Matt Lewis

‘Morning Joe’ Tackles Obama’s Hypocrisy

Photo of Matt K. Lewis
Matt K. Lewis
Senior Contributor
  • See All Articles
  • Send Email
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Bio

      Matt K. Lewis

      Matt K. Lewis is a senior contributor to The Daily Caller, and a contributing editor for The Week. He is a respected commentator on politics and cultural issues, and has been cited by major publications such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. Matt is from Myersville, MD and currently resides in Alexandria, VA. Follow Matt K. Lewis on Twitter <a>@mattklewis</a>.

A while back I wrote a controversial column titled, “Why Joe Scarborough Matters”. My premise was that Scarborough — from his perch at MSNBC — “arguably does more to advance conservative ideas than many of the more-celebrated conservative voices in America today.”

Tuesday morning, Scarborough once again took on the thankless job of making the conservative case to an audience that might otherwise not give it due consideration.  Regarding Obama’s reversals on Bush-era policies (such as GITMO and the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad), Scarborough said:

Maybe [President Obama] should have just disagreed with Dick Cheney and George W. Bush – and not characterized them in a way that assumed the absolute worst — that they somehow did not love the constitution as much as Barack Obama — that they were somehow willing to shred that document and all the rights that we hold so dear … Because if you’re going to make those claims, and then do the same thing that they do, then you need to apologize to the American people.

As is often the case, Scarborough was outnumbered three-to-one.  Nevertheless, he correctly made the case that Obama’s campaign rhetoric has not matched his actions in office — a point which should be obvious to anyone with a memory, but which is conveniently forgotten by Obama apologists.

In retrospect, it is painfully obvious that much of the anti-Bush rhetoric that helped propel Obama to the White House in 2008 was unwarranted, irresponsible, and transparently political.  (Yes, it’s water under the bridge, but setting the record straight on history is an important task for opinion leaders.)

You can watch the video here:

  • mugwump

    “Opinion Leader”?? What the heck is that?

    Someone who gives their opinion, professional or amateur, would be called an “Opinion Giver”. Right? Not a leader though, I mean who needs someone to “lead” them to an opinion? Shouldn’t people form their own opinions after being presented with the objective facts?

    Oh wait, is that like CHEERleaders, all “Rah, Rah, for our team! Boo for your team!”. Like that? OK, now I understand the term. Go, Opinion Leaders, go! Rah, Rah! You rock!