Chris Matthews is a very sensitive man. He cares about the feelings of others. Especially when the others are Democrats.
In the middle of Thursday night’s Hardball program, Matthews interrupted California Congressman Darrell Issa’s comments on the administration’s massive budget deficit to complain that Issa had referred to the opposition as “the Democrat Party.”
“I think the Democratic Party calls itself the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party,” Matthews raged. “Do we have to do this every night? Why do people talk like this? Is this just fighting words? They call themselves the Democratic Party. Let’s just call people what they call themselves and stop the Mickey Mouse here. Save that for the stump.”
Based on that faulty logic, if Matthews were discussing rap music, he would refer to African-Americans as “niggas” like so many rap artists do. That would be, as Matthews requested, just calling people what they call themselves.
Matthews might want to re-think this concept.
WARNING: The Richard Pryor video contains obscenities. But what the hell, it’s Richard Pryor. What do you expect?
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Was just reading that Wikipedia says the term Democrat Party is an epithet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)
Wikipedia wasn’t too bright on creating this page, there are parenthesis in the URL. So to get to the proper page, click the link above and then click on the link on the page for “Democrat Party (phrase)”
A slur?
This could be an interesting conversation. Care to discuss it?
Poorly Rated. Do you Like or Dislike?
0 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Daniel, what color is the sky in your world?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Blue, most of the time. So what is your point? That I live in a blue state or am a mindless liberal? Not true. I live in Georgia, am a fiscal conservative, oppose homosexual marriage, am very troubled by abortion, support the mass deportation of illegal aliens and an indefinite moratorium on legal immigration, am working for an Arizona-style immigration law here in Georgia, and believe that Islamic fundamentalism is a far greater threat than global warming. I also believe in rationality and fair-mindedness in political debate, as opposed to name-calling and hate. And that is why I detest and despise (not always, but most of the time) Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Bill Cunningham and the rest of their hate-radio ilk, as well as much of today’s official Republican Party leadership (which, for example, put up an anti-Al Franken Web site with Franken photoshopped to have FANGS). These people are in fact, I believe, undermining true conservatism, by taking a respectable political philosophy and turning it into little more than an instrument of hate. George Will, Pat Buchanan and Thomas Sowell are examples of current conservative commentators whom I respect and admire, who are carrying on the principled conservatism of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Had you been here for a while, you would know that I likewise think Limbaugh etal are a serious part of the problem. In fact, I had a couple of posts shot down because I dared tread on sacred ground when I said these guys helped Obama with the moronic middle. However, none of the guys you cite are running for office. Just like most of the democratic mouthpieces are likewise not running for office. Actually, I seem to recall democratic office holders referring to the Tea Party folks as “tea baggers”. Not sure how long you have been votin’ but I can assure you that the democrats started it and are far worse.
You cannot let the bully take your lunch money every day – eventually, you have to face him. I don’t like it either, but as a conservative, I choose to chastise democratic office holders (and their appointees) for their insulting comments – most of which are lies. Obama IS a pussy – and that ain’t no lie. Sometimes the truth hurts.
BTW, Georgia is a great place – ‘cept for that Carter feller.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
No, I haven’t been here long at all — I just came across this site yesterday. Thanks for your thoughtful response. It sounds like we might actually have a fair amount in common. I’m certainly no huge fan of Obama’s, and I think he won the Nobel Prize not for any actual accomplishments but simply for being a good speaker and not being George W. Bush. I fear that Limbaugh may actually have been right when he called Obama, shortly before the election, “an empty suit.” But I’m appalled by many conservatives’ visceral, seemingly irrational hatred of the man, which seems to go way beyond policy differences and which I can only conclude IS based largely on racism. (For the record, and whatever it’s worth, I’m white.)
I agree that it’s a slur and very unfair to call the Tea Party folks “tea baggers.” See my reply to “editor” for my opinion about Democrats’ calling Republicans “Nazis.”
I actually live two blocks away from Jimmy Carter — or, at least, the Carter Presidential Center and Library, where he and Rosalynn have an apartment. He’s probably our only ex-president who has accomplished more as a former president than he seemingly did as president. But he did have a plan for encouraging alternative energy and drastically reducing our dependence on foreign oil, which went out the window when Ronald Reagan and the Republicans took over in 1981.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
So Democrats do not belong to the Democrat party, but Republics do belong to the Republican party? I can’t even begin to get my head around the inconsistency you attempt to express.
Of course, you are correct that Democrats would never call Republicans “Republics”. They’re usually call them Nazis instead.
You’re a fool, Daniel. A complete fool.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Obviously members of the Democratic Party are Democrats, while there are no such people as “Republics.” The inconsistency you’re talking about arises from the fact that “Republican” is both a noun and an adjective, while “Democratic” is an adjective only, with “Democrat” as the corresponding noun. It’s the use of “Democrat” as an adjective that constitutes the slur. This might be a trivial matter, as most misuses of words are, except for the context, and context is everything here. This misusage is done intentionally to irritate Democrats, and, as Hendrik Hertzberg has written, as “an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations” of the word “democratic” with a small D. The point is that people and political groups deserve, within reason, to be called by their chosen names; this is simply a matter of common courtesy. (The terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” mentioned by another commenter, are both exceptions to this, because they are both highly “loaded” terms — public relations slogans rather than objective descriptions.)
As for Democrats calling Republicans “Nazis,” anybody who says that is engaging in ignorant hate speech that I deplore and condemn. Are you equally willing to deplore and condemn it when conservatives call Obama and other liberal Democrats “Marxist,” “Communist” and even “Stalinist”?
(Please notice that I haven’t called you a “fool” or anything like it just because we disagree politically on some matters.)
Controversial. What do you think?
5 
3
OK, I’ll be mean spirited, you are a thin skinned twit.
BTW, the Dem are all for democracy as long as the vote goes their way, otherwise, it’s off to the courts.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
You’re an example of what I’m talking about, and thus helping to prove my point. Instead of taking apart what I say and showing where I’m wrong — if I am — you simply call me a name and let it go at that. Are the people at Wikipedia thin-skinned twits when they define “Democrat Party” as “a political epithet used in the United States instead of ‘Democratic Party’ when talking about the Democratic Party”? Is everybody who disagrees with you a twit? Are you even capable of engaging in rational discussion, as opposed to name-calling?
As for Democrats challenging elections in court, can you give any examples other than Florida in 2000? And haven’t Republicans also challenged elections from time to time?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Wikipedia? Are you serious?
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
How about gay marriage in California. The voters have voted 3 times about gay marriage, & everytime, the gay maffia heads to court to overturn the will of the people. That & the straight up imtimidation of those who contributed to the anti gay marriage cause, at home & at work.
As for challenging Presidential elections, JFK was elected by the dead in Cooke County Illinios. By something like 5-6,000 votes,, Nixon decided that it would be better to concede rather then put the nation through what Al Gore did in 2000. Nixon had something Al Gore will never have, & that is class. Also, I can say with almost 100% certainty that the junior Senator from my state of Minnesota is there on a less then vote count that saw unsecured votes in the trunk of someones car. Not to mention townships that had more votes then registered voters in areas that went heavily for Stuart Smalley. That & not forgetting that Mark Ritchie, the Minnesota Sec.of State was a product of the Goerge Soros SOS program(Sec.OfState)because it is the SecOfState that oversees state elections. But there are no hard feelings right?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
LMAO!!! Nanu Nanu, Daniel….what planet are you from again?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Frankly, its crap. There is nothing Democratic about a single party. Our system is a democratic system (rather, it used to be) which implies multiple parties. Thus, the democrat party cannot be called democratic, it must be called democrat. That is simple, basic logic. You’d think they get it BECAUSE it is so simple, alas…..
That said, however, there is no longer a democrat party in the US. The democrat party has been hijacked by clearly radical liberal/progressive factions, destroying what was once a credible party. JFK would be appalled, as he was the last true democrat.So, it really doesn’t matter that some might have problems with it…which is why they are…..they never have done well with the truth…
______________________________
Oh, and can anyone think of any reason that Wiki moved to Whacknutfornia (where I have to go again next week on business) other than to immerse itself in the world of idiocy? Should we still trust anything we read there? I, personally, have found several fallacies and half truths in my research there….someone great once said….”trust but verify…”….
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
My party has been calling the Democrat Party the Democrat Party for decades. They’ve been complaining about that since at least the 50s. It’s all good fun.
But if Chrissy is so concerned about calling a movement what it calls itself, then why not call pro-lifers pro-life, rather than those who “oppose abortion rights.” Chrissy is consistent with his outrage, no?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I touched on this in my reply to “editor.” For convenience’s sake, here’s what I said about it there:
The point is that people and political groups deserve, within reason, to be called by their chosen names; this is simply a matter of common courtesy. (The terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” . . . are both exceptions to this, because they are both highly “loaded” terms — public relations slogans rather than objective descriptions.)
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
i fail to see why calling someone a democrat is an insult, unless you have an IQ higher than a carrot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
There’s nothing wrong with calling a Democrat a Democrat; it’s terms such as “Democrat Party” that are the issue here. Before you start questioning other people’s IQs, perhaps you should brush up on fifth-grade English — maybe you slept through it — and learn the difference between a noun and an adjective. Here’s how I explained it in my reply to another comment:
Obviously members of the Democratic Party are Democrats, while there are no such people as “Republics.” The inconsistency you’re talking about arises from the fact that “Republican” is both a noun and an adjective, while “Democratic” is an adjective only, with “Democrat” as the corresponding noun. It’s the use of “Democrat” as an adjective that constitutes the slur. This might be a trivial matter, as most misuses of words are, except for the context, and context is everything here. This misusage is done intentionally to irritate Democrats, and, as Hendrik Hertzberg has written, as “an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations” of the word “democratic” with a small D. The point is that people and political groups deserve, within reason, to be called by their chosen names; this is simply a matter of common courtesy.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
I prefer the term liberal. I think its more of a slap in the face.
Controversial. What do you think?
6 
2
Instead of calling Chrissy Matthews a reporter, let’s call him what he really is – a sissyfied ass.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Mike said: But if Chrissy is so concerned about calling a movement what it calls itself, then why not call pro-lifers pro-life, rather than those who “oppose abortion rights.”
I believe they call us “anti-choice” as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I touched on this in my reply to “editor.” For convenience’s sake, here’s what I said about it there:
The point is that people and political groups deserve, within reason, to be called by their chosen names; this is simply a matter of common courtesy. (The terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” . . . are both exceptions to this, because they are both highly “loaded” terms — public relations slogans rather than objective descriptions.)
. . . and the term “anti-choice” is even worse — an egregious description of those who oppose abortion.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Matthews used time to complain.. so that he could ignore Mr. Darrell’s remark that the DEMOCRAT Congress failed us in a BIG way! It’s they
who are/were hiking up the deficit, and they fault the Republicans!
Matthews is a sorry liar!
Controversial. What do you think?
7 
1
National Progressive Socialist Party then. That’s what they are anyway.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
I prefer Dumbocrat. Because everything they have done is dumb. Examples:
1) When Cap & Trade passed the House after that massive February, 2009 stimulus bill passed, it sent waves of resentment throughout America, helping to establish an already-growing Tea Party’s determination to stand up to out-of-control socialism within our government,
2) The Fort Hood killings, which demonstrated to America that Barak Obama’s administration has literally invited radical Islamic attacks on our country by portraying weakness to our enemies which has emboldened them,
3) The Underwear Bomber, another Islamic radical-related terrorist who managed to fly right into our country and, if not for his own incompetence, could have murdered nearly 300 innocent Americans,
4) Obamacare… perhaps the absolute worst political blunder of Obama’s short presidency, using blackmail, intimidation, and taxpayer-funded bribes to take over 1/6 of the American economy against the will of the majority of the American people. What he did in passing this bill will never be forgiven by the American public,
5) The Times Square Bomber, who, like the Underwear Bomber, narrowly avoided murdering hundreds more of innocent American citizens because of his own incompetence, which was yet another example of the OA’s incompetence and lack of knowledge of the real threat radical Islamic terrorists pose to America,
6) The OA’s constant ridiculing of, and outright lying about the Arizona Immigration Law, taking the side of illegal aliens and Mexican drug cartels over the security of American citizens for the sake of protecting it’s own political power base,
7) The BP Oil Spill, and Obama’s own recent, open admission that his administration was on top of this matter and in charge since “Day #1″ of the leak, and it’s ignoring this disaster for weeks until heavier media scrutiny forced Obama to step to the forefront and acknowledge it, and
The Sestak Scandal, which has shown America yet another example of what the OA really is, a group of corrupt, power-hungry socialists intent on total control by whatever means necessary, a regime that does not recognize rule of law or the will of the American people, just it’s own relentless quest to expand it’s own socialist power base by any means necessary.
The DUMBOCRAT’s short reign has been one political disaster after another, and all have been perpetrated on absolute and utter arrogance and elitism.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Necron, well stated….well stated….
Be prepared for a few liberal slams….they just have no use for reality….
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
The sole reason it MUST be called the ‘democrat’ party is that they have no idea what a true democratic process is. Voting for a stimulus bill when calls into their office were running 4:1 against kind of puts the lie to that one — at the very least they could have done some more selling before they spent my great grandkids’ money.
Calling them ‘democratic’ implies some form of populist legitimacy. Sorry. I’m not buying it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
BTW, anyone see this?
journo-list listserv – check it out. A conspiracy between the liberal media….hey, editor, how about an expose’ here?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Daniel:“…How hateful and ignorant you and some of these commenters are — and how typical of today’s name-calling, mean-spirited right wingers.
“Okay – so you come across this site yesterday and today your first post (actually the very first sentence) on this thread you come out swinging – utilizing the popular liberal epithets “hate” and “ignorance” and subscribe to the “typical-ness” of name-calling, mean-spirited right wingers.
Then, when called out, you come up with a mish-mash of conservative principles you claim to ascribe to while throwing in a blurb on “hate radio” pointing out popular conservative hosts as your examples – before you point out that you were directing you commentary specifically at the republican party, I get it. Of course you speaking of the republicans. Any time we can infuse the term “hate” with a republican or a conservative we have done our job – right?
Then, you give us this zinger: “…But I’m appalled by many conservatives’ visceral, seemingly irrational hatred of the man, which seems to go way beyond policy differences and which I can only conclude IS based largely on racism.” (No need to even comment on that one)
Then you try another tack – giving out grammar lessons on nouns and adjectives and a feeble attempt at taking the high road as if you are struggling to get someone here to debate you with intelligence and courtesy.All throughout your posts you speak of democratics in a positive light, (Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize, Carter’s accomplishments) while casting negative connotations of republicans (“not being George Bush and “…out the window when Ronald Reagan and the republicans took over”.
All of this points loyal democrat – either you are very clever with the bait and switch or you are very confused as to your true political leanings. I’d bet on the former.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nice post, Chili. I think this daniel character, may be in his/her/its second or third iteration, and may be our old friend Hal, of whacknutfornia’s bankrupt liberal KXAL(?) radio talk show fame. Hey Mister Editor, since I cannot get to his/her/its IP address to research, how about a check?his/her/its posts seem eerily familiar…..and it is most possible for some to spoof IP addresses….not that I think hal is capable, but someone, perhaps, in his/her/its purvey?
If not, I must, with great disdain apologize to Hal, but, you get, I think, the point….. Anyway, I would be happy to entertain an intellectual discussion with daniel/hal, whomever, but it is most difficult to have intellectual discussion with those who are not….and anyone that believes, intellectually, that this administration is good for the country, on any level whatsoever, is, factually, not…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Checked. Not the same person.