Bachmann and Matthews tangle on anti-Americanism
posted at 7:41 am on October 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Rep. Michele Bachmann appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night and tangled over the recent emphasis on Barack Obama’s relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers. Matthews trapped Bachmann with a couple of reductio ad absurdum arguments, and somehow wound up asserting that an investigation to find anti-American Congressmen would be a good idea:
Michele’s a friend and I know her passion for her country, but she let herself get trapped by Matthews here. She did well until the last two minutes, but she let Matthews get away with characterizing her statements as equating liberal policy with anti-Americanism. That leads to the conclusion that half of Congress hates America, which is ridiculous, and led to the silly notion that someone should “look into” it.
We don’t need another House Un-American Activities Committee. Voters make those decisions. Mainstream liberal policy may be wrong-headed and ineffective, but it’s not anti-American. That’s not the point with William Ayers, unless Matthews suggests that Ayers represents mainstream liberal views — a suggestion that would rightly offend mainstream liberals. That’s how Rep. Bachmann should have answered Matthews.
Ayers is a pretty good example of anti-Americanism; he bombed the Pentagon and other places, and his group wound up killing people to score political points. He wants to destroy the private-property system and replace it with essentially a Soviet state. Jeremiah Wright preached “God Damn America,” about as anti-American a statement a preacher can make from the pulpit, and accused the government of creating AIDS as a genocidal tool against people of color. I’d call both anti-American, and not coincidentally, Barack Obama spent years of his life in politics with both people.
If Matthews objects to this coming out now, he can blame himself and his colleagues. Had they spent one-tenth the effort investigating Obama as they have in investigating Joe the Plumber, Obama’s evasions on Ayers would have been widely known months ago. Matthews was too busy feeling tingles up his leg, which is all anyone needs to know about Matthews’ credibility on anything connected with Obama.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
You really don’t understand your ‘base,’ Ed, do you?
Grow Fins on October 18, 2008 at 7:46 AM
The modern liberal mindset doesn’t hate America, it hates what it has always been – and seeks to change it. That’s the thing so many fail to see.
bikermailman on October 18, 2008 at 7:48 AM
I like Rep. Bachmann, but I thought she’d have more sense than to go on MSNBC, with their malice and obvious intent to discredit and all.
chalons on October 18, 2008 at 7:50 AM
Sigh.
Something nobody saw (Chris Matthews tripping up some lesser known Republican) on some network nobody watches (MSNBC) gets posted here so I can relish all 4 or 5 minutes. No thanks. MSNBC appreciates, though.
Lucianne has a good piece on a NYT slam of Cindy McCain and a photocopy of a 400 dollar plus lobster and caviar hotel bill from Michelle Obama if you’re interested. Think if it was Cindy’s room service bill IT WOULD GET SOME PLAY?
Marcus on October 18, 2008 at 7:53 AM
Here is a perfect example of why Sarah should continue to avoid interviews with these so called “liberal-minded” Americans. I disagree with some of you, they are anti-American. We had them during the revolutionary war when they subverted the independence movement and they continue to breed. Liberalism is a mental disorder!
wepeople on October 18, 2008 at 7:56 AM
Basically the same tactic Matthews attempted to pull on Michele Bachmann—-change or reframe the conversation, but nice try GF.
Bachmann did recover from Chrissy’s attempt to get her to say all democrats are as radical and dangerous as William Ayers. She didn’t take the bait and switch that is the classic response of the left when they can’t specifically answer a question. I wish she would have said “no Chris, you and Keith would most likely fit into this category”, but, of course, most conservatives prefer not to wallow in the gutter that the folks at MSNBC have become accustomed to.
Hopefully, there’s a two for one discount on padded rooms.
Rovin on October 18, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Chris Matthews has been disingenuous his entire career, starting as Tip O’Neil’s chief lackey.
Zorro on October 18, 2008 at 8:03 AM
I think she did fine. I couldn’t watch that screaming libtard that came on after her because she always gets hysterical on Fox News.
Given the audience of MSNBC, I’m glad Bachman was on. Hopefully her messages is getting through to those in denial. Hopefully.
ConMom on October 18, 2008 at 8:04 AM
“Obama has chosen another course. Though he comes out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left, he has shed past positions like support for partial-birth abortion as fast as he has shed past associations, from William Ayers to ACORN, from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to his fellow parishioners at Trinity United.”“One question remains: Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the left that brought him the nomination, or resist his ex-comrades’ demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jesse and Wright have long dreamed of?
Whichever way he decides, he will be at war with them, or at war with us. If Barack wins, a backlash is coming”………Patrick Buchanan LINK
(Disclaimer: I rarely agree with much of Buchanan’s political philosophies, but in this post, he makes some good points)
Rovin on October 18, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Chris M. is too cute by half, playing dumb at the notion that Obama’s associates are America haters. This plays well to the paranoid Left and Daily Kos koolaid drinkers. Anyone else watching this will not be impressed. Also, such a looong interview. Most people would only watch half, and during that time Bachman does an expert job of dissecting Obama. Mathews is essentially speechless.
Bachmann did fine. Chris reveals how sympathetic he is too the far left. I can’t see how he expects to get voted into office in Pennsylvania.
Also, note how Mathews shirks press responsibility at investigating anti-Americanism. Such work is beneath him and the MSM. That’s why Wright and Ayers are off the table: It’s grunt work and not for the elite media.
I think this interview reveals more about Chris Mathews and the Left-wing press.
EMD on October 18, 2008 at 8:21 AM
“I couldn’t watch that screaming libtard that came on after her…”
I’m with ya on that. Jeez… does the Obama campaign issue those smirks to all of their minions? Everytime I see Obambi, Shmoe Biden, or one of their spokes drones, they always have that same damn smart ass smirk on their face.
I take great comfort knowing that the smirks will be wiped from their faces on November 5th. Smirky elitism may play well at cocktail parties, but it just pisses off the hard working silent majority in this country.
Bachmann did fine. Was nice to hear a surrogate tossing out Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Pfleiger! More please!
Drunken Angry Clown on October 18, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Gotta disagree with you Ed. Modern liberalism IS unAmerican. Before I could join the military the oath I took included defending the Constitution (and our country) against all enemies foreign…and domestic. I wrote something similar here yesterday. You can disagree over liking Coke and Pepsi. Americans do not disagree about whether to destroy America and rebuild it as a Socialist nation or not. These aren’t “philosophical” matters. You either support America and what it stands for or you don’t. Many liberals today don’t. They ARE the enemy of America. Anytime liberals have a choice between defending America or our enemies (Haditha) they chose our enemies. Any time they have a choice between helping us win the war on Islamic extreemism or helping our enemies (Gitmo, wiretaps, support of mission until victory is achieved) liberals chose to side with our enemies. Many liberals AREN’T decent people. They AREN’T patriotic Americans.
davenp35 on October 18, 2008 at 8:22 AM
I think I feel like saying this this AM even though I have been thinking it for a long time and have avoided actually saying it because to say it might make it true and it’s very scarey. If Obama gets elected it will be a triumph for the welfare state and all the attendant failure that surrounds that element of the population.
jeanie on October 18, 2008 at 8:23 AM
She did great! Kudos to Ms. Bachman. I’ve never seen her before. But my first impression is that she’s now a rising star of the GOP.
As for Ed, (sigh!). You conservatives wonder why it is that we libertarians are so cynical about our decades long relationship with you guys?
It’s not because y’all don’t support drug legalization. It’s because when it counts, you guys wimp out.
BARCK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A FASCIST! Plain and simple.
Stop mincing words. Stop saying stuff like he’s “just a liberal.” Ed, Others, wake the ‘F’ up! We are about to be taken over by a regime that is akin to Hitler’s 1930s Nazis.
And you criticize this fine Congresswoman from Minnesota for seemingly suggesting as such?
ericdondero on October 18, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Everything and everyone in Barak Obama’s life has been if not anit-American certainly not the America most of us know and love. Our beginning started with the flaw of slavery and we have been paying for it ever since. And if we don’t stand up we will all be enslaved. The government is becoming the master, using the same arguments that I am sure slave owners used, we can’t do it on our own, they know better, they will protect us and the government believes it. I don’t.
Cindy Munford on October 18, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Wow, Ed. You have way too much faith in chris matthews and so little in Michelle Bachmann and the American people. It was very clear that matthews was trying to blur the issue and make leftists victims. He tried to change the subject and get Rep. Bachmann to say something that the left and the media could use. Rep. Bachmann stood strong and did not let matthews take her off point. You, on the other hand, went merrily along with matthews and turned it on Rep. Bachmann. The powers that be in the democrat party and the media hate our representative republic, hate our capitalist economic system and hate our history. They hate and denigrate the American people. They are anti-American, they are unpatriotic.
peacenprosperity on October 18, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Your moral relativism is mind boggling.
peacenprosperity on October 18, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Am I the only one that thinks conservative women are HOT, as in head-turning, car-crash causing, HOT?
Maybe I just need to get out more.
platypus on October 18, 2008 at 8:35 AM
That isn’t what she called for,Ed. She said she’d wish the media would do their job and report the truth.
Who are you trying not to offend by aiding matthews and the left by misrepresenting Rep. Bachmann’s words?
peacenprosperity on October 18, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Chris Matthews is now widely known for his “tingly feeling running my leg” comment describing his emotions while listening to Obama deliver a speech. Millions of Americans, and millions overseas now see Matthews as a complete Liberal kookaid drinking weasel (some what gay) news guy, working for a network that includes Keith Olbermann, widely recognized as the king of all kooks. I don’t mind Matthews getting the recognition he so richly deserves! Matthews is a good example of a kook nutter Liberal, a good example to show our youth just exactly what we mean when we are talking about a Liberal minded man.
Contrast this; Joe the plumber (making us plumbers proud) is under attack and has been targeted by the Liberal media for complete destruction. Meanwhile, a lady has her McCain/Palin sign ripped from her hands and gets hit in the face by an Obama supporter for having the nerve to show support her candidates while in an area deemed “Liberal Territory”… The Liberal media continues it’s assassination of Joe the Plumber, while refusing to cover the violence, anger, & hatred on dished out on that poor woman in Manhattan.
As the media fumes over nonexistent hate at Palin speeches, it ignores leftists who go berserk on city streets.
October 17, 2008 – by Oleg Atbashian
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
While the Democrat-leaning media continues to scare undecided voters with bedtime stories about some mythical angry McCain supporter whom nobody has seen, here is a real district attorney’s complaint documenting an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: “Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”
I have the utmost disdain for the Liberal Media. Everything that is wrong with America is on full display right now. Corruption has taken over our government like a cancer sent from the gates of hell. Our media has failed it’s original design (intent) 100%, in no way does our media provide a “service” for the American people, on the contrary, our media has become a branch of the Democrat Party & reached a bottom of sorts with the Rathergate attempt to control the destiny of a free election. The Liberal media to this day will not report the truth about Dan Rathers and CBS regarding this blatant attack on our Democracy.
The Liberal Media isn’t even making an attempt to hide their agenda with the elections of 2006, and this election of 2008.
Exposing the likes of Chris Tingles Matthews is a worthy job; well done Ed…
Keemo on October 18, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Nope your right, and the one’s that didn’t necessarily fit that description seem to be all endorsing barry.
peacenprosperity on October 18, 2008 at 8:36 AM
Bachman held her own in not allowing Matthews to redirect the discussion nor put words into her mouth.
She might have gone further by pointing out Ayers’s continued philosophy that belittles citizens from holding private property and enjoying the fruits of their own labor, that promotes an educational philosophy that trashes American exceptionalism as a force for good in promoting and protecting freedoms. Ayers is not overtly damaging to American. He is now coopting the political system to promote a system sympathetic to Marxist ideals.
The motor mouth who followed up in the interview was able to promote her talking-points agenda, uninterrupted by Matthews. Bechman should have anticipated the tenor of the Matthews’ questioning.
While Ayers, along with Obama, may have used the funds of a conservative, Annenberg, the two of them perverted the point of the moneys. Instead of increasing reading, math, and science skills, the funds were directed to programs that fostered socialist political aims.
Obama not only has bad judgment in his selection of alliances and mentors, he demonstrates no ability to handle big budgets toward a measurable end. He sees the government as a vehicle to redistribute wealth and punish achievers. Our American Dream is contrary to that philosophy, so that in that sense, Obama is promoting an anti-American philosophy.
Obama’s work with Rezko shows a disdain for the living conditions of the people he claimed to serve, lining the pockets of the corrupt and entrapping people in inhumane living conditions.
Bachman should have also pointed out that the (perhaps) well-meaning legislation that was supposed to offer hope and a way out of poverty have ironically had unintended consequences of breaking up families, of producing non-achieving schools, and encouraging people to remain dependent on the government.
Modern liberals are unAmerican in their belittling of independence and self-reliance.
onlineanalyst on October 18, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Wonder why the MSM doesn’t enlighten us more about these Republican women…wonder why? Michelle is very accomplished indeed. Sarah and Michelle make me wonder what I’m doing with my life…they are excellent role models for women. (Michelle also used to babysit Gretchen Carlson of Fox and Friends.)
The freshman congresswoman is a tax attorney, a full-time mom, and once worked in a fish cannery in Alaska. Before becoming Minnesota’s first Republican congresswoman, she also prayed outside of abortion clinics, helped her husband start his own business, and welcomed 23 foster children into her home.
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14445
deedledee on October 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM
BTW, your chances of finding the Stein online piece come in two varieties; slim and none.
Stein is correct. Modern-day “progressives” are only pro-American insofar as they see this country as a great store of untapped potential- which they are determined to turn to their own ends. Those ends are for the most part unrealistic, and occasionally outright dangerous. But they airily disregard all warnings of such, because they know that they are on a higher moral plane and thus cannot let the concerns of mere mundane mortals impede their crusade to create a perfect society that will be a beacon unto the world.
I used to be astonished at the number of “progressives” I meet who believe that once they are in charge;
1. There will be no need for the military, because everyone else will see that they are good, are no threat to anyone else, and so will never try to harm us.
2. That the Bill of Rights can safely be discarded (especially that troublesome second paragraph about “the right to keep and bear arms”- the very idea!), because it was only meant to protect people from a cruel and unjust (read “non-liberal”) government, and their enlightened rule will render it irrelevant.
3. That everything they want to do can always be funded, because all these years everyone who talked about there not being enough money for everything were simply liars who wanted all the money for themselves.
4. That the size of government can never be reduced, and taxes must never be lowered, but rather must get higher and hiher, because the government is the source of all wealth and jobs, and must be free to create both (This, BTW, came from a retired math teacher).
5. That people (other than themselves) are fundamentally evil, and will do violence to others who are different from them unless forcibly restrained. (Which probably explains [2] above). And
6. That none of the above should ever apply to them- not taxes, not restrictions on their ability to defend themselves (or hire it done), not government regulation, and certainly not anything limiting their ability to do whatever they want, to whoever they want, whenever they want- because since they are on a higher moral plane, they are the only people on Earth smart enough, wise enough, and good enough to be allowed to have any rights at all.
As I said, this used to astonish me. Now, I find it no more surprising than the idea that Islamists hate non-Islamists, of all stripes.
Because in each case, you are dealing with people who have “matured” in an insular, hot-house culture in which they were told from birth that who they were made them innately superior to everyone else, and that therefore it was their inalienable right to rule over everyone else. And nothing in their adult lives has ever challenged that initial misapprehension. (The math teacher I spoke of earlier has never held a job that was not paid for by the government, for instance.)
When people have an extremely narrow worldview,are convinced of their own innate superiority, and refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy, or even existence, of any other way of thinking, and then compound that by often becoming enamored of atavistic beliefs long ago discarded by rational people because they “resonate” with their own narcissistic egotism, what you get in the end depends on the milieu’.
In a primitive state where “might makes right”, you get a violent radical who will kill anyone who gets in his way in his quest for power.
In an over-civilized state (one “safe” enough that stupidity is not an automatic death sentence- see “Darwin Award”)- you get an arrogant, overbearing do-gooder who is determined to make everyone else dance to his or her tune- “for their own good”.
Or, in other words, a liberal.
clear ether
eon
eon on October 18, 2008 at 8:45 AM
platypus on October 18, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Women on the left will turn it around when someone else pays for it. Except of course those who think bathing, shaving and personal hygiene are so Republican. But we won’t see them because they will be so happy that they will no longer need to demonstrate.
Cindy Munford on October 18, 2008 at 8:51 AM
I bet that if someone were to reconstruct the grant record of the Annenberg moneys, fraud and/or misrepresentation would be found. Since the money was intended to be used as a supplement to federally funded schools, I’m certain that there are federally mandated “no go” areas (political speech, conflict of interest, etc.).
I smell a federal law violation (or a dozen) underneath all this Annenberg Challenge “mad money” manure pile.
platypus on October 18, 2008 at 8:51 AM
The Center for Media and Public Affairs, a media analysis group, kept a tally of jokes told about the presidential contenders on the “Late Show” and “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno” in the five weeks after McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate and vaulted the little-known Alaska governor into the national spotlight.
The total: Republicans, 286. Democrats, 42.
“Generally the Republicans get targeted much more often than Democrats, but this election is driving it off the charts,” said CMPA Executive Director Donald Rieck.
Letterman and Leno told 106 jokes about McCain and 180 about Palin in the 25 shows that aired between Aug. 29, when McCain chose her, and Oct. 2, the date of the vice presidential debate.
Barack Obama, who may be Leno’s guest next week, was targeted only 26 times — barely once a night. His gaffe-prone running mate, Joe Biden, who is scheduled to appear on Leno Thursday night, was hit only 16 times, not even one-tenth the number of jokes told about Palin over the five-week period.
And that’s Leno and Letterman; one can only imagine the disproportion if we add “comics” like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Democrats have gone around the bend, carried away with hate to a degree that we haven’t seen in this country since the 1850s and 1860s. This attack on a middle-aged lady with a McCain sign by a New York man, now charged with criminal assault, is one of many such stories. These are sad times, and I’m afraid the bottom is still nowhere in sight.
Pretty good analysis…
Keemo on October 18, 2008 at 8:52 AM
The more I read that statement, the more stunned I am. You are using a leftist tactic to attack a good conservative congresswoman. You totally distorted what she said and inferred something else (not to mention that history has proven that our government and hollywood was in fact being infiltrated and manipulated by communists under the direction of the soviet union during the event you sited). I wouldn’t be surprised if a leftist media member picks up on that and starts repeating it.
There seems to be a pattern here.
peacenprosperity on October 18, 2008 at 8:57 AM
With the MSM always choosing sides and being completely unwilling to vet their candidates, it’s frightening to think what a liberal presidential candidate could get away with. Had Clinton done something identical to Watergate, there would have been no Woodward/Bernstein investigative reporting, no headlines, nothing. It would have been relegated to p. 87 in the NYT, and referred to as a mere bureaucratic snafu, e.g., Filegate.
whitetop on October 18, 2008 at 9:00 AM
I think you viewed her answer from the wrong place.
Mathews’ intent with his question to her was to put her on teh spot and probably humiliate her by having her conjure up a number of radical america hating congressmen.
I’m sure she realized that and so turned the tables on him.. saying “if you really care about this then i’m sure the press will look into it”
VinceP1974 on October 18, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Lately I’ve been beginning to realize that maybe we don’t have to rhetorically obliterate our opponents in every encounter in order to “win.” A good enough argument ought to be good enough. Why doesn’t the Republican party have the right to rely on an informed voter if it’s to be held accountable for electoral success?
The left’s ace-in-the-hole has long been that no matter how poor their argument, their media allies will spin/manufacture/create the reporting necessary to make it look like the left won.
Our ace-in-the-hole should be that we can rely on the American people being able to understand that nearly all MSM reporting is a hatchet job, and that our voters will examine the issues before they enter the voting booth.
How did we ever put ourselves in the position of having to both win the argument as it’s happening, and somehow “convince” the American people that they’re being lied to and play for fools. At some point, the people need to rise to wise-up sufficiently so that Republicans and Conservatives can fight on a level playing field. Maybe we finally have.
More and more I see that the “way out” of our current situation is for Republican politicians to repeatedly ask Americans as part of their campaign speeches to take responsibility for their vote, by explaining that the choices these days between Democrats and Republicans are essentially referendums on political and economic way of life–namely between socialism and our traditional style of democracy, between capitalism and state management of the economy, etc. , and that if people are going to wait 2 weeks before an election in order to learn about the candidates, or vote by party because their grandfathers voted that way, or rely on the local media and tv reporting for their political news, that Republicans can’t be held completely responsible for losses.
The Republican Party depends on the educated voter. The Democrat party relies on bamboozling the voter.
JiangxiDad on October 18, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Depends what mainstream means. My understanding of it makes it anti-American. Guess it depends on what American means as well.
JiangxiDad on October 18, 2008 at 9:04 AM
JiangxiDad on October 18, 2008 at 9:01 AM
But look who’s doing the educating. I know you mean about the specific election but pretty soon people won’t bother, they will just take “their” candidate at face value. It drives me crazy until I think of the son who would argue with a fence post and I feel a little relieved.
Cindy Munford on October 18, 2008 at 9:05 AM
I’m pretty much with you. Our problem is that we no longer agree on what “American” activities are. Until and unless we do, we can’t say what’s “un-American,” and we won’t know which side of our political divide should be running the hearings.
JiangxiDad on October 18, 2008 at 9:07 AM
If there is truth to recent statements made by some really powerful people, that Democrats in Congress purposely allowed or aided this financial crisis in order to sway this election, then comments made regarding “Un-American” behavior would be appropriate.
Many of us believe Liberal Democrats will literally do anything to achieve power. Until I see a full investigation into the financial crisis; an investigation that see’s no D’s or R’s, but only see’s the facts and the law, I will continue to believe that this Congress will do anything for political reasons, including the destruction of our economy in order to get Obama over the finish line!
Keemo on October 18, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Ed, in you effort to be reasonable, you fall into the trap of Leftists by raising the HUAAC spectre. Nowhere was Bachman suggesting such an investigation. Her point was that Obama, Ayers, and the other fellow travelers were using their political power to seize power by agitating through envy and celebrating political systems like Cuba’s of Venezuela’s to create a Marxist “paradise”.
Matthews is disingenuous to plant the idea that the history of Ayers and the like is politically inspired just two weeks from the election. The news and history of Obama’s accociates has been out there well before the primaries. The media are at fault for not thoroughly vetting the candidate Obama and exposing this troubling information. The media either irresponsibly did not do its research or consciously witheld or suppressed this information. In either case, Matthews is being less than honest in representing the press as a watchdog invested in informing the American electorate.
onlineanalyst on October 18, 2008 at 9:09 AM
The reason I keep bringing up BO’s 33 flip-flops is that we can’t believe him to not raise our taxes, we can’t believe him when he says he won’t be Jimmy Carter 2.
jgapinoy on October 18, 2008 at 9:10 AM
One has to educate themselves these days. You do it. It’s why you read HA. It’s why we un-do at home the indoctrination our kids receive in school. It’s why we pick and choose our news sources carefully. I agree, it’s something of an effort, but if it can lead to some electoral successes, it sure beats the alternatives–living under a dark shadow of despair, or outright fighting.
JiangxiDad on October 18, 2008 at 9:11 AM
…he’s spent his entire career as a leftist, & now he has a centrist agenda? Don’t believe it.
jgapinoy on October 18, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Ed, you may be splitting the baby here. You are right, probably, that mainstream liberals are not anti-American. And you may be right that not all Democrats in Congress are anti-American. But, some of both are very much anti-American; and the others are less pro-American than they are pro-party/power. So they are willing to tolerate and in some cases facilitate anti-Americanism. They may not personally practice it, but the result is the same.
MikeA on October 18, 2008 at 9:13 AM
JiangxiDad on October 18, 2008 at 9:11 AM
If I am ever blessed with grandchildren I will work the rest of my life to make sure they get a decent education. I see home schooling being huge in the future.
Cindy Munford on October 18, 2008 at 9:15 AM
My mother-in-law is with us now, visiting from her perch in So. Cal… She has informed us of how bad things are in California, with businesses closing shop and moving out of state at an alarming rate; taxes on the rise faster than the people can even pay attention to; insurance fee’s have sky rocketed out of the world; property values dropping like a lead weight while property taxes increase…
California & Michigan, a good look at what the entire country will look like with Liberals at the helm.
Keemo on October 18, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Jeez, I need my glasses and another cup of coffee. Sorry for the typos.
onlineanalyst on October 18, 2008 at 9:16 AM
I can’t get over my feelings that Sen. Obama is truly clueless when it comes to the leadership of this nation. I think that they have so denigrated W that they believe he is an idiot and that anyone can lead this nation. I fear the second coming of President Carter also.
Cindy Munford on October 18, 2008 at 9:18 AM
I saw this live last night, and then the replay, and I believe that everything that Michelle said hit the bullseye. This is the absolute stark contrast that needs to be made about the seismic change that will happen if Obama, Pelosi etc are in charge. She is a most articulate spokesman withe clear beliefs, and should be on TV daily.
kflynn on October 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM
What would you call a party that thinks America is filled with racists and gun nuts and conducts illegal wars?
CanadianGuy on October 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM
onlineanalyst on October 18, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Cracking me up.. I do the same thing every morning. My Grammar and overall English skills get better with every cup of coffee. Of coarse, I have a legitimate excuse; I’m a Plumber.
Keemo on October 18, 2008 at 9:20 AM
How about another ‘Fairness Doctrine’? How about Hate Speech Tribunals a la Mark Steyn’s tangle with Canada’s BC Human Rights Tribunal? Stuff like this will make McCarthyism look like child’s play.
petefrt on October 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM
I think one of the things I am most angry about with the Democrat mob is what they have done to George Bush. I still beleive him to be a vdery good President, and while I often disagree with him, it is usually when I think he is TOO LIBERAL, i.e. his position of imigration. All thier fury is not about his mentality or his ability; it is about him beating them. And they hate him for his opennes about his faith, which is why they hate Palin too.
MikeA on October 18, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Ed, I could not disagree more. Matthews was desperately trying to get her to go McCarthyist and in the end, she just suggested that the media (for once!) try to do it’s job and look into it. And that IS a good idea. Matthews was working so hard to trap her because he could NOT address the complaint that Obama has extensive, long-term ties to people who hate America. It’s about time somebody brought that out, especially on MSNBC. He ended up looking like an idiot.
And you know what – maybe not half, but a good part of Congress really doesn’t like America all that much, in my opinion, and I know a lot of people who feel like I do. If they loved America, they’d quit trying to turn us into France.
Laura on October 18, 2008 at 9:26 AM
I see home schooling being regulated almost out of existence, starting next year.
You’re usually right, Ms. M, and I hope you’re right this time too.
petefrt on October 18, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Rush addressed the “fairness doctrine” yesterday on his radio program. Rush said that he expects this to be top priority for the Obama-Pelosi-Reid government, and that he, Hannity, and the rest of them are ready for one hell of a legal battle ahead.
America was designed to be a country “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, not of the government, by the government, and for the government. Democrats are systimatically destroying the foundations that make-up America. To this extent, I’d say it’s fair game to call them Un-American.
Keemo on October 18, 2008 at 9:31 AM
A democrat president and a filibuster proof congress and the fascists will know they have two years to permanently cement their position. They will not act on economic issues because they know that with the condition of the economy right now, turning socialist too quickly will bring everything crashing down fast and they will be swept out of office in 2010. All their moves then will be political; they will enact the fairness doctrine and get rid of talk radio and fox news. Someone from the fcc will be approving the guests on fox. They will implement controls on the internet. They will move to make DC a state or at least give them full, independent representation in congress. They will move to do away with or radically change the electoral college. They will streamline the appointment of judges. They will outlaw the sale of firearms and ammunition. God forbid there is a large scale attack by islam within our borders because they will implement martial law and take care of it all in one fell swoop.
But maybe I’m crazy because “Mainstream liberal policy may be wrong-headed and ineffective, but it’s not anti-American”
peacenprosperity on October 18, 2008 at 9:33 AM
.
By the way, there is a critical shortage of judges right now because of the tactics of the “good” liberal Americans in congress, Ed. Those positions will be filled within a couple of months when the “good” liberal Americans take control. Then you can look back and snicker at the incompetence of the canadian star chambers when “good” liberal Americans show the world how to really set up a system of kangaroo courts.
peacenprosperity on October 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM
“Election eve, 2 weeks to go?”
Had the MSM been as kind to Obama as they have plumber Joe, Obama would not have been allowed to make it to “election eve. You POS Mathews!
abinitioadinfinitum on October 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Ed, you’re wrong all the way around. Bachmann did fine, with her only weakness being the normal disadvantage mainstream conservatives always face. In addtion, your understanding of “liberal policies” is flawed. Your commentary sounds like you’ve been around AP too long.
On the issue of “liberal policies”, you fail to understand the nature of liberalism and Leftism. The Left is not a static position or catechism of eternal truths. It is “progressive”, in the sense of “incremental.” There are no set “liberal policies.” A liberal caller to a liberal talk show (Bernie Ward, I think it was) years ago explained: Liberalism indeed does not have “principles.” “Liberalism is about different things at different times.”
In other words, there is a liberal movement which is manifested in different ways at different times. At one point, it argued for ending slavery, but said nothing of racial equality. Then it moved on to wanting civil liberties (equality under the law) for Blacks, but recognized social inequalities would exist. Then it wanted social tolerance and “civil rights” for Blacks, and just a fair chance–i.e., “judging a man by the content of his character.” Then it moved on to superior status for “traditionally oppressed classes”–Affirmative Action as we see it today–due to disadvantages. In a sense, this last condition holds a view similar to that of the nineteenth century, namely, that there are distinctions between the races. (Indeed, Justice Clarence Thomas holds that Brown v. Board was a racist decision, as it holds that Blacks need exposure to Whites in order to gain equality.)
Their point is rarely the policies themselves (which may at times be the right thing to do!), but rather the direction those policies will facilitate. All of these are steps with the effect of breaking down traditional structures and distinctions. They don’t care about Blacks as people, but rather, only as a group which they can use to tear down traditional order and manipulate society. Eventually, liberalism will move back to a call for legal equality, but only after it has used this issue for its overall purpose of breaking down the traditional order (whether it be good or bad). After all, the Left is all about breaking down distinctions, and paving the way for full equality in the “stateless utopia.”
Also, that Hussein spokesditz talked about going to Canada. Can we start a collection? Please!!
Tommygun on October 18, 2008 at 9:48 AM
It is ridiculous to think that 50 percent of Congress hates America. I am sure it is no higher than 25 percent.
Dasher on October 18, 2008 at 9:49 AM
I just saw a bit on CNN where they found two 86 year old twins (women) that are voting for the first time ever. Of course, they are both voting for Obama. Why you ask… well because McCain is 72 years old. You just can’t make this stuff up….
CC – BHO: “my Muslim faith”
CapedConservative on October 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM
Anyone who subverts the founding principles of America is Anti-American.
You have to distinguish, though, between principles and ideas.
For example, the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to bear arms, but that’s not a founding principle. It could be overturned by a constitutional amendment. So being a gun-grabber makes you an idiot, not anti-American.
A founding principle is the proposition that Government is not a bestower of rights and powers, but is itself granted rights and powers by the People.
I believe there are several in Congress who would like to see the government become the sole giver and taker of the rights and powers of individual persons. These members of Congress are profoundly anti-American.
Case in point: the imminent purge on free speech that will come under the happy name “the fairness doctrine.”
jeff_from_mpls on October 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM
whats wrong with a robo call that tells the truth?
ctmom on October 18, 2008 at 10:00 AM
I guess I should read before I comment. :)
abinitioadinfinitum on October 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM
petefrt on October 18, 2008 at 9:27 AM
That has crossed my mind to. There’s a lot of stuff to go underground if we don’t fight it now.
Cindy Munford on October 18, 2008 at 10:11 AM
There were concerns about enumerating the bill of rights. It was assumed at the time that those rights were obvious. Anyhow my thinking is the original 10 amendments, the bill of rights would be very difficult to actually change. It still takes 75 percent of the states to ratify any amendment.
Dasher on October 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Um, no disrespect Ed, but Barack Obama himself called Ayers mainstream. And, while we may think Obama is fringe left, his own party thinks he is mainstream as he is their nominee, so I have to disagree with you that “mainstream liberals” are “rightly offended” by Ayers.
Also, socialism is un-American. It just is. When the platform of the Democrat Party is virtually indistinguishable from the platform of the Communist Party USA to the point where the latter doesn’t even run their own candidates anymore and campaign for the Democrat, you have to ask, what’s wrong with this picture?
CP on October 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM
No, it does not. It takes a President to issue an executive orider, or a Congress to pass a bill, either of which is then allowed to stand by a hand picked SCOTUS. It may not be right and it may not be legal, but it will stand and your rights will be infringed.
MikeA on October 18, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Why does any serious person even bother to go on these shows? It’s obvious that the thrill up his leg doesn’t stop at Hardball (snicker) so what does one hope to accomplish by agreeing to appear?
The MSM/Obama media arm have lost any credible claim to objectivity so why give them any legitimacy?
Wine_N_Dine on October 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Bachman needed to do what McCain finally did in the last debate, namely stuff the leftist meme right back down his throat.
“I did not say liberals are anti-American, Chris. That’s YOUR interpretation of what I said, and it’s not based on my words. So, no, I’m not going to speculate about the US Congress. Obama has given us sound reasons to question his good faith by lying to us about associations with clear, anti-American radicals. He owes us an explanation for it.”
philwynk on October 18, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Sorry Ed, you’re wrong. The people who will be motivated by this are the UNDECIDEDS (as Chrissy said), arguable the people who are taking a very close look at the candidates. The robocall will cause them to start looking deeper rather than to “go over the edge”.
I think you’re reacting to the setup he gave the Obama shill who came on after the representative. His entire framing of the discussion was slanted toward his thrill for Obama.
1) Chrissy was curious how many were anti-American and she said she wished the media would look “the views of the people in congress” She did not single out leftest and neither did Chrissy. He said there were 435 members and how many did she think were anti-American. As they should look at the views of all representatives in congress JUST to report the facts. Remember, this is the same vile network who decided it was ok to inspect Joe The Plumbers rectum with a microscope because he was a public figure. Now Chrissy balks and looking up the ass of elected officials? Pffffft!
2)When he first spoke to the Oslime-a shill he said that he had been tasked to check out the congress and then quantified them as only the leftists. Pffffft! Pffffft! He created a strawman “squirrely undecided” voter by twisting her words and then nuancing the context of his question about ALL members of congress and I think you fell for it.
3)Look at the smirk on the Oslime-a shill’s face. She KNOWS that Chrissy is going to start worshiping at the Messiahs feet and she’s going to be able to walk though this interview.
In conclusion, I don’t think the folks who are paying attention are going to settle with the last word in this interview. they KNOW the associations are troubling and will look into it further.
That’s my 2 cents.
csdeven on October 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Got to agree with you there. I very large percentage on the left are outright socialists and marxists.
Domestic enemies, indeed.
techno_barbarian on October 18, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I would nuance Ed’s statement this way….
Mainstream liberalism isn’t anti-American. We have bluedog democrats who are liberal but fiscally conservative. This country would survive a country run by them. I wouldn’t like it but the fiscal responsibility would keep us out of socialism. I think.
I’m sure Ed agrees that the wacky far left are anti-American and Oslime-a is definitely in that camp (as is his whitey hating militant wife of his).
Again, my 2 cents.
csdeven on October 18, 2008 at 10:56 AM
That’s the lefts favorite word and they use it to say,”You’re to stupid to understand.”
Right back at ya.
peacenprosperity on October 18, 2008 at 11:03 AM
As onlineanalyst wrote, you got it wrong Mr. Morrisey. Bachmann didn’t let herself be cajoled by Matthews into going too far. She stood fast and said it would be illuminating if the media would investigate the worldview of allies of BHO and other members of the un-American Left. I was proud of Bachmann for not demeaning herself by explaining that there is a vast area of political thought in the Democrat party: democrats, liberality of varying degree, progressives/socialists and communists who find cover there. Obama has too many friends that are communists: Frank, his ‘poet’ friend in HI, his father, Ayres, Pfleger, Wright, the founder of Acorn, the founder of the SEIU, etc. etc.
America is a democracy. Anyone who sees America differently is un-American. Maxine Waters, for one, is un-American. That woman scares me half to death with her hatred of America. Anyone watching her can see that. She is far from alone. Many people in Congress are suspect in that they don’t believe in America as a democratic republic. I’d love to see the media plumb this subject just as Rep. Bachmann suggested.
thegreatbeast on October 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Anybody out there paying attention to which of your neighbors have those Obama signs in their yards? When it hits the fan those are the people who will be your real enemies. If you trust them to be “good Americans” you are doomed.
MikeA on October 18, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Chris Matthews is a frothing-at-the-mouth caveman. He also gets ideas stuck in his head and then yells them very loudly, which can be disorienting. I wouldn’t advise anyone to go on his program. Then without guests he wouldn’t have a program anymore.
Paul-Cincy on October 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM
The Video that could cost Obama the election:
http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/NextGenBlog/?p=68
AdrianS on October 18, 2008 at 11:24 AM
MikeA on October 18, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I can honestly tell you this Mike, the right to bear arms works better than any other dynamic I have seen in my life time. I now live in a state where most every citizen owns-packs heat in their home. The best protection from vandals and other forms of violent behavior is simply the knowledge that this behavior just might cause one his/her life.
A bad guy broke a window out, and entered into a home. An elderly lady lived in this home, and she shot & killed the intruder. This woman faced trial by the family of the thug, and a Judge decided that the woman’s actions were legal and the case was dropped. This story was in our local news last year. Everybody I talked with agreed with the Judge’s decision, the right for this woman to protect herself from the intruder was upheld, thus sending a powerful message to all would be house robbers in this state.
Keemo on October 18, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Michele did fine. She is the only one up there who knows how to deliver a Special Order in the House.
Matthews bent over backwards to get the result he thinks he got and it is obvious.
Valiant on October 18, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Keemo, I recall the story, and I too am a gun owner and avid shooter. You might say I tend to cling to religion and guns. I also agree that the 2nd Amendment is a great protection from robbers and sundry ner-do-wells. That said my friend, the 2nd Amendment is a legal thing, and it will not protect you when the thugs control the law; as I suspect we are about to see. Your guns will then help you, only to the degree that you are willing to use them fight outside the legal system.
It will not be Obama, or Pelosi or your state’s Congressmen personally who will come for you and your guns. It will be your local police, some of who are no doubt your friends and neighbors. They will be acting on orders from their chain of command and they will hate doing it but will think they have no choice.
Likewise it will not be the radicals in LA, New York or Boston who will turn you in for saying things that indicate you are not going to go quietly into the night. It will be the folks next door, or on the next church pew, or at the market.
MikeA on October 18, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Nuance: 1. a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc.
Since you have falling for the sarcastic use of the word as the ONLY meaning for the word, the group will now question your ability/desire to think on your own.
csdeven on October 18, 2008 at 11:54 AM
I know quite a few liberals. I’ve never known a single one that didn’t hate America. Oh, not like Ayers, and a lot of my liberal friends are justly and laudably revolted by his ilk, but I think liberalism inevitably leads to some species of anti-Americanism.
Partially it’s because the liberal world-view is completely shaped by multiculturalism. You will never find a single liberal, anywhere, who would agree unreservedly with the statement “America is the greatest country in the world.” Whatever they say in response, it will invariably include one of those great, big BUTs from Little Green Footballs. If you blink rapidly while the liberal is talking, you can see the giant BUT hanging in the air. Liberalism is a continuum, based on how long it takes for them to qualify their love and respect for their own country, ending in the shadowy depths of Dick Durbinism, where the response to “America is the greatest country in the world” is an incredulous snort of derision.
It’s the sincere embrace of multiculturalism that makes them this way, coupled by the incredibly powerful tides of anti-anti-Communism that still surge through liberal culture. If every nation and culture is equal, but simple observation suggests America’s is obviously superior to 95% of the rest of the world, it follows that America must be worse than it seems – there must be sins of the past that can never be forgiven, while the sins of other nations in the present must be studiously ignored or rationalized away. Sure, the American apple obviously looks much better than all the other apples at the county fair, so it must be crawling with worms inside.
Liberalism is also besotted with the quest for Utopia, and desperate to seek “superior” outsiders it can claim as allies in the quest. Ordinary folks (like, say, Ohio plumbers) recoil in horror from the most basic tenets of liberal belief. Therefore, ordinary people are stupid racist hillbilly NASCAR-loving bitterly religious clods with lots of guns. Sophisticated Europe and Canada are SO much more mature and nuanced in their attitudes, and since they are economically and technologically inferior to the United States, they must be morally superior. Ask twenty liberals if they think “America is the greatest country in the world,” and most of the ones who don’t snort will laugh. Nobody in the salons of Paris thinks Obama said anything remarkable or regrettable to that plumber.
Liberal anti-Americanism is the way they resolve the cognitive dissonance between the world as it is, and the world as their beliefs insist it should be. Some of them are thoughtful enough to push that “BUT” far back into their answer to whether “America is the greatest country in the world,” but they’re not really “liberals” in the post-LBJ sense, and when that “BUT” slides off the end of their reply, they’ll be conservatives.
Doctor Zero on October 18, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Ed, please listen again. She did not say that. She was careful to note that she was talking about, ‘certain liberals,’ not all liberals. You paid too much attention to what Matthews claimed was said instead of what was actually said.
snaggletoothie on October 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM
The problem here is the lack of a definition of what it means to be American.
How do liberals define what it means to be American and love their country? I think that is an appropriate question.
It appears to conservatives that liberals define patriotism as pushing back it’s political and cultural traditions.
I’d like to hear what they have to say.
And it appears that Chris Matthews feels that this is an effective attack on the Obama campaign and it has him very concerned.
If Obama’s people can’t see how this is directly related to the economic problems and how Joe the Plumber is going to pay the bills, then they really don’t get it, much to their detriment. At least it shows that they really do believe that socialism is the answer – again much to their detriment.
Queen0fCups on October 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Ed,
Half of congress DOES hate America of they wouldn’t support the terrorists foreign and domestic, nor would they continually attempt to turn the US into France.
This is pretty obvious and far from “ridiculous”. You don’t love someone for what you can make them into. (I have explained this to a number of chicks in my youth) You either love ‘em for what they are, or you don’t.
They are not patriots, they are traitors. Especially pelosi, reid and murtha.
dogsoldier on October 18, 2008 at 12:00 PM
And BTW – I think she did a good job, and the Obama person has failed to understand the crux of the issue and worse, the mood of the American people. No wonder they have to
commit fraudhire ACORN to get out the vote.Queen0fCups on October 18, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Matthews: Liberal, Leftist, Anti-American, POS!!
Viper1 on October 18, 2008 at 12:07 PM
MikeA on October 18, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Good points all Mike… Historical times we are in. I remain faithful in the American people and the American way of life. I, as a Conservative, am a tolerant person. I keep to myself and “live and let live” pretty much. But I do have my limits, when it comes to my family and my country, I shed my tolerance and let my instincts take over.
I consider myself a good example of a Conservative, hard working family man; however, I have had my nose broken (7) times while following my instincts. Afraid of a tough battle I am not. If the shit goes down, the sleeping giant will once again be awaken. It won’t be the people in the hood sportin Obama signs that I will worry about, it will be the people in the hood sportin Obama signs that had better behave and follow the law.
Keemo on October 18, 2008 at 12:13 PM
If it comes down to that, Mike, I’d sooner go down in a hail of bullets than submit to fascism. I guess the ones who are still alive will be the ones prying the weapon from my dead and still warm hands.
ManlyRash on October 18, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Good point. This election is a watershed moment in American history and I believe that future historians will refer to it as the point in time when the division in the nation became truly irreconcilable and the eventual schism of the U.S. into two separate nations began.
ManlyRash on October 18, 2008 at 12:28 PM
That’s a pretty tough sentance to follow, hopefully you don’t speak that way in real life. Maybe someone else will remember who said it because I can’t right now but someone said that whomever controls the language can control society and the left long ago strong armed the definition of words. I’m not going to sit here and go through the long list, if you aren’t aware they’ve done it, as with nuance, then I probably couldn’t convince you, although I wonder when was the last time you told someone you were feeling gay.
peacenprosperity on October 18, 2008 at 12:34 PM
It will likely be a less divisive time than 1968. It will be divided but the GOP will be the minority and will need to figure out how to rebuild a coalition. The one the Reagan built has been fractured and needs to be reinvented.
dedalus on October 18, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I wasn’t just speaking about politics alone. I also meant culturae, economics, theology, morality – just about every stratum of society that exists.
I realize there is a spectrum here that shifts from deep blue on the left to deep red on the right, but the shift is not a gradual one. A third of the spectrum on the left is fully blue, then transitions a bit through the various shades of purple until it becomes red a little less than another third of the way along the spectrum. It’s red from that point on.
Those who are fully red and those who are fully blue have almost NOTHING in common with each other except, perhaps, the English language. Pick any issue at random – ANY issue – and whatever the red stater believes you can make book that the blue stater will hold the opposite view.
Nor can there even be reasoned debate between the two, as each routinely denies the validity of the other’s definitions of terms and evidence in support of arguments.
I stand by my earlier statement: the American Schism is approaching and it is inevitable.
ManlyRash on October 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM
dedalus on October 18, 2008 at 12:34 PM
This country remains a “center right” country. Out of the ruin (GOP) came Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal.
Far to many of our leaders fell prey to the dark-evil temptations of life; heavy partying, unlimited sex, cash by the truck loads… The Republican Party came a long ways during my lifetime, two steps forward and one step backwards. In recent times, the GOP took several steps backwards while following the path to destruction laid at their feet. Vanity, selfishness, arrogance, elitism…. Lessons that will hopefully be learned by the new leaders rising up from the ashes.
Conservative principles are the path to a happy and rich life, a solid foundation by which to build from. Our leaders have the formula, they must live their lives based upon a solid spiritual foundation, surrounding themselves with like people rather than Liberal elitist (media) and lobbyist. Many mistakes have been made by the likes of Trent Lott and so many others, people that led the way to a GOP opportunity the likes of which I will not likely see again in my life time.
Much hope is out there though folks. Liberalism is all about raw power in the hands of the very people and institutions that use sex, drugs, alcohol, and cash as a tool in order to have power over those they so inflict. Liberalism demands that you tote the line or suffer extreme consequences. This bullshit will run it’s coarse, and get squashed like a cigarette butt in fresh dung.
Keemo on October 18, 2008 at 12:55 PM
IMHO Michelle did fine. Matthews tried to warp her words but she kept coming back to the source. Obama and his radical anti-American associates. Ed, what’s the problem here? Matthews tried to smear and obfuscate her statements but she kept on message. Obama and his troubling associates and associations have a value system 3+ standard deviations to the left of the norm. That end of the tail is anti-American.
aquaviva on October 18, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Here’s a big part of the problem – the meaning of words.
America is NOT a democracy, or at least is not intended/designed to be a democracy. Check the writings of the Founders and you’ll see this is true.
I know what you meant and that would be fine except that it is the very point that the anti-American folks use as a pivot for moral equivalence. As long as WE are sloppy in our use of words, it legitimizes THEIR sloppy use of words.
Make no mistake about it – democracy is mob rule (e.g., see Gaza, Hamas, elections, etc.).
In fairness to thegreatbeast, democratic republic is a good effort to clean it up but the proper term is representative republic.
That is America and any other view is anti-American.
platypus on October 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Power corrupts. The GOP fell victim to this and the Dems will quickly fall victim to it in 2009. Palin hasn’t succeeded in uniting the party and will likely face some blame for the defeat. We’ll see who emerges. Jindal will be interesting. I like Jeff Flake from AZ, but much will depend on Obama and what challenges the country faces during the next 4 years.
dedalus on October 18, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Deep red and deep blue might each be 30%. Bush always held onto 30% and no matter what Obama does he’ll probably keep at least 30%.
Obama is likely to win because he’ll get more of the middle 40% than McCain–probably mostly becuase of the financial market meltdown. I don’t disagree with your point that deep red and deep blue are miles apart, but a party needs to appeal to the middle 40% to win the White House.
dedalus on October 18, 2008 at 1:16 PM
dedalus on October 18, 2008 at 1:10 PM
I respectfully disagree. Obama doesn’t have the percentages (at this moment) to win a general election. I’ve explained this on another thread, so I won’t pull a repeat.
Short form:
1> Black vote: percentage met
2> Hispanic vote: very close, I’ll give it to him.
3> Female vote: percentage not met, not even close.
Wild card dynamic:
1> The white man’s greed runs a world in need; Michelle Obams’s undeniable anger towards the whitey; Rev Wright and his accusations that the white man invented the AIDS virus in order to wipe blacks from the face of the earth. Tens of thousands of white people who normally vote for the Democrat, are not going to vote for the Democrat who says and believes this crap.
Keemo on October 18, 2008 at 1:32 PM
why is it that a run up my leg supporter and or REPORTER critizize any one. such lies!
TomLawler on October 18, 2008 at 1:39 PM
We’ll see in 2 weeks. I don’t have a crystal ball and am often wrong when predicting the future. I hope McCain wins. He’ll have my vote if that helps–though I don’t live in OH, MO, FL, VA, PA or another battleground state where the vote would really help.
dedalus on October 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »