Chris Matthews goes after Reince Priebus on GOP's race baiitng

[First]

You play right into the hand of what Newt is talking about. Any mention of food stamps by a Republican automatically brings Liberals crying racism. Now we have a black President so now any criticism of him on any issue can be a race card issue. You are taking it to a whole new level with your theoretical nonsense of how every senior has leftover racism from the victories blacks have made in the 60 and must get out and vote to stop the blacks. Good lord you are pathetic.

I'm sorry you so strongly refute history, but it is what it is, and it's sad but true. Reread history books from high school if you're still confused.

 

[Moonbeam]

So Republicans can't talk about food stamps because it's interpreted as racist "code" by pea-brained hacks...give me a fucking break.

You don't want to talk about food stamps or you would talk about food stamps. What you want to do is mention food stamps to bring up all the inculcated bigotry instilled in the conservative mind surrounding that topic, all the hatred and contempt you feel about those who would take money from your pocket to feed the kinds of worthless people you have associated with food stamp recipients. You want to play on people's bigotry, you don't want to talk about food stamps. But this altered reality you live in is impenetrable.

 

[Moonbeam]

So...I guess it's OK to blame Obama for everything except food stamps since that particular subject offends your personal racial sensitivities...despite the majority of recipients being white. Got it.

BTW, besides Chris Matthews, who's currently playing up this "welfare queen" rhetoric?

Welfare queen rhetoric?????? You mean there's a welfare queen rhetoric out there??????? You mean that nobody has to mention welfare queen anymore because everybody is steeped to their eyeballs that bigotry? Thanks for proving what you sought to deny. The problem with the blind is that they never see the wall coming and run right smack into it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Brokaws words are what's wrong with the MSM. Their equivalence. What over the past 20 years have the democrats done that is equivalent to the Republicans? They impeached Bill Clinton and have just brought Holder up against contempt charges. For the last year they have mounted a sustained effort to change voting laws to fix a problem that doesn't exist. There is no equivalency. The Republican party is out of control and Brokaw is a vestige of what s wrong with the MSM and why the Republican party gets away with it.

Btw, did you notice Brokaw gave not 1 example of why the democratic does the same thing?

I agree with all of that ... except your implication that is what Brokaw was talking about. As I interpreted his comments, he was talking narrowly about the current campaigns, and saying he believes the public is fed up with the dishonest attacks by both campaigns. He was not (again, IMO) trying to make the broader claim that the Dems' actions and policies have been just as bad as Repubs' over the last 20 years. That, I agree, would be a false equivalence.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You don't want to talk about food stamps or you would talk about food stamps. What you want to do is mention food stamps to bring up all the inculcated bigotry instilled in the conservative mind surrounding that topic, all the hatred and contempt you feel about those who would take money from your pocket to feed the kinds of worthless people you have associated with food stamp recipients. You want to play on people's bigotry, you don't want to talk about food stamps. But this altered reality you live in is impenetrable.

Moonie...you don't know me nearly as well as you think you do. I lost my father at an early age. Our family of 4 grew up dirt poor and were totally dependent on ADC (Aid To Dependent Children) and the kindness of others. Please know that I fully appreciate and support reasonable assistance for the poor.

Please don't talk to me of living in an altered reality until you take a good long look at yourself in the mirror. You assume much and actually know very little about me or what I believe.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Welfare queen rhetoric?????? You mean there's a welfare queen rhetoric out there??????? You mean that nobody has to mention welfare queen anymore because everybody is steeped to their eyeballs that bigotry? Thanks for proving what you sought to deny. The problem with the blind is that they never see the wall coming and run right smack into it.

Yes, they do.

 

[emperus]

I agree with all of that ... except your implication that is what Brokaw was talking about. As I interpreted his comments, he was talking narrowly about the current campaigns, and saying he believes the public is fed up with the dishonest attacks by both campaigns. He was not (again, IMO) trying to make the broader claim that the Dems' actions and policies have been just as bad as Repubs' over the last 20 years. That, I agree, would be a false equivalence.

Even in this campaign. There is no equivalence. Let's leave out the new swift boat ads, the birthers, the socialism claims, the false attacks on ACA and medicare, the "cues from europe" claims. What on the Democratic side compares to the outright lie of the welfare ad? Or even the "you didn't build that" line. These are Mitt Romney ads that he is building his campaign on, when neither one is factually accurate.

 

[Matt1970]

I'm sorry you so strongly refute history, but it is what it is, and it's sad but true. Reread history books from high school if you're still confused.

Nobody is refuting history except you maybe. You just can't insunuate that something that happened in the 60's is some battle cry for the Republicans to call on people 55 and older without me throwing a few facts your way. If you managed to actually read some history books rather than skiming through them looking for amunition against Republicans, you will know that there were plenty of whites and Republicans in full support of the civil rights movement.

Here is the Civil Rights vote by party in 1964.

By party

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

You can see a lot higher percentage of Democrats were voting agains the Civil Rights Act than the Republicans. It's not that you are wrong, it's just that you have been given a lot of bad data as fact.

 

[Bowfinger]

Btw, noone here has refuted anything that Chris went after Reince on. I've seen a lot of ad hominem attacks, but nothing to argue Chris was wrong.

Ask yourself these questions.

1.) What joke was Mitt trying to make. What was the punchline?

I have substantial contempt for Romney, but I do believe this was just an awkward attempt at a joke. I think it's more humorous if one not only dismisses the birthers as kooks, but also believe they are so clearly kooky that rational people summarily dismiss them. I can see how it's less funny for someone who believes the birther noise was actually damaging, and fear that Romney giving it any hint of credibility increases the damage. I may be naive, but I didn't get any sense from Romney's comment that he was trying to do the latter. He just was trying to make his crowd chuckle.

2.) What does Europe have to do with anything? Mitt's plan was a precursor for Romney Care. THe indvidual mandate was a Republican proposal. Why, keep bringing up Europe other than to foreignize someone. And if you are foreignizing someone aren't you engaged in race politics?

I agree the Europe comment was an attack, apparently based in nothing but innuendo. Unfortunately, Matthews used up everyone's patience on the other comments. By the time he challenged Priebus about this, everyone else wanted to move on. This let Priebus off the hook for justifying it.

 

[emperus]

So, I guess that settles it then...Republicans can't talk about the dramatic increase in food stamp usage that occurred on Obama's watch. And, more importantly, certainly can't attribute any blame for this to Obama...that's just fucking racist.

Maybe you want to look at the red lines to get a sense of why so many people are on welfare.

 

[Bowfinger]

Even in this campaign. There is no equivalence. Let's leave out the new swift boat ads, the birthers, the socialism claims, the false attacks on ACA and medicare, the "cues from europe" claims. What on the Democratic side compares to the outright lie of the welfare ad? Or even the "you didn't build that" line. These are Mitt Romney ads that he is building his campaign on, when neither one is factually accurate.

The ones that comes immediately to mind are the "Romney killed my wife by laying me off" ad and the "pushing the old lady off a cliff" piece. There have been other anti-Romney bits that made me shake my head and think, "Don't stoop to their level."

Bear in mind I'm in Iowa so we are saturated with ads and campaign coverage. I will also note, in fairness, the anti-Romney attacks from the primaries tend to blend into the anti-Romney attacks from the left, so it can be a bit misleading. For example, many associate the Romney dog attack with the Obama campaign, but it actually came from Gingrich during the primaries.

 

[emperus]

Moonie...you don't know me nearly as well as you think you do. I lost my father at an early age. Our family of 4 grew up dirt poor and were totally dependent on ADC (Aid To Dependent Children) and the kindness of others. Please know that I fully appreciate and support reasonable assistance for the poor.

Please don't talk to me of living in an altered reality until you take a good long look at yourself in the mirror. You assume much and actually know very little about me or what I believe.

I don't know you, but the fact that you were on assistance makes your support of Republican policies even more offensive.

The ADC was a New Deal program. That if Republicans had their way then and I believe now wouldn't have existed.

 

[emperus]

The ones that comes immediately to mind are the "Romney killed my wife by laying me off" ad and the "pushing the old lady off a cliff" piece. There have been other anti-Romney bits that made me shake my head and think, "Don't stoop to their level."

Bear in mind I'm in Iowa so we are saturated with ads and campaign coverage. I will also note, in fairness, the anti-Romney attacks from the primaries tend to blend into the anti-Romney attacks from the left, so it can be a bit misleading. For example, many associate the Romney dog attack with the Obama campaign, but it actually came from Gingrich during the primaries.

I agree, but both ads wern't by the Obama campaign.

I'm torn about the wife ad. I don't necessarily think it's fair. But, I also think firms like Romney's (and 3 of my good friends work in Private Equity) come in break up companies, fire emplyees in the tune of making a quick buck. They never think or care of the devastation they leave in their wake.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't know you, but the fact that you were on assistance makes your support of Republican policies even more offensive.

I'm a conservative on some issues, moderate on some, and even liberal on others. This may be hard for you to understand, but I don't march lock-step with the Republican party.

BTW, I find your assumption offensive and an insult to your intelligence.

The ADC was a New Deal program. That if Republicans had their way then and I believe now wouldn't have existed.

Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the Social Security Act which included ADC.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally.html

 

[Bowfinger]

I agree, but both ads wern't by the Obama campaign.

Agreed. They are from Obama supporters, however. I'd have to listen to Brokaw's comments again to hear if he aimed specifically at the two official campaigns, or whether he was speaking more generally. I will concede that some of Romney's official campaign attacks have been more blatantly dishonest than anything produced by the official Obama campaign. Cynics will suggest this is only because Obama has done a better job of channeling his worst mudslinging through purportedly independent proxies.

I'm torn about the wife ad. I don't necessarily think it's fair. But, I also think firms like Romney's (and 3 of my good friends work in Private Equity) come in break up companies, fire emplyees in the tune of making a quick buck. They never think or care of the devastation they leave in their wake.

Indeed. The point of that ad is absolutely valid, and it's something the Obama campaign should continue to push. I just think that specific ad was overly exploitative and misleading. Given how quickly his wife passed, it seems pretty unlikely that his lack of health insurance made the difference.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonie...you don't know me nearly as well as you think you do. I lost my father at an early age. Our family of 4 grew up dirt poor and were totally dependent on ADC (Aid To Dependent Children) and the kindness of others. Please know that I fully appreciate and support reasonable assistance for the poor.

Please don't talk to me of living in an altered reality until you take a good long look at yourself in the mirror. You assume much and actually know very little about me or what I believe.

Sorry, I don't mean you as you but you conservatives. I also don't mean look at yourself so you will see how ugly you are but so that you can start seeing. Facts can be seen as ugly or just facts. Now all that aside, do you see that you can't assume a welfare queen stereotype exists without also admitting the fact that every time welfare is mentioned it will trigger that stereotype in all who have it? This is what Mathews sees and what you have chosen here to pass over. Please address the stronger points of my posts as well as where they are weak. I find that no amount of stating that conservatives are conservatives through no fault of their own and have many many strong points going for them, they still can't seem to see anything but criticism from me. Always open to listening to what you believe....

 

[monovillage]

Main Entry: vile
Part of Speech:
adjective
Definition:
offensive, horrible
Synonyms:
abandoned, abject, appalling, bad, base, coarse, contemptible, corrupt, debased, degenerate, depraved, despicable, dirty, disgraceful, disgusting, evil, filthy, foul, horrid, humiliating, ignoble, immoral, impure, iniquitous, loathsome, low, mean, miserable, nasty, nauseating, nefarious, noxious, perverted, repellent, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, shocking, sickening, sinful, sleazy*, stinking, ugly, vicious, vulgar, wicked, worthless, wretched
Are you saying that calling somebody vile is a weak case of demonization?
Main Entry:
diabolic
Part of Speech:
adjective
Definition:
evil, fiendish
Synonyms:
Mephistophelian, atrocious, cruel, damnable, demoniac, demonic , devilish, hellish, impious, infernal, monstrous, nasty, nefarious, satanic, serpentine, shocking, unhallowed, unpleasant, vicious, vile, villainous, wicked
-----------------
I see vile right there in the synonyms for demonic? I don't see how I could make a better case.
But the point I make is that because of the egotistical component of truthiness thinking and the high priority conservatives place on morality, they do not want to admit to demonizing others because they know it's immoral. Thus conservatives have all the advantages. They imagine themselves moral when they are not and crucify liberals as the ones who are immoral while functioning in a complete state of denial. It is this truth about conservatives that makes liberals like Mathews sick. Conservatives demonize liberals and when they are demonized for demonizing they have a fucking fit.
It has not always been true that conservatives are so insane. But we are all lost together as long as conservatives defend against the truth.
So can you see that you demonied Mathews by calling him vile?

I highlighted the definition I intended in that post, did you miss it?

2
: of little worth or account : common; also : mean

Please don't pull a Bowfinger or a Matthews and say you miraculously know what definition I really intended when I used a term.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sorry, I don't mean you as you but you conservatives.

I can only speak for myself and what I think. It would be pure speculation on my part to assume what "conservatives" think in general. It's not like conservatives are part of some Borg collective as some may imagine. Personally, I see a lot of diverse thought among conservatives.

I also don't mean look at yourself so you will see how ugly you are but so that you can start seeing. Facts can be seen as ugly or just facts.

I think I see better than you give me credit for.

Now all that aside, do you see that you can't assume a welfare queen stereotype exists without also admitting the fact that every time welfare is mentioned it will trigger that stereotype in all who have it? This is what Mathews sees and what you have chosen here to pass over. Please address the stronger points of my posts as well as where they are weak.

Human beings love to think in stereotypes...it's part of their nature...surely you see this weakness in yourself. When I hear the term "welfare queen", the stereotype I see is someone who's taking unfair advantage of the welfare system. Personally, the stereotype doesn't carry racist overtones for me...but I can see that it may for others like Matthews. However, I don't know why he thinks the way he does...but I definitely don't share his perspective.

I find that no amount of stating that conservatives are conservatives through no fault of their own and have many many strong points going for them, they still can't seem to see anything but criticism from me. Always open to listening to what you believe....

I always thought of you as reasonably enlightened, but I don't get why you constantly denigrate a huge group of human beings based on your particular stereotype of "conservatives". Please know this, I am not that stereotypical conservative. People are incredibly diverse in a myriad of different ways...be it intelligence, skin color, political ideologies, etc, etc, etc. This is totally OK in my book. And disagreeing on opinions is totally OK in my book as well. Is it OK in your book?

 

[emperus]

Here's a good post by Andrew Sullivan on this topic.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/last-call-for-the-race-card.html

 

[First]

Nobody is refuting history except you maybe. You just can't insunuate that something that happened in the 60's is some battle cry for the Republicans to call on people 55 and older without me throwing a few facts your way. If you managed to actually read some history books rather than skiming through them looking for amunition against Republicans, you will know that there were plenty of whites and Republicans in full support of the civil rights movement.

Here is the Civil Rights vote by party in 1964.

By party

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

You can see a lot higher percentage of Democrats were voting agains the Civil Rights Act than the Republicans. It's not that you are wrong, it's just that you have been given a lot of bad data as fact.

I'm sorry you're so woefully misinformed about reality. For one, fact is Dems and Repubs changed parties and reshuffled their bases so that conservatives rallied around Repubs and liberals around Dems during the 1960's and 70's. Two and most importantly, the vote was entirely regional in nature and had no party affiliation one way or another, as Southern and Northern Dems/Repubs voted in entirely opposite directions. These are well known facts of history, so you can muddy the waters with the 1964 Civil Rights Act vote all you want, but your point about this legislation is still almost entirely irrelevant to my point about coded racial messaging. Facts belie your half-baked, conservative-fed non-reality.

 

[Moonbeam]

DSF: I can only speak for myself and what I think. It would be pure speculation on my part to assume what "conservatives" think in general. It's not like conservatives are part of some Borg collective as some may imagine. Personally, I see a lot of diverse thought among conservatives.

M: Both are true and one does not deny the other. When scientists study the brains of liberals and conservatives and note differences between the two groups they are looking at the Borg. The traits I speak of here you seem to want to call speculation, is data from scientific experiments.

DSF: I think I see better than you give me credit for.

M: I give you more credit than I think you give me credit for. I have little to say to folk who are, what, shall we say, vile?

DSF: Human beings love to think in stereotypes...it's part of their nature...surely you see this weakness in yourself.

M: I do indeed, but I don't call it something I love but the stupidity of falling for convenient brainwashing and confirmational bias.

DSF: When I hear the term "welfare queen", the stereotype I see is someone who's taking unfair advantage of the welfare system. Personally, the stereotype doesn't carry racist overtones for me...but I can see that it may for others like Matthews. However, I don't know why he thinks the way he does...but I definitely don't share his perspective.

M: It isn't his perspective. It is the perspective he sees in bigoted conservatives trained to associate welfare queen with black ghettoization. It is a stereotype you have admitted exists, now we are just arguing that how you present that stereotype to yourself is not how it exists as a stereotype on average out there with conservative voters. It is no longer popular to be a racist bigot but the bigotry still exists and has political used for folk who want the bigot vote. So regardless on your personal view I think you are blinding yourself to this. It shouldn't be more obvious to a liberal, anymore than bigotry is completely invisible to the bigot and obvious as hell to those not so infected.

DSF: I always thought of you as reasonably enlightened, but I don't get why you constantly denigrate a huge group of human beings based on your particular stereotype of "conservatives".

M: I don't believe I am denigrating them when I describe how they are according to the scientific evidence. I think it isn't very good news, the scientific truth, that is, and it's taken as criticism. This is why it can't be cured by reason. The scientific evidence points to the fact that American conservatives have almost completely insulated themselves in a delusional world that is in fact a threat to the nation. In other places, like most frustrated and outraged liberals, I show my temper and angry frustration because MY COUNTRY THAT I LOVE IS BEING DESTROYED BY IDIOTS and for that I am sorry. I think the forum rules should be changed to force me to be respectful. Meanwhile I can only do the best that I can.

DSF: Please know this, I am not that stereotypical conservative. People are incredibly diverse in a myriad of different ways...be it intelligence, skin color, political ideologies, etc, etc, etc. This is totally OK in my book. Is it OK in your book?

M: If I may, I would like to see you as one of my friends.

 

[cybrsage]

For one, fact is Dems and Repubs changed parties...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! You are pretty funny!

The DNC disagrees with you, btw. They say they have been around for more than 200 years. The GOP has not been, seeing as it started just before the Civil War.

 

[First]

lol troll.

 

[Tom]

Nobody is refuting history except you maybe. You just can't insunuate that something that happened in the 60's is some battle cry for the Republicans to call on people 55 and older without me throwing a few facts your way. If you managed to actually read some history books rather than skiming through them looking for amunition against Republicans, you will know that there were plenty of whites and Republicans in full support of the civil rights movement.

Here is the Civil Rights vote by party in 1964.

By party

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

You can see a lot higher percentage of Democrats were voting agains the Civil Rights Act than the Republicans. It's not that you are wrong, it's just that you have been given a lot of bad data as fact.

The racist wing of the Democratic party largely left to join the Republican party during the Civil Rights Era.

The Republican party has relied on Southern white males ever since. They aren't necessarily racist, but they are the people who are "victimized" by Women's rights, affirmative action, welfare Moms, young black criminals, gays, etc.

As told to them by the new Republican party, to garner their support.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Why do Conservatives continually pretend that there was not a major party reshuffling during the Civil Rights Era?

After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became intolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression. Rising educational levels and rising prosperity in the South, combined with shifts to the left by the national Democratic Party on a variety of socio-economic issues, led to widespread abandonment of the Democratic Party by white voters and Republican dominance in many Southern states by the 1990s and 2000s.
When Richard Nixon courted voters with his Southern Strategy, many Democrats became Republicans and the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal. However, Democratic incumbents still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control gradually collapsed, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. Southern Democrats of today who vote for the Democratic ticket are mostly urban liberals. Rural residents tend to vote for the Republican ticket, although there are a sizable number of Conservative Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats