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?
View Comments (31)
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.
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...
Checked. Not the same person.
BTW, anyone see this?
journo-list listserv - check it out. A conspiracy between the liberal media....hey, editor, how about an expose' here?
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.
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
8) 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.
Necron, well stated....well stated....
Be prepared for a few liberal slams....they just have no use for reality....
National Progressive Socialist Party then. That's what they are anyway.
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!
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.
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.
Instead of calling Chrissy Matthews a reporter, let's call him what he really is - a sissyfied ass.
I prefer the term liberal. I think its more of a slap in the face.
i fail to see why calling someone a democrat is an insult, unless you have an IQ higher than a carrot.
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.