Showing posts with label Chris Matthews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Matthews. Show all posts

Chris Matthews, Intellectual Coward

By Dean L

Forget last night's debate.  The mainstream media is trying to spin it as a devastating Obama win and they can't get away with that any more.  People can see for themselves.  Even if they missed the entire debate, there are places online to see it in it's entirety.  The president came across as petty and mean-spirited.  He came across as having a suddenly new position on sequestration that even his own camp had to backtrack on afterwards.  In other words, the debate was at best for Obama a draw – not even a win on points.  In the big picture the debates helped Romney far more than Obama.  So forget last night's debate, let's focus a little bit on some of the untenable positions the media – in this case Chris Matthews – put themselves in, in defense of this president.

Post debate, Chris Matthews once again made the immediate leap to racism.  Why?  It's not because of the president, it's because of intellectual cowardice.

Chris Mathews Implies Ron Paul Is Racist

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

This week Ron Paul announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States and placed himself in the spotlight of controversy, unabashedly stating on the Chris Matthews show that he would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act were he in congress at the time.

Rep. Paul’s reasoning against the Civil Rights Act is consistent with his position on property rights and that the act violated the property rights of independent businesses. This is consistent with constitutional principles and libertarian values advocated by Paul.

Those who remember Senator Bary Goldwater will remember he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the same property rights basis expressed by Rep. Paul on the Mathews show. Senator Barry Goldwater was the Republican Presidential nominee in 1964.

Chris Mathews, in typical progressive fashion, implied that Paul was a racist because of his position on the Civil Rights Act. Of course this only points up Mathews ignorance of, or lack of understanding, with respect to the body of law respecting property rights.

Representative Paul:
I believe that property rights should be protected. Your right to be on TV is protected by property rights because somebody owns that station. I can’t walk into your station. So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it. This gimmick, Chris, it’s off the wall when you say I’m for property rights and states rights therefore I’m a racist. That’s just outlandish.
Paul added that any talk of the segregated South that the Civil Rights Act aimed to reform is too old to be relevant anyway, saying the specter of Whites Only signs is “ancient history.”

Besides, Paul says that the Jim Crow laws would have ended without the Civil Rights Act anyway, a view held by many libertarians who believe the free markets solve social problems.{Read More}
The left’s attempt to frame Paul as a racist based on his stance with respect to the 1964 Civil Rights Act amounts to progressive demagoguery and nothing more.

More at The Other McCain.

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA

Via: Memeorandum

Who’s the “Bubble Head” Now?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, after deriding Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as two “bubble headed idiots” has recently shown himself to be — in the least — an uniformed and perhaps delusion progressive.

It seems Mr. Matthews believes the Panama Canal is in actually in Egypt. Note the one-minute twenty-second mark in the following video. Mr. Matthews, in his very own words, makes the proclamation. I guess bubble-headed-ness is something Chris know a lot about.

The Statement:

More at theblogprof.

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA

Via: Memeorandum

AK Senate Race: McAdams Endorses Murkowski?

By RightKlik

Chicago-style politics in Alaska…

After her defeat in the GOP primary, incumbent Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski jumped back into the headlines by launching a write-in campaign. Her chance of winning is almost exactly zero, but if she’s lucky, she could hand the race to the Democrat.

Interestingly, in Thursday’s debate between the Democrat, Scott McAdams and Joe Miller, the Tea Party Republican, McAdams had nothing but good things to say about his write-in “opponent.” Is Scott McAdams’ statement tantamount to an endorsement? Watch and listen:

“I welcome [Murkowski]. I think she’s a classy person with a good voice. I don’t think that she is a liberal, as she has been framed as being. I think she is an Alaskan first and a party person second…”

“I think it’s better for Alaska if Senator Murkowski has a dialog in the room…”

“If Senator Murkowski joins this thing, I welcome her. Her (sic) and I made an oath to one another that we would have a civic (sic), principled dialog on the issues, that we wouldn’t lie about each other, that we wouldn’t tear each other down…”

“If she does enter [the race], I hope that either Senator Murkowski or myself (sic) are the next Senator for the State of Alaska.”

[emphasis added]

Aren’t McAdams and Murkowski getting a little too cozy in this race?

Lisa Murkowski says she jumped back into the race as a write-in candidate to give Alaskans “a choice.” But she’s not really a choice. As a write-in candidate, her only chance at a meaningful impact on the race is to siphon off enough votes to sabotage Joe Miller. Murkowski knows she’s only giving the Democrat a chance to win.

This exemplifies the problem with liberal Republicans.

Lexington Green over at Chicago Boyz provides brilliant analysis by introducing the idea of the Combine


In Illinois, there has long been an expression which describes the relationship between the two political parties: The Combine. Chicago Tribune writer John Kass seems to have originated this expression. See, for example, this article: In Combine, cash is king, corruption is bipartisan. Kass quoted former Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald: “In the final analysis, The Combine’s allegiance is not to a party, but to their pocketbooks. They’re about making money off the taxpayers,” Fitzgerald said. Kass went on: “He should know. He fought The Combine and lost, and the empty suits running the Republican Party encourage their friendly scribes to blame the social conservatives for the disaster of the state GOP.”

Sound familiar?

America, welcome to Illinois.

The way it works is this. The Democrat party is the senior member of the Combine. The GOP is the junior member of the Combine. The game is exactly the same, and whoever is up, or whoever is down, based on the random behavior of those rubes, the voters, does not matter. The game is always exactly the same, and the people who are in on the game, from either party, have a shared stake in defending the game.

The Combine is a term that should be more widely used in Illinois. It is also a word that should be more widely used in the USA in general.

Lisa Murkowski’s family, and her career, exist because of the Combine. Her interest is in preserving the existing game. She is preserving her stake and her family’s stake in a game they have benefitted from. There is no mystery about this at all. There is no need for psychiatry to understand why she is trying to stop Joe Miller. He threatens the game. It has nothing to do with the label “Republican.”

This is why the Tea Party exists…to break up the Combine.
oo many of our politicians would fit just as comfortably in the Democratic Party as they would in the GOP. They’ll go anywhere the quest for power takes them.

The political establishment on both sides of the aisle believes that it is above the law (i.e. the Constitution); and as the fight over ObamaCare revealed, the pols hardly feel the need to concern themselves with the will of the people either.

If the past 21 months opened up any room for doubt about the fact that the GOP is free from the burdens of principle, the statist Republican leadership laid those doubts to rest last week.
Concern trolls like Karl the Cannibal demonstrated a greater fear for the threat of unapproved conservative insurgents than for the disastrous policies of their “opponents” in the other party.

his, in turn, confirms the fears of the grassroots: the GOP tent, as it is currently configured, is not big enough for more conservatives.
Fortunately, the cannibalism confirms something else as well. Conservatives now know with certainty that their primary season gambles were prudent, for it is better to take chances with unproven Tea Party conservatives than to go with consistently untrustworthy establishment hacks. Chis Matthews, of all people, understands this quite well:

“If the plan of those in power is to raise a ton of cash and run nasty TV ads saying you can’t vote for this new person, that he or she is flawed, I expect the voter will say, ‘Are you telling me I have no choice but to vote for you? Are you saying that I, this little voter out here, dare not take a chance on someone who has not yet let me down, as you have? If that is what you’re telling me, that I have no choice… well Mr. Big Stuff, you just have to wait, stay up late election night and see what I have done.”’

Let there be no mistake. Neither Republican elitists nor Democratic elitists are happy with the defeat of liberal GOP incumbents. Now there’s a chance (albeit a small one in some cases) that Conservatives will take more power from the Combine.

More on Paul Ryan

by the Left Coast Rebel

Anyone that reads my thoughts on a regular basis knows that I am a big fan of Representative Paul Ryan. If you are not familiar with Ryan, please go here for “A Roadmap for America’s Future.”

Earlier this week Wesley Messamore at the Humble Libertarian noted an awesome exchange between Paul Ryan and statist-MSNBC’er Chris Matthews, writing:

THIS is how to talk to statist progressives like Chris Matthews. Congressman Paul Ryan stands up to Matthews and explains how new taxes hurt economic growth (and even government tax revenues, à la Art Laffer); why ending Bush’s tax cuts would hurt small businesses and their workers- not “the wealthy;” and says exactly what he would cut out of the budget to fix America’s unsustainable deficit- if only the obstructionist Democrats would allow it.

After watching the video below, read the summary that follows so you can learn how to better advocate for lower taxes, less spending, and fiscal responsibility.

Wesley has been interning at YAL this summer and told me recently that he has learned an incredible amount about effective activism for the pro-liberty cause. On that note, Wesley Messamore highlights several points about Paul Ryan’s approach that are quite effective and concludes that:

Another key take-away is Ryan’s demeanor. Notice how he smiles, speaks calmly and clearly, and uses simple facts. He’s very polite and obviously very intelligent. This is how you defend liberty to its skeptics. Without being aggressive or ugly, he uses simple and true facts to spectacular effect. Without being impolite, the strength of his case made Chris Matthews look like an idiot. And ultimately- when the facts are on the table, statism always looks idiotic.
Wesley’s writeup is a MUST READ for activists and hints at a new approach for essentially ‘arguing with idiots’ that rein in the so-called progressive movement/power structure today. I can speak for myself in that I tend to become worked up and agitated when confronting progressive-statists and their ludicrous agenda talking points. Wes’ advice is solid – keep your cool, stick to the facts and ultimately from that vantage point, statism will always look idiotic, even to the politically uninitiated.

Updated: Well shiver me timbers – even old Andrew ‘Sullie’ Sullivan is a fan of Paul Ryan, “The Republican who Gives me Hope” :

If the GOP wins the House, as I assume they will, Ryan really will become a critical figure, it seems to me. He’ll be the Chairman of the Budget Committee – and one of six members of the president’s Debt Commission. If he can resist the enormous partisan pressure against bipartisan compromise and intellectual honesty, he will be the unlikely hinge in one of the most critical moments in American economic and fiscal history.
I agree, especially in bold.

Cross posted to Proof Positive, LCR, Rational Nation.

Chris Matthews: Saul Alinsky, Hero

by the Left Coast Rebel

Unlike Barack Obama, at least he is honest. And no, I am not talking about socialist Bernie Sanders, I am referring to MSNBC host Chris Matthews admitting that he is a fan of Saul Alinsky:

“Well, to reach back to one of our heroes from the past, from the ’60s, Saul Alinsky once said that even though both sides have flaws in their arguments and you can always find something nuanced about your own side you don’t like and it’s never perfect, you have to act in the end like there’s simple black and white clarity between your side and the other side or you don’t get anything done.

“I always try to remind myself of Saul Alinsky when I get confused.”

h/t Moonbattery