Last night, MSNBC's senior mad hatter, Chris Matthews, aired his "alarming documentary" on the "Rise of the New Right". It has been obvious for a long time now that Matthews has nothing but scorn for conservatives, tea-partiers and basically anyone who opposes the Obama agenda. Yet, Matthews has crossed the line from merely opinion journalism to gross distortion.
If you accept the "findings" of Matthews, the movement tha has arisen in opposition to Big Government and Big Congress is composed of racist, gun-toting extremists. Talk about stereotyping! Of course, he throws out the obligatory names of "dangerous" inviduals like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Alex Jones and Glenn Beck. And don't forget that sinister "Don't Tread on Me" flag. Dangerous indeed!
Yet, after everything is said and done, all the tea parties and all the town hall protests have amounted to zero incidents of violence-except a handful of incidents in which thugs from SEIU initiated the violence. Sure Matthews can dig up the memory of Tim McVeigh and some loopy militias. But that does not explain the millions of angry every day, mostly middle-age or older folks who are fed up. Yes, some or many own guns-legally and for their own home protection. We are not talking about the Crips and Bloods here.
So according to Matthews, what sinister plot does he think these "dangerous" people are cooking up? I can tell you, Chris, but you could have figured it out yourself if you had been really listening to their message. Yes, Chris, there is a conspiracy afoot. Something is going to happen, and it is going to happen soon. And you know what, Chris? There is nothing you can do to stop it. Here's a hint; the plot will be carried out this coming November.
All these people you are sounding the alarm on are going to...
VOTE.
That's why these people are considered "dangerous" by liberal ideologues like Chris Matthews.
4 comments:
The people you mention are all dangerous enemies of liberty. The problem I have with Chris Matthews is that he takes them seriously. They are a noisy babbling minority, whose muscle so far has been demonstrated by showing that they constitute a majority of 15% of Republicans in several states where Republicans can often win the support of a majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents, that is 51% or better of at least ten times the electorate in which the Tempest in a Tea Party characters have distinguished themselves. When will Matthews learn to stop mistaking a band of goldfish in a bowl for a school of whales in the ocean?
When you say the people I mention are dangerous enemies of liberty, are you referring to McVeigh and those militias, or are you referring to tea partiers, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin etc? If the former, I don't disagree. If the latter, I disagree vehementally. (Poss. Alex Jones excepted).
As for Chris Matthews, he has completely gone off the deep end and has become a caricature of himself.
We can agree on Matthews and McVeigh.
Limbaugh and Beck are, first and foremost, showmen, entertainers, people who whip up an audience because there is good money in doing so. As one astute Republican observed, if twenty percent of the people love you, and eighty percent hate you, that makes for a profitable program. To win elections you need fifty one percent.
They are, however, dangerous demagogues, insofar as people take them seriously. They are fast and loose on facts, indulge in rumor, innuendo, and warped imagination, baseless name calling, and stereotypes. I could even agree with them on this or that empiric, but the whole is more evil than the sum of its parts.
Palin is definitely not stupid. Anyone who mistakes her for a vacuous female is in for a severe shock. She is also not a populist. She is a cold, calculating, power-hungry politician who will say or do anything it takes to get her hands on the levers of power. Populist appeal, when she chooses to indulge in it, is merely a tool. In this limited sense, she has something in common with Huey Long (whose speeches I admire, although not his personality or his capacity to actually govern), Adolf Hitler (who had no redeeming qualities I can recall), Father Coughlin (who may have meant well, for all I know), and Richard J. Daley (not my kind of guy, but he could snap his fingers at the liberals, because he could turn out the votes -- something I think Palin will fall short on.)
You say that about Limbaugh and Beck because you disagree with their philosophy.
Post a Comment