Tag Archives: nikki-haley

Confused Matthews: How Can South Carolina GOPers Vote for a Indian-American But Not Support a Black President?

Chris Matthews, on Wednesday’s Hardball, invited on recently defeated Republican Representative Bob Inglis to slam Matthews’ favorite targets, namely the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and after he got the requisite criticisms out of the South Carolina congressman of those entities asked him if he could explain how primary voters from his own party could nominate an Indian-American like Nikki Haley, even though they’ve “got a problem with a black president?” Matthews, clearly not grasping the concept that perhaps voters in South Carolina could cast their ballot based out of purely ideological and not racial motives, asked Inglis the following question: How do you figure your state out? It’s pretty conservative obviously. It’s Strom Thurmond country in many ways and, and it has people like DeMint pretty far over and then people like Lindsey Graham who are sort of regular conservatives. But then you nominated, your party has nominated an Indian-American woman, Nikki Haley. Obviously an attractive candidate, she knows how to present herself obviously, but what’s that about? Is that just an interesting little aspect? It’s okay to be Indian-American but we’ve got a problem with this black president? What’s that about? Before Matthews ended his show on that stumper of a question, he egged on the soon to be former Representative Inglis to attack the Tea Party, Limbaugh and Palin, as seen in the following exchanges that were aired on the July 14 Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, the Tea Party has racked up big wins already in 2010. They scared Senator Arlen Specter out of the Republican primary and watched him lose as a Democrat. Former Alabama Democratic Congressman Parker Griffith did the exact opposite. He jumped into the Republican primary and lost down there. Tea Partiers ousted Senator Bob Bennett at the Republican state convention out in Utah. They ran Governor Charlie Crist right out of the Republican Senate primary in Florida. And the latest victim of the Tea Party is South Carolina congressman Bob Inglis who lost a Republican runoff just last month after getting hammered in town halls for voting for TARP and knocking down false rumors about death panels. He joins us right now. Congressman Inglis, I want to make sure everybody knows you’re not a RINO. You’ve got an 85 percent conservative record, you’ve got a five percent liberal record. You’re a conservative, right? REP. BOB INGLIS: Right, I think it’s actually 93 percent ACU rating. Yeah, yeah. MATTHEWS: Well I looked, I looked at it a couple years ago. So you’re up to date at ninety, ninety-what? INGLIS: Ninety-three percent. MATTHEWS: So you’re not conservative enough for South Carolina. INGLIS: I needed that extra seven. MATTHEWS: Oh my God! Well you told the Associated Press, quote, “I think we have a lot of leaders that are following those television and talk radio personalities and not leading us.” We’ve had a little contest here, as you know, waiting for somebody. Well, you’re a lame duck now but maybe you count. But we’ve been waiting for somebody to say “I’m not really a ditto head. I don’t really follow Rush Limbaugh’s thinking. He’s not my leader.” Are you ready to be the first? INGLIS: Well I’ll tell ya- MATTHEWS: Or are you still gonna hold back? INGLIS: I don’t, I don’t follow Rush Limbaugh’s lead. You know, when, when I found out I didn’t? I was in six years and I was out of Congress for six years and I was listening to him one day and he’s making fun of people in cars who get high fuel efficiency and I thought, you know, Rush, that’s it. I turned the radio off. MATTHEWS: Yeah. INGLIS: Because it didn’t fit with my dad who’s 87 years old. He’s my idea of conservative. He used to tell us, “Now, we gonna let off the gas at the Tarvers’ and you coast to our driveway,” because he’s a conservative. MATTHEWS: Well what happened to Teddy Roosevelt? Wasn’t he a great conservative in the Republican Party? INGLIS: Yeah, absolutely. MATTHEWS: A conservationist. INGLIS: Yeah and so my, yeah and so my thought was, you know, listen, conservatism is saving resources, and, and what Rush was further making fun of is people driving electric cars with regenerative braking. I’m thinking, if I make the investment to get up the hill with my gas, why wouldn’t I want to generate electricity coming down the hill? I’m a conservative. MATTHEWS: Rush, by the way, says a lot of things. He makes fun of anybody who tries to deal with conservation issues, which are traditionally conservative issues. He makes fun of all kinds of things. … MATTHEWS: You, you sir, strike me, as I hate to use the word, as someone who’s well-educated. I know you went to UVA Law School. Is that hurting you? Is – no I’m dead serious about this. Do you get hurt in the Republican Party now for having had a fine education? Do people think, look askance at you and say, “Oh he’s an egghead, he’s got a good degree from UVA” Is that a problem now, it’s better to be a yahoo? Well I mean to be really uneducated like Palin, to really be proud of the fact you don’t know anything? INGLIS: There, there is a sense out there that ignorance is strength. But you know ignorance really is not strength. MATTHEWS: Where did that come from? Where did that come from? INGLIS: And here’s my view. I’m ignorant of a lot of things. There are a lot of things I need to know but if I choose to remain ignorant of those things, that’s when, that’s quite a different matter. So I have a sense of how much I don’t know and I need to find out a lot of information. I think that’s what education gives you is a sense of how much you don’t know and let’s go find it out. MATTHEWS: Well, what do you make of Palin’s – without getting — she seems like, I guess a nice person as a human being but the question is, is she selling herself as someone – she calls it common sense. But I think what she’s really selling is “I don’t read books. I don’t read newspapers, Katie Couric. I don’t read magazines. I don’t need information. I have common conservative sense.” What does that mean? To say you know things without having read it or learned anything? What do people know naturally? … MATTHEWS: Well, that fear that led people like Rick Perry of Texas to talk about secession, those old scare terms about race. I mean race is always an issue in America but to go back and rip that scab off? What’s that about? Why are people doing that? Is it their fear, fear of change or is it just anger or what? INGLIS: Yeah well, I think that we, what we’re finding out here that in 2010 we have not fought the final fight against the scent of racism and won. We’re still in it. We’re still dealing with that problem. We always will be, but we need to extend grace to one another and have some honesty about it, understand that we are different, but let’s find a way to extend grace and get through it, and that’s – rather than womp up those fears and drive with misinformation reactions against people because of their party or their ethnicity. That’s a real problem and it- MATTHEWS: How do you figure your state out? It’s pretty conservative obviously. It’s Strom Thurmond country in many ways and, and it has people like DeMint pretty far over and then people like Lindsey Graham who are sort of regular conservatives. But then you nominated, your party has nominated an Indian-American woman, Nikki Haley. Obviously an attractive candidate, she knows how to present herself obviously, but what’s that about? Is that just an interesting little aspect? It’s okay to be Indian-American but we’ve got a problem with this black president? What’s that about?

Read the original here:
Confused Matthews: How Can South Carolina GOPers Vote for a Indian-American But Not Support a Black President?

Matthews: ‘Media Will Try To Destroy Her’ But Palin Can Win GOP Nod

An unexpected prediction, and an even more surprising admission from Chris Matthews this morning . . . Appearing on Morning Joe, the Hardball host predicted that Sarah Palin would seek the Republican presidential nomination, and painted a path to victory for her.  In a moment of candor, Matthews admitted that “the media will try to destroy her, of course.” Matthews made his comments in the course of a pre-taped Mojo Midterm Exam segment that aired on today’s Morning Joe. Matthews saw a scenario in which evangelicals would sweep Sarah to victory in the Iowa GOP primary. She would lose New Hampshire, but put in a respectable-enough showing to move on to South Carolina, where her game-changing endorsement of Nikki Haley would pay dividends.  The fight would then move to Michigan, where Matthews says Palin “beats the hell” out of Mitt Romney, whom he curiously described as “not a politician.” Then came Chris’ flight of frankness. CHRIS MATTHEWS: [Palin] maybe gets an early knockout.  That’s how I see her winning. An early knockout’s the way she can win. The media will try to destroy her of course, but if she goes early, wins early, I think she can win it before anyone can stop her. Note Matthews’ blase “of course” appended to his observation that the MSM will try to destroy Palin.  He takes it as a given that everyone knows the liberal media have it out for her. Question: does Matthews envision himself participating in the media effort to “destroy” Palin?

More here:
Matthews: ‘Media Will Try To Destroy Her’ But Palin Can Win GOP Nod

Newsweek: ‘Why We Sexualize GOP Women’ – ‘Too Hot to Handle’

Newsweek on Saturday did an astonishingly poor job of exploring why Republican women are suddenly being attacked for their beauty. “There seems to be an insistent, increasingly excitable focus on the supposed hotness of Republican women in the public eye, like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, and Nikki Haley-not to mention veterans like Ann Coulter,” the article now being prominently featured at the magazine’s website began. Hypocritically, Julia Baird’s piece never once explained or wondered why the same thing isn’t being done to Democrat women. Instead, the numerous headlines exclusively trivialized physically attractive GOP females such as the following from the website’s front page (h/t Twitter’s @buszero):   Once entering the website to the actual article, readers were presented with another set of tasteless headlines (photo courtesy AP):  Doesn’t the headline “Too Hot to Handle” defeat the purpose of exposing sexism? Or wasn’t that Baird’s point? It’s odd to see how some men insist that when women start to grasp power, we should think of them primarily as playthings and provocateurs. Is this the best way to explain their success? They aren’t challenging the status quo. They’re being wild! They’re not trying to lift the ban on offshore drilling. They’re being naughty! When four women beat a field of men on the same night recently, competing for primary and gubernatorial nominations, it was widely referred to as “ladies’ night.” Aren’t ladies’ nights those promotions where women are allowed free entry into bars to provide fodder for the men? Women in politics are used to being trivialized, and have tended to dress and behave soberly in response. The wisdom has long been that discussions about their sexuality are not just distracting and degrading, but also destructive. Indeed? Baird then offered some statistics to support this view: One in six members of Congress is female; out of a total of 535 seats, Republican women hold only 21, or 4 percent. It’s hardly an onslaught. The number of women holding state-wide executive office has dropped since 2002, from 88 to 72 of the 315 positions. There are only six women governors. So no matter how striking the incremental gains, we’ve got a long way to go before approaching anything resembling equality. Which is why we need to remember that these women are not competing to see who has the most smokin’ bod. They want to run the country, or their part of it. They want votes, not free drinks-and we need properly scrutinized candidates, not circus performers. That’s correct. But why did Baird’s article about this subject DEMEAN women with a headline like “Too Hot to Handle?” And why did her first paragraph include the phrase “increasingly excitable focus on the supposed hotness of Republican women?” That’s NOT the way a female writer encourages people to “remember that these women are not competing to see who has the most smokin’ bod.” Also in the first paragraph was the following disgusting reference: Playboy  even ran an outrageous piece titled “Ten Conservative Women I’d Like to Hate F–k,” which read like a sick attempt to make rape cool. “We may despise everything these women represent,” wrote the author, “but goddammit they’re hot. Let the healing begin.”  This was a truly disgraceful piece published at Playboy’s website last year, so much so that readers didn’t need to be reminded of its existence.   Making matters worse, Baird completely ignored the double standard whereby Democrat women in politics are not so victimized. This undermined any attempt on her part to discredit those doing it to Republican women. Whether intentional or not, this was another disgusting representation of GOP females that the National Organization for Women would come down strongly against if it was written about Democrats. It really does require a tremendous rationalization talent to be a liberal woman in America today, doesn’t it? 

Read the rest here:
Newsweek: ‘Why We Sexualize GOP Women’ – ‘Too Hot to Handle’

Washington Post Tags Nikki Haley as a Former ‘Small-time Agitator’

When’s the last time a journalist referred to Barack Obama as a former “small-time agitator?” That’s exactly how the Washington Post described Republican Nikki Haley in a profile piece on Saturday. A headline for the article by political reporter Philip Rucker critiqued “ Nikki Haley goes from small-time agitator to credible candidate for S.C. governor.”   The piece on the conservative politician also offered this back-handed compliment: “ Haley is friendly, and funny in a generic way ; yet she keeps her politics from becoming too personal.” When describing the state legislator’s  crusade to force elected officials to publicly disclose their votes, Rucker cynically explained: There may have been more than an element of calculation in her effort. She traveled all over the state slamming fellow Republicans for their lack of transparency, and drawing plenty of attention to herself along the way. To be fair, the Post piece does offer some positive, humanizing details about Haley. Readers learn: She puts big decisions on hold for 24 hours, she said, “to take the emotion out of it.” Her inner circle includes only two campaign advisers and her husband, Michael, a full-time National Guardsman. She still handles many of the details of her schedule, sleeps just a few hours a night and clicks out torrents of e-mail on her BlackBerry at all hours. However, a Nexis search of Washington Post stories featuring Barack Obama and the phrase “small-time agitator” finds no matches. Perhaps if Haley had been a “community organizer,” she wouldn’t have received such cynical treatment. In contrast, as the MRC’s Ken Shepherd reported on Thursday, Rucker and Ann Gerhart offered a fawning 60 paragraph piece on liberal Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The co-writers enthused, “She made her life the law and became consumed by it — and happily so, by all accounts.” The piece also highlighted Kagan’s love for poker and the opera. For more examples of the biased coverage Nikki Haley has recieved, see these NewBusters accounts . Rucker can be reached on Twitter here . 

See the original post:
Washington Post Tags Nikki Haley as a Former ‘Small-time Agitator’