About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Scarborough "think[s]" Ayatollahs "fix[ed]" Iranian election because of Obama's Cairo speech, and that's "a positive ... in the long run"

June 14, 2009 2:11 pm ET

From the June 14th edition of NBC's Meet The Press:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tman418 (June 14, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
      3  
      Iran's government is a dick. Many countries want their own Barack Obama, and just like many people of the establishment here, the establishment there can't stand it. Unfortunately their establishment has the power to rig the election.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by budrykzp9226 (June 14, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
        14  
        Boy, I'm glad WE never had an idiot religious fundamentalist steal an election...
        Oh.
        Yeah.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (June 14, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
      7  

      Which Ayatollah does scatter-brains think helped steal the presidency in Iran's election...

      Ayatollah Scalia?

      I see can where scatter-brain might think an Ayatollah could steal the presidency for his candidate... I mean, they wear a robe that sort of looks like the robe of Supreme Court election thief Scalia.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (June 14, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
          10
        Whine whine whine, the truth is that if Gore had been able to win his home state, he would have been president. Even in the greatest electoral landslide in US history, Mondale was able to capture his home state. But not Al Gore. The people who knew him best said no. Thank you Tennessee.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by phredicles (June 14, 2009 6:37 pm ET)
          6  
          Maybe, but he DID win Florida. Bush's "presidency" was a criminal regime from the start. And Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, O'Connor, and Kennedy are parties to this fraud.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (June 14, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
              7
            Well I would disagree. There were a number of studies done and they were divided as to who won. The dems tried to change the rules after the game had been played. They also attacked the ballot itself in Palm Beach County, the ballot designed by a democrat. And as a voter in PBC, I never had any problem figuring it out. In my opinion if you could not figure it out perhaps you should not be voting. Gore's strategy of cherry picking the most liberal counties just did not work.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (June 14, 2009 7:54 pm ET)
              6  
              Changing history again, poster boy? Bush filed the 1st lawsuit, and it was Harris who said she was gonna reject revised totals if they didn't meet her imposed deadlines. And the supreme court rejected that "liberal" state supreme court ruling that said a recount should include the entire state of florida. And you also left out the part of Bush suing to reject military overseas votes in democratic leaning counties but suing to include military overseas counts in republican leaning counties. But hey, you're the same guy rooting on Coleman, so I can see why your double standard when it comes to facts sways reich.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (June 14, 2009 10:19 pm ET)
                  6
                You are the one changing history. First the deadline was not Harris's deadline, it was the law. And it was Gore who tried to prevent military ballots from being counted. At the insistance of the Gore team the recount was limited to 4 counties, he rejected the full recount. And the law at the time stated that over and undervotes would not be counted. And in response to the poster below you Teresa LePOre had been a registered Democrat since 1996, she designed the ballot to accommodate the large # of candidates. And it was approved by both parties and every voter in the county received a sample ballot prior to the election. No excuses.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (June 15, 2009 12:46 am ET)
                  6  
                  No sir, the courts granted a new deadline, and again, it was bush who sued 1st to prevent military ballots. Gore countersued. Gore followed the law on the recount, so your claim of limiting was also another blow over on your part. You can lather, rinse and repeat over and over again, but you are still re-writing history. But go ahead and keep your head stuck in the past, that was 8 years ago and regardless of what should have been done, your pretzel choking loser and the reich ruined the economy and destroyed our standing in the world. Thank god for Obama and the most ethical administration of the 21st century!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by robyn20094113 (June 15, 2009 1:04 pm ET)
                       
                    Like O'Rielly this misinformed, stubborn soul must be a history teacher. God help the students.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (June 14, 2009 8:26 pm ET)
              4  
              the elections supervisor in palm beach county was a registered independent before she ran, so she picked the more popular democratic party. the palm beach county ballot was also against state law, and instructions, which said that the punch hole, or mark, was to be to the right of the name. on that ballot, some names were to the left. there was also the case of a precinct in volusia county that recorded 16,000 negative votes for gore that evening. wonder how many other places that happened in lesser amounts that weren't discovered?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (June 15, 2009 12:11 am ET)
                5  
                That's the key point, that the ballot was illegal. It doesn't much matter if it was approved by both parties or not, it's still clear grounds for a revote in that county. Even Buchanan said the ballot was confusing and that most of the votes for him were meant for Gore.

                I like the argument that LePore had been registered as a Democrat since 1996, while we're talking about an election that happened four years later. As if that's a long history of party loyalty or something.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by budrykzp9226 (June 14, 2009 9:30 pm ET)
              5 1
              Well, I would disagree because I'm a whiny, friendless troll who thinks Al Gore is a sore loser but never wastes a chance to whine about how ACORN and Teh Librul MSM elected that thar colored, not me.
              Fixed.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by robyn20094113 (June 15, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
             
          The truth is if Cheney had not lied about Texas being his home state Bush never would have been president even with stealing Florida. In-spite of the fact Cheney claimed Texas as his home state on his tax returns for the past 8 years he suddenly claimed Wyoming was his home state during the election. This was going on at the same time they were recounting the votes in Florida where Bush's brother was Governor.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by tman418 (June 15, 2009 8:22 pm ET)
             
          Don't forget that many blacks in Florida who weren't convicted felons were denied the right to vote.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (June 14, 2009 6:41 pm ET)
        2 1
        It's not so difficult to buy. Heck, Saddam Hussain had 90% voter approval with 90+% voter turnout, I've no doubt that there's a lot of vote rigging going on. This was probably a more lucid moment for Scarborough. He may tilt right, but he's still got some congress in him which briefly shines through from time to time.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Dem02020 (June 15, 2009 4:30 am ET)
          1  

          In truth I don't doubt it either, but also in truth I don't have any credible sources of information on this matter, because I'm suspicious as can be of all things reported about Iran in our media, after eight years of Bush and Cheney, where it appeared they were doing everything in their power to antagonize the American People against Iran... and our media (especially FOX) was right there with them, forwarding their Iran message for them.

          Now to degree if any is Iran a threat to us?

          That's a matter for our Intelleigence Agencies to know, and in no way shape or form do I believe for a moment that our media has that information reliably or correctly... and as far as our Intelligence goes, in particular the CIA, well that Agency and that important function of government are in better more honest and trustworthy hands now (read "unpoliticized" there), than they were in the past eight years, and so that's all I'd say about Iran as a threat to the American People, or not.

          Was the recent presidential election in Iran been stolen or corrupted or whatever?

          Maybe, could be, probably, who knows, I don't know, and above all else I don't care...

          Because right now you are going to see Chapter 22 in a long series of chapters in our media, of things to prattle on about that they couldn't possibly know the truth on, and it wouldn't really matter to us if they did...

          Get ready for Monday June 15, and an all day obsession with Iran and their recent presidential election.

          "Stolen or not stolen? We'll report and you decide!"

          "President Obama's fault, yes or no? We'll prattle on and chatter away, mostly yes!"

          "Cause for more trouble? Yes, by all means... we the media shall sound the alarm, all day and all week long, into next week if we have to... an election has been stolen in Iran! And we're going to talk your ears off about it, because as long as it's an election being stolen in Iran, then it's news (although who can say for sure just why it's news), and if it were an election in the U.S.? Well then, that's a different story, we might talk about it and we might not... it depends on whose side we were taking."

          That's what joe scarborough signaled above, on Sunday... he signaled that his cable television show (which gets a 6 AM EDT head start on all the other noise on cable), they're going to prattle on incessantly, all morning, about Ayatollahs stealing elections...

          What does he know about it, and who cares anyway.

          And of course this kind of thing is meant always to smother more important things, to bury them underneath noise (noise about Ayatollahs and elections in Iran), to drive the more important stuff under the radar screen...

          Today President Obama will deliver an address before the American Medical Association at their annual meeting in Chicago... he's going to be speaking about Public Health Insurance before the single most powerful organization in America opposed to Public Health Insurance... the President has a great desire to do something positive and constructive and helpful and healthful to the American People on this issue : he wants to see them have health insurance, at a cost that does not prohibit them from owning a home or sending their kids to college, or at a cost that has them going uninsured, and therefore uncared for in case of illness injury or disease... the President is also a very persuasive speaker (you may already know this), he is a very powerful communicator, and this is a very important issue right now, it's timely, it's now or never (or if not now, then many years away)... hardly anything could be more important to the American People right now, today, to their welfare and their health, and the President is going to deliver an address to the AMA on the American People's behalf, to an AMA who stands in the way on this issue and needs to be moved, needs to be persuaded at least and maybe forced at most, and the President is right there as our vanguard in this matter...

          And it's going to be buried today, all of that, buried underneath a bunch of idiotic noise about an election in Iran and about Ayatollahs and "Is Obama to blame, yes or no, you just sit there we'll decide and bend your ears about it all, all day and all week long if that's what it takes!"

          Never mind about what the President is saying to the AMA in Chicago... don't look there and don't listen... it's not important to you... it's only about affordable health insurance and health care, it needn't concern you...

          Besides, what could we possibly tell you about Public Health Insurance and the President and Congress and the AMA right now... those things are so remote and far away and unimportant...

          Unlike Iran and the Ayatollahs... it and them we know all about, and aren't they the most important thing to you today, you just wait and see.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 15, 2009 7:40 am ET)
      1  
      I didn't have to read past the first two words in the headline to know there was something amiss.

      "Scarborough thinks?" Highly unlikely.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (June 15, 2009 10:11 am ET)
        2  
        I guess "Scarborough thinks" counts as conservative misinformation... "-)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (June 15, 2009 10:59 am ET)
      4  
      Immediately after the Cairo speech most of the right was saying that Obama had dissed Israel and favored all things Muslim. The idea now that the Cairo speech scared Iran into fixing the election (quick work BTW) doesn't make any sense.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (June 15, 2009 11:17 am ET)
      4  
      As if Obama has any influence whatsoever on election fraud in a foreign country.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by achrispage6992 (June 15, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
          1
        That's not Scarborough's point. After Obama's speech the reports were that it was well received by the Muslim communities in the Middle East. So it isn't that far fetched to THINK that perhaps the Ayatollah fixed the election so that an extremist more in line with his thinking would win, rather than take the chance of having a more moderate President in power, along with the idea of hiding the amount of support in Iran for change from a hard line stance voiced by the current President of Iran. Why MMFA sees this as "conservative misinformation" is puzzling to me. Seems to me that Scarborough's thinking here is supportive of Obama.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (June 15, 2009 12:23 pm ET)
          2  
          Don't you think that this was the plan all along no matter what the Obama Cairo speech said? It's no mystery really that the Grand Ayatollah would want A-ck-ma-dineajad to remain as president of Iran, because he's the mouthpiece for the Ayatollah, whereas this reformer guy seems a little more progressive.

          In other words, I don't think Obama's speech really had anything to do with it at all, it's just the way they wanted it to be from the get go.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by achrispage6992 (June 15, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
            1 1
            Could be, but it's certainly within reason to think that after the well received speech by Obama, the Ayatollah became fearful of the message in the speech. Let's be honest here, there's nothing in that speech which is in accordance with the hard line theocratic governance in Iran nor the rhetoric of either the Ayatollah or the current President of Iran.

            What better way to show the world that the Iranian people are not open to such ideology then by having a hard line extremist win in a landslide?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (June 15, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
          1  
          LOL. First you say that's not his point. Then you elaborate and wind up basically saying that it was his point.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (June 15, 2009 12:01 pm ET)
      2  
      I think that it is stupid to think that Iran decided, ONLY IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS, to rig the election. That somehow they weren't rigging the election already before the Cairo speech happened.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by achrispage6992 (June 15, 2009 12:28 pm ET)
        1 1
        Very possible, but why is it so far fetched to think that the Ayatollah and other hard liners got a little scared after Obama's speech resonated with so many Muslims?

        I've never rigged an election, so I don't know whether it takes more than two weeks to accomplish, but my guess is that in a Dictatorial Theocracy, vote rigging on short notice is certainly possible. I think there is sound logic behind Scarboroughs opinion here.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by o rly (June 15, 2009 12:35 pm ET)
         
      It's official, Joke Scarborough supports repressive, dictatorial regimes.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by latanza (June 15, 2009 2:46 pm ET)
         
      He thinks! No news is good news with Gary Gnews!
      :) :) :)

      LOL!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rtdavis11200 (June 15, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
         
      Joe Scarborough is like most of the conservatives talking heads. They try to hide their displeasure with having a charismatic African-Amercican President leading the United States of America.

      Bush had eight years to lead but he chose to start wars with countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.He also gave to much power to the vice-president.

      Obama was elected by a huge majority to try and repair things.

      Conservatives must accept the will of the American people to go in a new direction.

      The sooner the G.O.P.stop spreading fear and hate but make an effort to work with the new leader on several major issues facing the country. The better off all Americans will be.

      Stop the hate Joe and company.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (June 16, 2009 12:08 am ET)
           
        In 2008 Obama won 53% of the vote to McCain's 46%, In 2004 Bush won 51% and Kerry received 48%. Hardly a huge majority.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (June 16, 2009 3:02 am ET)
             
          In 2008 Obama won 53% of the vote to McCain's 46%, In 2004 Bush won 51% and Kerry received 48%. Hardly a huge majority.


          Are you sure?

          2008 Presidential Election:
          Electoral vote - Obama 365 McCain 173
          Popular vote - Obama 69,498,215 McCain 59,948,240

          2004 Presidential Election:
          Electoral vote - Kerry 251 Bush 286
          Popular vote - Kerry 59,028,444 Bush 62,040,610

          2000 Presidential Election:
          Electoral vote - Gore 266 Bush 271
          Popular vote - Gore 50,999,897 Bush 50,456,002
          Report Abuse