richard Mourdock in Indiana, and Todd Akin in Missouri, Congress would be in Republican control today, and Harry Reed would be retired. Scarborough warns that primary voters who indulge in Republican resentments in picking candidates instead of choosing a candidate who could win in the fall is a losing choice.

General Colin Powell is one of Scarborough's examples. He was not supported by the conservative wing of the party because he was considered too moderate. But listening to the retired general made it clear why he was drafted as a key player in previous administrations. Powell is free market believer, supporter of educational reform, innovation and competition, and supports a realistic foreign policy vs. foreign adventurism. In spite of right-wing, profit-driven talk show radio hosts who unleash their fury against anyone who disagree with them, the Party needs to reach out and include realists, moderates, and conservatives. If the Party is big enough to reach out to disaffected moderates like Colin Powell, the Party will be big enough to win back the White House.

Scarborough's theme is that if the Republican Party only represents the far right spectrum of the Party, the G.O.P is in trouble. There's a need to pull in moderates, independents and swing voters who have been driven into the Democrats camp due to Republicans narrowing vision. The message I took from the book is that moderation is essential given today's trends and shrinking base, and that is "The Right Path" for the Republican Party.

Scarborough is a former Republican member of Congress, serving from 1995 through 2001. He received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, and received a number of awards including the "Friend of the Taxpayer Award" from Americans for Tax Reform; the "Guardian of Small Business Award" from the National Federation of Independent Business; and the "Taxpayer's Hero Award" from the Citizens Against Government Waste. With that background, you'd understand a heavily partisian critique of all Democrats. And while he was fairly consistent in his continuous criticism of Obama, he was almost equally critical of George W. Bush's presidency and the performance of the Republican Congress under Bush. I felt he fattened up the book a little by several long winded sections pointing out how much money Obama raised during the 2008 election and how that money bought an inordinate number of "negative adds" against McCain, and how Democrats are the richest members of Congress, giving them an unfair advantage (although I'm told my Congressman,Darrell Issa of California, a Republican, is the richest member of the House, which Scarborough manages to omit). With those minor issues aside, that's politics as usual, and is typical of both parties now. Otherwise, I thought the book was a breath of fresh air in a world of partisian political rants. Scarborough lays out his view of conservatism and the need for a more limited government, and is justifiably critical of both parties who seem to be out of control and out of touch with the people. It's a reasoned call for conservative politics with only minor biases, and a refreshing break from the extremist viewpoints.

[Private note to Joe (and Mika): Please forgive me. I watch your show often.] To describe the first third of this book as “dry” would be akin to describing Death Valley as being “fairly warm” on some afternoons. I say this as a both a fan of “Morning Joe” and a journalist who understands the importance of providing comprehensive “background” material when delving into complex subjects. The first eight or nine chapters would be considered a “riveting read” only by truly committed armchair historians. The better news: Things do pick up a bit (emphasis on “a bit”) when the “Give ‘em Hell Harry” era begins in earnest by Chapter 10 or so. I have to admit that I’ve never had a passionate interest in 1940s-50s world history. Candidly, that’s one reason why I nudged myself to read “Saving Freedom” (and to watch the classic flick “Patton” shortly before I began the tome). To Scarborough’s credit, his book provides insights into the Cold War and foreign relations in this critical era. But at least for me, “Saving Freedom” accomplishes this task much in the same way my ninth grade history book did: With some significant effort and patience on the part of the reader.

The main point of the first book written by former Republican congressman and current MSNBC host Joe Scarborough is contained in the subtitle of "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day": "The Real Deal on How Politicians, Bureaucrats, and Other Washington Barbarians are Bankrupting America." Reading the book in 2009 during a major economic recession, Scarborough's book doesn't seem too provocative, until you realize that it was published in 2004, long before the national hand-wringing over the escalating size of the federal government.

Scarborough, a fiscal conservative, laments the huge increases in spending seen during the first term of George W. Bush, especially given that they occurred when Republicans -- the supposed party of spending constraint -- had majorities in both houses of Congress and occupied the White House. Using his first-hand knowledge of the way things work -- or in his emphatic view, do not work -- in Washington. He explains the strength of paid interests influencing the system through extensive lobbying, fund-raising, campaign contributions, and careful use of the media.

At the root of this book, which seems refreshingly candid as opposed to the writing of many other politicians when they author books for the "my plan for America" publishing cottage industry, is Scarborough's conflicted feelings toward the government. Obviously, he was raised to believe that the government could accomplish certain things, and he is fascinated by politics itself.

But Scarborough is also very disillusioned and frustrated. Having been elected during the Republican Revolution of 1994, he tells stories of the heady days when the "Class of 94" insisted on conservative values, especially the passage of welfare reform in 1996. But then others, including the Republican leadership, started turning away from the reforms promised in 1994; Scarborough seems almost personally betrayed at times when writing about Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. And the shift away from 1994 has continued since then, even intensifying during George W. Bush's administration.

Despite these underlying feelings, Scarborough never attacks people personally in his writing, which is straightforward and often funny. In fact, it seems that Scarborough writes as he speaks on television, in clear language punctuated by moments of intense feeling subsiding into fits of comic observations. And while the book is a little dated, it is still timely given its economic focus. And it is, in its way, a memoir of the rise and fall of the 1994 Republican Revolution.½

Oh, Joe Scarborough, how I used to despise you. "Rome Wasn't Burnt In A Day" finds Scarborough at a midpoint during his transition from strident right wing loony to reforming rightwinger who wants to get with the program but is afraid to put his toe in the pool. Ostensibly about how power elites in both political parties conspire to keep reformers in congress from affecting any meaningful political change, Scarborough still manages to get in a fair amount of digs (both deserved and otherwise) at Democrats. While I agree with his overall thesis, his departures into "compassionate" conservative fantasyland (healthcare reform=socialism, Gingrich's welfare reforms=a step forward, grants to environmental agencies=pork) left me cold, especially when he took an obviously hypocritical position on such "robbing" of taxpayer dollars whenever his own Congressional district was concerned. Still, I believe his frustration with and disgust for entrenched political cabals and massive government spending (he is surprisingly willing to point the finger at the Bush administration) is genuine enough. "Rome" was obviously written rather quickly and suffers from a number of typographic, grammatic, and definitional errors as a result, but it was a nice change from the obnoxious screeds of other popular conservative figures.

Scarborough believes the Republicans best hope is in the person of Christopher Buckley. For those who are fans of Christo, check out his fiction and his lasted on Mum and Pup