Tag Archives: chris-matthews

WaPo’s Cohen: Obama Needs To Fire Key People Or Americans Will Fire Him

This really is the summer of media’s discontent. As Barack Obama’s poll numbers collapse along with the fate of Democrats in November, more of the President’s fans are calling for heads to roll at the White House. Just four days after Chris “Tingle Up The Leg” Matthews called for both Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to be given their walking papers, the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen warned that if Obama doesn’t fire some key people, Americans are going to fire him. Readers are advised to strap themselves in tightly, for ” Obama’s Shrinking Presidency ” provides some dangerous changes in cabin pressure: One of the unintended results of the redecoration of the Oval Office was the downsizing of Barack Obama. In last week’s prime-time address to the nation, the president sat behind a massive and capaciously empty desk, looking somehow smaller than he ever has — a man physically reduced by sinking polls, a lousy economy and the prospect that his party might lose control of Congress. Behold something we never thought we’d see with Obama: The Incredible Shrinking Presidency. This is an amazing and, to me, somewhat frightening, turn of events. The folks who ran a very smart presidential campaign in 2008 have left the defining of the Obama presidency to others, in this case people on the edge of insanity. After running through some of the poll numbers, and discussing the Birther issue, Cohen drilled home the point that must really be making September feel like the dead of winter for liberal media members across the fruited plain: Obama is not all that liked and not very much known. He has become a polarizing figure — irrationally hated by Republicans and lacking much of his original support. Among whites, for instance, if the election were held now, Obama would get just an alarming 28 percent of the vote. We are once again two nations. Cohen next addressed how some of Obama’s unpopularity is caused by the lousy economy, which, of course, was all blamed on George W. Bush despite Democrats controlling Congress since January 2007. But the Post columnist employed what conservatives would call “tough love”: His stutter-step approach to certain issues — his wimpy statements regarding the planned Islamic center in Manhattan, for instance — erodes not just his standing but his profile. What we thought we knew, we do not. Like a picture hung in the sun, he fades over time. Then came the recommendations: But what Obama can do — what he must do — is get some new people. His staff ill-serves him so that he presents a persona at odds with his performance. The president needs better speechwriters. The president needs a staff to tell him not to give an Oval Office address unless he has something worthy of the Oval Office to say. The president needs someone to look into the camera so that, when the light goes on and he says, “Good evening,” he looks commander in chiefish: big. In other words, the president needs to fire some key people. Either that, or the way things are going, the American people are going to fire him. Indeed, but first they’re going to fire Obama’s accomplices in Congress, a fact that likely bothers Cohen greatly despite him ignoring it in this piece. But there’s another issue at play here: the junior senator from Illinois was sold to the American people during the campaign as being one of the most intelligent presidential candidates ever. Fawning media members gushed over his Ivy League education and his intellectual prowess.  Now, after approaching 20 months in office, his problems are all his staff’s fault. This seems hypocritical of liberals that always want to blame problems in the society on America’s CEOs. I guess even as they criticize the object of their affection, so-called journalists need to assign the real responsibility for this adminstration’s failure to others. Unlike their normal modus operandi, media members are now dutifully protecting the captain as this ship sinks. It really is amazing the number of rationalizations necessary to be a liberal these days. 

Read the original:
WaPo’s Cohen: Obama Needs To Fire Key People Or Americans Will Fire Him

Cynthia Tucker: Voter Anger Is About Racism – ‘Fear of a White Minority’

Are you sick and tired of being called a racist because you don’t agree with Barack Obama’s policies? If you are, you shouldn’t read any further, for Cynthia Tucker this weekend claimed the voter anger that threatens the Democrat majorities in the House and the Senate is all a function of racism. With the opening segment of the syndicated program “The Chris Matthews Show” focusing on the strong position the GOP has going into the midterm elections, Tucker said, “We haven’t talked about the elephant in the room, and I don’t mean the Republicans: race. Changing demographics. Fear of a white minority.” She disgustingly continued as host Chris Matthews agreed, “Obama’s election has suddenly made many white Americans aware of the loss of a white majority. That’s what this crazy summer has been all about” (video follows with transcript and commentary, file photo):   CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Well I think it may help the Democrats in some races this time, Chris, because some of the Tea Party candidates are so extreme. But there is another issue. There is, as Norah said, a whole lot of voter anger, discontent out there. We haven’t talked about the elephant in the room, and I don’t mean the Republicans: race. Changing demographics. Fear of a white minority. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: That’s so interesting.  TUCKER: Obama’s election has suddenly made many white Americans aware of the loss of a white majority. MATTHEWS: That’s so interesting.  TUCKER: That’s what this crazy summer has been all about. Anti-mosque construction. Anti-immigrant ravings. It, that fear is very difficult for Obama to overcome. That fear is very difficult for Obama to overcome? You find that interesting, Mr. Matthews?  Well, then why did 43 percent of white Americans vote for  Obama in November 2008? And why did Obama have a 78 percent favorability rating in January 2009 according to Gallup? Did all of these white folks that voted for Obama and previously adored him suddenly become concerned with losing their majority status? It’s one thing that despicable race-baiters like Tucker get to go on shows like this and make such racially-charged comments. But that not one of the people on that panel or the host brought up how popular this same man used to be before he started implementing unpopular policies is deplorable. To be sure, we expect this kind of nonsense from Tucker; she’s been doing it for years. That Matthews along with Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, NBC’s Norah O’Donnell, and Time’s Michael Duffy didn’t offer any resistance whatsoever to her disgraceful comments is what really should anger people on both sides of the aisle. Shame on all of you for continually adding to the racial divide in this nation despite your liberal pretense to the contrary.

View original post here:
Cynthia Tucker: Voter Anger Is About Racism – ‘Fear of a White Minority’

9.5% Unemployment and Chris Matthews Doesn’t Get Why People Miss Bush

Despite unemployment at 9.5 percent and millions of people having lost their jobs since Barack Obama was elected, Chris Matthews just doesn’t understand why anyone would miss George W. Bush. Without naming this week’s PPP poll finding Ohioans would vote for Bush over Obama by the tally of 50 to 42 percent if a presidential election was held today, Matthews in the first segment of “Hardball” asked his guests, “Why would you want that back?” When Time’s Michael Scherer tried to explain logically why voters are disappointed with what Obama has done since Inauguration Day, Matthews wasn’t having any of it (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Here`s the point. Why are the voters now in these polls — now, some of the polls are robocall polls. They`re not the most reliable polls. But I`m seeing enough evidence to think there`s something going on. When people say — independent voters say they`d rather have Bush back — MICHAEL SCHERER, TIME: That`s right. MATTHEWS: — after Iraq and taking this economy — doubling the national debt, bringing the deficit out of nowhere, when Clinton left it with a big, fat surplus, why would you want that back? SCHERER: Take — MATTHEWS: What`s your reporting tell you? SCHERER: What a lot of these voters are voting for — these are independent voters. You know, the miracle of Obama in 2008 wasn`t that he got elected, it was that he got elected in a lot of states like Indiana and North Carolina that didn`t go Democrat very often. He did that by grabbing independent voters who were sick of President Bush, who thought the country was going in the wrong direction, and he offered a broad promise of hope and change that hasn`t been delivered. That`s what he`s suffering for. And I think in a place like Ohio, where you`re talking about that poll, what people are saying is, “Look, you know, we weren`t being treated well with the last guy. We`re not treated being well with this guy. We`ll take whatever we can get.” Exactly. Matthews either forgot or was dishonestly ignoring that this is why the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008: the country was unhappy with Republicans and just wanted to vote “D”. Now, the country is unhappy with the Ds: DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: There has been a message problem out of the White House. When you have polls showing that people don`t believe the stimulus has created jobs or saved jobs and you have Republicans echoing and — and reemphasizing that particular lie, and it sets in, well, that`s something that actually, I think, is within the realm of control for the White House. MATTHEWS: There are two choices when you vote, D or R. If the people push R, does your reporting tell that they know they`re voting for more lackadaisical administration, like Katrina, more hawkishness and neo- conservative fighting of wars that are wars of choice, not necessity? Do they know they`re voting for that kind of thing? And they`re voting for a guy who was so sloppy on fiscal policy, refused to veto a single spending bill, that we doubled the national debt? Do they know that that`s what R means when they vote R this November? SCHERER: When I was in Indiana — I was in South Bend, Elkhart, Joe Donnelly, very tough reelecting, won with 67 percent — MATTHEWS: Yes. SCHERER: — of the vote — MATTHEWS: I liked that part. SCHERER: — a couple years ago — he is dealing with voters who were telling me Barack Obama`s not the guy I voted for. I thought he was going to turn the economy around. He didn`t turn the economy around. I didn`t know he was going to do this health care thing. I thought he was going to change Washington (INAUDIBLE) Washington change. That`s what they were voting for. It has nothing to do with the wars, the other — MATTHEWS: Well, that`s the reelection talk, right. SCHERER: No, but these are independent voters. These are people — you know, they`re not high-information voters — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: When Obama was running for reelection or running for election, the economy wasn`t in the tank. It went in the tank during the transition. Doesn`t anybody remember that? It was the last quarter of the Bush administration that everything went to hell. Once again, it’s tough to determine whether Matthews’ memory is suffering or he’s just dishonest. The recession officially began in December 2007, and the financial crisis started in September 2008 – the THIRD quarter almost two full months BEFORE Election Day: SCHERER: Obama went to Elkhart, Indiana, in February of 2009, couple weeks after he gets in office, he says, I`m going to pass the stimulus. It`s going to help you. I`m going to keep my promise — MATTHEWS: Right. SCHERER: — to Elkhart. Elkhart`s unemployment now is over 13 percent and it`s been rising again this summer. MATTHEWS: Because it was rising when he came in. SCHERER: It was rising — (CROSSTALK) CORN: — probably would be higher now if Obama hadn`t — (CROSSTALK) CORN: And you know, this is — this is the administration`s obligation, and Democrats on the Hill are livid because they don`t think the White House is living up to this obligation of making a stronger case – – MATTHEWS: There`s so much — CORN: — making the case that you just made! MATTHEWS: Let`s make the points through the numbers. Unemployment when Bush came in was 4.2 percent. When he left office, it was up to 7.6 percent, way up from where he came in. When Bush came into office, we had a $281 billion Clinton-led surplus. When he left, we had a $1.2 trillion deficit. And he doubled the national debt. Those are the facts on the table. Yes, but unemployment is now at 9.5 percent and likely climbing. There are currently 3.3 million fewer people on non-farm payrolls than in January 2009 making today’s labor markets FAR WORSE than they were when Obama took office. But that’s only half the story, for the Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007. As this is a Congressional election, it is a referendum on what the Party controlling the House and the Senate have done since they took over. Here, the numbers are even more glaring, as the unemployment rate that month was 4.6 percent. Over 7 million people have lost their jobs since the Democrats took over Congress. As for fiscal policy, the last budget created by the Republican-controlled Congress had a deficit of $160 billion. This year, with Obama and Democrats controlling everything, we’re on pace for close to a $1.6 trillion deficit, or TEN TIMES 2007’s shortfall. But Matthews doesn’t want to share those numbers with his viewers:  MATTHEWS: Let`s go back to the politics again. The voter out there, he can only choose between what he had and what he has. You`re saying he`s going to choose what he had in Elkhart, Indiana. SCHERER: They`re not voting for Bush in Elkhart. They`re voting — they`re voting because they`re — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Their memory of what? SCHERER: No, they`re disappointed with what they have. Indeed, because no matter how you slice it, in most parts of the country, things are worse today than they were when Obama was inaugurated and FAR WORSE than when the Democrats took over Congress. But don’t expect a shill like Chris Matthews to report that in an election year.

Read more here:
9.5% Unemployment and Chris Matthews Doesn’t Get Why People Miss Bush

Chris Matthews Rips Obama’s Teleprompter: ‘I Think It’s His Menace’

Chris Matthews on Wednesday laid into Barack Obama’s teleprompter calling it “his menace.” Near the end of a “Hardball” segment about the President’s prime time address to the nation Tuesday, the host said, “If he doesn’t get rid of that damn teleprompter…He’s just reading words now.” Matthews continued, “It’s separating him from us.” And continued, “You go to a meeting with him I’m told, businessmen are invited to meet him at the White House, he hauls out the damn teleprompter, and he reads it to them.” “The teleprompter is a problem for this guy. I think it’s his menace” (video follows with partial transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know, sometimes I really support the President in a lot of his views, in fact all of them almost. But I have to tell you, Michael, if he doesn’t get rid of that damn teleprompter, it’s like an eye test. He’s just reading words now. It’s separating him from us. Your thoughts. You go to a meeting with him I’m told, businessmen are invited to meet him at the White House, he hauls out the damn teleprompter, and he reads it to them. Well, why even bring people into the room, just have the teleprompter. I sense it’s getting between him and us and I thought that speech last night was a terrible, well a great example rather, of him using the teleprompter instead of his heart and his mind. He was reading words to us that any president could have written, had written for him and delivered. The teleprompter is a problem for this guy. I think it’s his menace. Imagine that. Obama’s been dragging TOTUS to speeches – regardless of how short – for over nineteen months, and Matthews is just starting to notice? Makes you wonder if the “Hardball” host would be expressing such concerns about TOTUS if POTUS’s poll numbers weren’t plummeting.  

Read the original here:
Chris Matthews Rips Obama’s Teleprompter: ‘I Think It’s His Menace’

Chris Matthews – ‘Obama is Almost Perfect’; Joan Walsh – ‘He’s the American Dream’

Chris Matthews almost got another tingle up his leg on national television Tuesday talking about how wonderful Barack Obama is. So did Salon’s Joan Walsh, In the opening segment of “Hardball,” the host and his perilously liberal guests concluded by trying to figure out why conservatives don’t like the current White House resident. In the end, and sadly predictable, the conclusion was the color of Obama’s skin. But before that, the sycophantic praise and exultation for the object of their affection was literally breathless (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: It’s about being an American, and the wonderful thing about this country is you can grow up to be basically what, you know, it’s a Great Gatbsy country, you can actually create your own identity and become a person. This guy Barack Obama, not to get too basic about it, did everything right. JOAN WALSH, SALON: Yes. MATTHEWS: He studied hard in school. He obeyed the law. He raised a family. He took care of his family. He was an excellent student. He was on the Harvard Law Review. He did everything. He went through the democratic process. He didn’t go out and make a lot of money on Wall Street. He gave himself to his community. This guy is almost pluperfect and they don’t like him. WALSH: He is the American dream. He lived it, he embodies it, and somehow he did something wrong, I don’t know what it is, but it is a little to do with the color of his skin. MATTHEWS: He didn’t show up at Glenn Beck’s House of Love, or whatever it is. BOB SHRUM: They might have made him sit in the back row. Did you hear Matthews almost panting when Walsh called Obama the American dream? Makes you wonder if studio assistants had to come in and give him a sponge-bath during the commercial break.

Go here to read the rest:
Chris Matthews – ‘Obama is Almost Perfect’; Joan Walsh – ‘He’s the American Dream’

Imam to FBI (2003): ‘U.S. Response to 9/11 Could Be Considered Jihad’

Defenders of controversial imam Feisal Abdul Rauf have been touting his past efforts in offering counterterrorism advice to the FBI as a way to illustrate his bridge-building intentions.  Much like other reports, they tend to gloss over the more controversial aspects of Rauf’s statements.  But, as is typical with the Ground Zero mosque imam, it can be demonstrated that he is frequently speaking with a forked tongue. There is no doubt that Rauf has made some questionable and incendiary comments regarding America and her role in the Muslim world.  Perhaps these statements fit the imam’s overall rhetoric involving U.S. complicity in the attacks of 9/11.  As does the following statement to the FBI , which is conveniently omitted from media reports defending Rauf. Bridge-building imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was giving a crash course in Islam for FBI agents in March of 2003 .  When asked to clarify such terminology as ‘jihad’ and ‘fatwa’, Rauf stated (emphasis mine throughout): “Jihad can mean holy war to extremists, but it means struggle to the average Muslim. Fatwah has been interpreted to mean a religious mandate approving violence, but is merely a recommendation by a religious leader.  Rauf noted that the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks could be considered a jihad , and pointed out that a renowned Islamic scholar had issued a fatwah advising Muslims in the U.S. military it was okay to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.” Well, wait a minute.  Which version of the word jihad is he referring to when he speaks of the U.S. response itself?  Is it the struggle he speaks of for the average Muslim, or is it the holy war?  Getting very little run in the media is an analysis of Rauf’s FBI days in the New York Post .  Contained within Paul Sperry’s column is a question of whether Rauf actually knows the definition of jihad, or if he simply presents things ambiguously to make things more difficult on the agents he is trying to teach.  While Rauf passes jihad off as nothing more than a struggle, Koranic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali disagrees, insisting that jihad ‘means advancing Islam, including by physically fighting Islam’s enemies.’ Sperry then questions, ‘If he (Rauf) believes jihad is really just an internal struggle, then why does he refuse to condemn Hamas? (Why, for that matter, did he in late 2001 suggest that “US policies were an accessory to the crime” of 9/11?).’ And speaking of the fatwa advising Muslims in the U.S. military that it was okay to fight the Taliban … The renowned Islamic scholar that Rauf is referring to is Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  In a New York Times article one month after 9/11, Rauf was quoted as saying: “This fatwa is very significant. Yusuf Qaradawi is probably the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” Question is, was that hollow fatwa (a hotwa as it were) more significant than Qaradawi’s proclamation on Al Jazeera two weeks earlier?  Qaradawi stated: “A Muslim is forbidden from entering into an alliance with a non-Muslim against another Muslim.”  He called on Muslims to “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.” Qaradawi elaborated on that non-fatwa fatwa in 2004 when he said of American troops : “…all of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers , and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation. The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [religious] obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately. The mutilation of corpses [however] is forbidden in Islam.” Abduction and killing is an obligation, but he draws the line at corpse mutilation.  Very classy. Perhaps the media should not be relying so heavily on the imam’s efforts within the FBI anyway.  Lest we forget, the FBI doesn’t exactly have a great track record in spotting red flags being raised by a radical imam.  Families of the victims at Fort Hood can attest to that.  In their defense, the FBI was constantly compromised by over-sensitivity training when it came to Muslims.  But when Nidal Hasan was chatting it up with Anwar al-Awlaki, they suspected it was nothing more than a simple case of psychiatric research. Is all this nothing more than parsing the double talk of a ‘moderate’ imam, or is it something more alarming? Rusty can be contacted through his website:  The Mental Recession .

Original post:
Imam to FBI (2003): ‘U.S. Response to 9/11 Could Be Considered Jihad’

National Reviewer Schools Chris Matthews and Joe Klein on Beck, Limbaugh, Tea Party and Islamophobia

Chris Matthews this weekend actually invited a real conservative on to the syndicated program bearing his name, and what transpired was a thing of beauty. National Review’s Rehain Salam did such a fabulous job of educating Matthews and his guests – especially Time’s Joe Klein – that I imagine him quickly becoming a NewsBusters favorite. The initial topic of discussion was Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally scheduled to occur after this was taped. Between Matthews’ disrespectful introduction, and Klein calling the conservative talk show host “a paranoid lunatic,” one had the feeling this would have devolved into a full on hate-fest if not for Salam’s presence. Fortunately, the National Reviewer was there to set the record straight (videos follow with transcripts and commentary):  JOE KLEIN, TIME: Newt Gingrich should be embarrassed by the way. He’s much smarter than this. Glenn Beck something different. The guy’s obviously a paranoid lunatic who is a great entertainer. And He is exploiting something that always happens in our country when the economy is bad and when we’re at war. During World War I, if people were caught speaking German in the street, other people would beat them up. During World War II, we interned the Japanese. And now there, the combination of bad, bad economic times over the last couple of years and, and, you know. the terrorism, has, has led to this wave that Glenn Beck and his puppet master Rupert Murdoch are exploiting. Amazing. So geniuses like Klein actually think folks going to Tea Party rallies are akin to people that beat up Germans during World War I or had anti-Japanese tendencies during World War II. Is this really what qualifies as enlightened thinking from so-called journalists today? Regardless of the answer, after opinions from the BBC’s Katty Kay and NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, Matthews turned to his lone conservative guest (readers are strongly encouraged to watch the videos to see just how well Salam takes control of the panel and the discussion): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Reihan Salam, this, this whole thing I think it gets ethnic, I think it gets tribal. I listened to Rush Limbaugh this week saying, you know, “We’re not Islamophobic. We elected Barack Obama. That proves we’re not Islamophobic.” That’s saying he’s Islamic again when the guy’s a Christian. REIHAN SALAM, NATIONAL REVIEW: I don’t that’s quite what it’s saying. MATTHEWS: What is it saying? SALAM: I think what it’s saying is that Barack Obama is someone who comes from a very different kind of background and America has embraced him in large numbers. I also think the idea, respectfully, that Glenn Beck is being controlled by Rupert Murdoch as a puppet master gets things wrong. KLEIN: He hired him. He hired him. SALAM: When you look at Glenn Beck, when you see someone, for example, remember Louis Farrakhan the Million Man March? What was the Million Man March about? A lot of people were terrified about it. It caused a lot of consternation from liberals and conservatives. But ultimately what you saw was an event where tons of African-American men got together and it was really about identity and pride. And I think that when you’re looking at our politics right now, it’s true that in an economic downturn, you see a lot of confusion. You see a lot of uncertainty. And there is a decent number of people who feel not like have-nots, but they feel like are-knots. They feel that they’re not being respected in their public life and they want to assert themselves. For those interested, Salam wrote an article about this on Sunday. But I digress:   MATTHEWS: Who are the Glenn Beck constituency? SALAM: I think that it’s a lot of folks. It’s a lot of people from smaller cities, rural areas, small towns, tend to be white, tend to be Christian-identified. MATTHEWS: Okay, who is their villain? SALAM: I don’t think they necessarily have a villain so much as there’s a lot of confusion… KLEIN: Oh, come on. SALAM: …and anger and resentment. KLEIN: No, listen, the anger is the key here. The one thing that the Million Man March has in common with the Glenn Beck march is anger. And, this is the greatest Democracy and the most prosperous country in the history of the world. Sooner or later you got to ask people, “What are you so damned angry about?” Stop the tape! Isn’t that what Republicans could have asked unhappy voters in 2006? The economy was still booming. Unemployment was under five percent. Yet Democrats had an historic midterm election transfer of power. Now, with unemployment at 9.5 percent and likelihood heading higher, this pathetic liberal “journalist” doesn’t understand what people are “so damned angry about”: SALAM: Anger is what united those men who gathered during the Million Man march. I think it goes back to… KLEIN: Anger at white people, yes! Yes, that’s not an error in transcription. Klein really said the Million Man March was about African-Americans angry at white people:  SALAM: I’m pretty sure that’s not true. KATTY KAY, BBC: When you say, when you say that they’re not have-nots, they feel they are-nots, they are not what? They are not what they see represented in Washington? SALAM: That’s, that’s certainly a part of it. Also, a lot of these people felt disaffected during the Bush years as well. There’s a large number of voters… KAY: But they weren’t angry and they weren’t speaking out against Washington. SALAM: Oh, they certainly were angry, but that anger, that anger wasn’t part of the narrative. Right now that anger fits a media narrative, if I may, that’s very compelling and exciting for people to talk about, and it fits a lot of preconceived notions. KLEIN: And where is that coming narrative coming from? SALAM: It’s coming from a lot of folks, including some of the folks around this roundtable not intentionally, but I think it’s the prism through which we see the world. Ouch! Talk about your shot to the heart! Of course, what Salam was saying was 100 percent true. The disaffected conservative voters have been showing their displeasure since Ross Perot began educating people about the perils of fiscal indiscipline in 1992.  More recently, this anger manifested itself when conservatives didn’t show up to vote in 2006 due to their disgust with the out of control spending by a Republican-controlled Congress. Not that shills like Klein would ever want to admit it, but conservative anger at Republicans had just as much to do with the Democrats’ victory in 2006 as did liberal anger at Republicans. But this lesson wasn’t over, for Matthews asked Salam another great question: MATTHEWS: Here’s my question: There’s a big differential between Republicans attitudes towards Islam and Democratic attitudes. There’s some animus from both parties. But only 27 percent of Democrats say they have a problem with Islam. 54 percent of Republicans do. Explain the differential. As a little background, Matthews has been harping on this issue since the Pew Research Center released these numbers on August 19. Now, the liberal host was finally going to understand the data:  SALAM: I will happily explain it. 25 percent of Americans identify as Republicans. 42 percent identify as conservatives. When you look at those conservatives who don’t identify with the Republican Party, they have different views on a whole host of issues including gay marriage and what have you. And I think that when you’re looking at that 25 percent, that smaller group, then it stands to reason that they’re going to have somewhat different views. Another thing is… MATTHEWS: Why are they anti-islamic. SALAM: One way of saying “I have an unfavorable view of Islam” is to say that “I devoutly believe my own religious views, and I do not accept those views as true.” The view that a lot of Americans have, you know, Buddhists and Hindus and Christians are all going toward the same God, that is the eccentric view in the history of Abrahamic religion. MATTHEWS: Right. SALAM: And I think that, you know, if you asked this several years ago, you would have gotten a pretty similar answer. It’s just that it didn’t connect with the political narrative. Exactly, for the narrative today is that anyone that doesn’t agree with Barack Obama is racist and anybody that doesn’t support the Ground Zero mosque is anti-Islamic. As such, people like Matthews, Klein, and all the Left’s media minions are using any polling data that arises to further this narrative in the hopes the electorate will buy into it before Election Day. Nicely played, Reihan. Bravo!  Readers are encouraged to also review Brad Wilmouth’s ” Joe Klein & Matthews Link Anti-Muslim ‘Attitude’ to ‘Deranged Muslim’ Violence, Small-Town Whites Miss ‘Ethnic Purity’ of Past .”

Follow this link:
National Reviewer Schools Chris Matthews and Joe Klein on Beck, Limbaugh, Tea Party and Islamophobia

Matthews Attacks! McConnell and Limbaugh Trying to ‘De-Americanize Obama’

When Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, on Sunday’s Meet the Press, in response to a David Gregory question about whether Barack Obama was a Christian, told the NBC host that “I take him at his word” Chris Matthews thought that was McConnell using some sort of code language to play to the Birther crowd, as the MSNBC host, on Monday’s Hardball, claimed McConnell’s phrasing was a “Pitch perfect, dog whistle to the haters.” Matthews devoted much of his show to  “The right wing’s attempt to de-Americanize the President” as he invited on Newsweek’s Howard Fineman and the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein to dissect what they thought was some sort of nefarious strategy on the parts of McConnell, Reverend Franklin Graham, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to ride a “message of fear”  to victory in November. Matthews started the opening segment attacking McConnell for failing to denounce any sort of conspiracy theories as he claimed: “The Republican leader of the Senate played Birther politics with abandon.” He even brought on Fineman — who proudly claimed that since he used to work in McConnell’s home state of Kentucky and therefore “understands it” –to explain to viewers that the Republican senator was trying to get Rand Paul elected by playing to a “nativist appeal” that “really works big time” in that state. However McConnell wasn’t the only target of Matthews’ ire as the conversation soon turned towards Rush Limbaugh: MATTHEWS: Okay let’s go, we gotta get to, we gotta get to Rush Limbaugh, just to complete the hat trick here. Here’s, here’s Mitch McConnell, Reverend Franklin Graham and now Rush Limbaugh today on this topic. Is Barack Obama of the relig-, everybody watching right now, by the way, gets credit for being of the religion you say you are. You go to the church, you go to the synagogue, the mosque, whatever? That’s the one you’re a member of. That’s the one you are. We accept that in America. It’s called freedom of religion and respect for religion. Apparently the new rule is “Oh I take him at his word.” Which means “I really don’t, really have any reason to believe he’s telling the truth.” SAM STEIN, HUFFINGTON POST: There’s a debate, yes. MATTHEWS: Here he is. Here’s Rush Limbaugh on this topic. (Begin clip) RUSH LIMBAUGH: What is the only proof we have that Obama is a Christian? Well, okay. His, his word. His word. But Jeremiah Wright is the only proof that we have that he’s a Christian. Obama described Wright as his spiritual mentor. Well we, sorry, media. We’ve heard Jeremiah Wright. We know what Jeremiah Wright said. We know what he thinks of America. (End clip) MATTHEWS: Does everybody watching know what was going on right there? Smearing this guy? I mean, does everybody know what’s happening here? He didn’t answer the question. Rush Limbaugh has an IQ as high as anybody’s around. He’s a smart guy. He knows exactly what he’s doing here. He switched the topic from what a man says his religion is to “How much do we hate Jeremiah Wright?” FINEMAN: Yeah well, everybody who watches this show knows exactly what’s going on because we’re explaining it to them. And this has a deep history of fearing the other, of fearing the outsider. Look Barack Obama came in as a president representing something new, big change- MATTHEWS: Right. FINEMAN: He kind of came out of nowhere. This scares the heck out of these people. And they’ll use any element of fear they can. The following is the a full transcript of the entire first segment as it was aired on the August 23 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Good evening, I’m Chris Matthews back in Washington. Leading off, tonight “Who is Mitch McConnell and why is he saying those terrible things about me?” Yesterday the Republican leader of the Senate played Birther politics with abandon. What did he say when asked whether President Obama is of the religion he says he is, quote, “I take him at his word.” And there you have it. Why do 34 percent of Republicans say Obama is a Muslim? Why do only 27 percent of Republicans say he’s a Christian? Only 23 percent say he was born in America. One reason might be that people like Republican leader Mitch McConnell go on Meet the Press, as he did yesterday, and say things like, “I take him at his word,” when asked if the President is, as he says, a Christian. Pitch perfect, dog whistle to the haters. “Yeah sure, whatever he says, right.” This is not about belief. It’s an accusation that President Obama is not one of us. The right wing’s attempt to de-Americanize the President is our top story tonight. … MATTHEWS: We’ll start with the attempt to de-Americanize President Obama. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman is an MSNBC political analyst and Sam Stein is a political reporter for the Huffington Post. I want you gentlemen to watch what happened on Meet the Press yesterday. Here’s Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell on Meet the Press. Let’s listen to the give and take between he and moderator, David Gregory. (Begin clip) MITCH MCCONNELL: The President’s faith in the government to stimulate the economy is what people are questioning. DAVID GREGORY: That, that, that certainly is a sidestep to this particular question. Again- MCCONNELL: Well no I…. GREGORY: As a leader of the country sir, as one of the most powerful Republicans in the country, do think you have an obligation to say to 34 percent of Republicans, in the country rather, 31 percent who believe the President of the United States is a Muslim. That’s misinformation! MCCONNELL: The President says, the President says he’s a Christian. I take him at his word. I don’t think that’s in dispute. GREGORY: And do you think, how do you think it comes to be that this kind of misinformation gets spread around and prevails? MCCONNELL: I have no idea. But I take the President at his word. (End clip) MATTHEWS: Well, there you have it, Howard. In politics I think we call that “trimming.” When it’s apparent, apparent to the person listening to you, you’re not really believing the person, but you’re just voicing something that undermines him. HOWARD FINEMAN, NEWSWEEK: Yeah, and that’s what Mitch McConnell was doing there. I’ve covered him ever since he was county judge in Louisville, Kentucky, over the years. He knows how to play the cultural fault lines and divides here. And he does it in a very low key, kind of syrupy, Kentucky way. But that’s, that’s what he’s doing, that’s clearly what he’s doing. MATTHEWS: Parsing his words in a way that says he is not lying but- FINEMAN: Okay now I e-mailed Karl Rove. I said, Karl Rove, what do you think? Do you think, do you have any doubt that, that Barack Obama is a Christian? Karl Rove e-mailed back, “None whatsoever.” On the other hand, I contacted the RNC’s office, the Republican National Committee’s office here in Washington. I said what is Michael Steele, the chairman, saying about this? Nothing. Here’s what Michael Steele, here’s what the answer was. “That’s not an issue the committee has discussed.” MATTHEWS: Ha! FINEMAN: “We’re focused on how the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda is blah, blah.” That’s the same approach here. MATTHEWS: By the way, you’re always great. This is one thing I like about you. The reporting is up to the minute. FINEMAN: I’m just trying to keep up with Sam. MATTHEWS: No but I mean, I mean, I want to get to Sam, but the fact of the matter is the Republican National Committee knows this is a hot issue, today. FINEMAN: Yes. MATTHEWS: They’re prepared to answer it, and their answer is “We’re not talking.” FINEMAN: The answer is “We’re not talking.” Which allows Mitch McConnell to be the spokesperson. MATTHEWS: Okay, look Sam, there’s no accident out there. The American people are all listening to this conversation. This conversation here is like it is at a bar room somewhere, in a car pool somewhere. And somehow this delves down to the following. That 27 percent of the American people who knows this guy says he’s a Christian, believe he is. SAM STEIN, HUFFINGTON POST: Yeah. MATTHEWS: I’m not talking about what the right religion is. Nobody actually knows what the right religions is. Everybody says what theirs is, obviously. But 27 percent of the people believe him. STEIN: Yeah. MATTHEWS: On the fact of what his religion is, only 23 percent believe, hard fact, he was born here – of the Republican party. This is a highly prejudicial issue. Republicans have a very different issue, position on this than most Americans do. STEIN: Sure. MATTHEWS: Why? STEIN: Well- MATTHEWS: Is Mitch McConnell to blame because of this pussyfooting or whatever the right word is, yesterday? STEIN: Well first off I want to up my reporting chops here. I reached out… MATTHEWS: What’s the latest? STEIN: I reached out to McConnell’s office after this happened. And they were insisting that he wasn’t trying to do anything of the sort. That he was being straight forward in saying he believes the President. Now to borrow their phrase, I guess I’ll take him at his word, the spokesman for Mitch McConnell. What I think’s going on here is you have a dichotomy. You have the Republican establishment that is perfectly willing and fine to let the commentariat, predominately, spread this stuff. MATTHEWS: Mitch McConnell says he’s a Republican. I take him at his word. STEIN: I take him at his word as well. But listen, you have Glenn Beck, you have the Rush Limbaughs. MATTHEWS: And what are they all saying? STEIN: You have Franklin Graham, who actually was out there, saying very, you know, authoritatively that… MATTHEWS: Let’s take a look at Franklin Graham. Let’s talk about Franklin Graham who is a man who has played this politics. Not the son of Billy Graham, he is the son of Billy Graham. He’s speaking here as Franklin Graham. A guy who’s engaged in this kind of anti-Muslim comments before. Here he is on CNN this past Thursday. Let’s listen. (Begin clip) FRANKLIN GRAHAM: The President’s problem is that he was born a Muslim. His father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father. Like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born in a Muslim. His father gave him an Islamic name. Now it’s obvious that the President has renounced the prophet Muhammad and he has renounced Islam. And he has accepted Jesus Christ. That’s what he say he has done. I cannot say that he hasn’t. So I just have to believe the President is what he has said. (End clip) MATTHEWS: What is this precious bodily fluids crap we’re getting from this guy? The seed of Islam. If he’s a Christian, of course, Billy Graham’s son is a Christian. I take him at his word. STEIN: Yeah, yeah. MATTHEWS: But the fact is he’s out there saying that Islam believes the seed the seed comes from the father. What is this talk about? STEIN: Well this is my point here. And that is… FINEMAN: There’s a person in Iowa that… MATTHEWS: What is he talking about? STEIN: Yeah well this is my point, is that you have a commentary, you have a section of the Republican Party that’s talking like this. And now we’re seeing it start to filter into the actual Republican officials. We, we reported today that an RNC member in Iowa, a woman out there, actually firmly believes that Republican, that sorry, that Barack Obama is a Muslim. And she’s out there publicly saying… MATTHEWS: And who is she? FINEMAN: This is some RNC committee woman. MATTHEWS: So she’s official. FINEMAN: She’s a member, she’s a member of the Republican National Committee, in Iowa, in Iowa- STEIN: Yeah. FINEMAN: -the state that has the first caucuses. MATTHEWS: Okay let’s go, we gotta get to, we gotta get to Rush Limbaugh, just to complete the hat trick here. Here’s, here’s’ Mitch McConnell, Reverend Franklin Graham and now Rush Limbaugh today on this topic. Is Barack Obama of the relig-, everybody watching right now, by the way, gets credit for being of the religion you say you are. You go to the church, you go to the synagogue, the mosque, whatever? That’s the one you’re a member of. That’s the one you are. We accept that in America. It’s called freedom of religion and respect for religion. Apparently the new rule is “Oh I take him at his word.” Which means “I really don’t, really have any reason to believe he’s telling the truth.” STEIN: There’s a debate, yes. MATTHEWS: Here he is. Here’s Rush Limbaugh on this topic. (Begin clip) RUSH LIMBAUGH: What is the only proof we have that Obama is a Christian? Well, okay. His, his word. His word. But Jeremiah Wright is the only proof that we have that he’s a Christian. Obama described Wright as his spiritual mentor. Well we, sorry, media. We’ve heard Jeremiah Wright. We know what Jeremiah Wright said. We know what he thinks of America. (End clip) MATTHEWS: Does everybody watching know what was going on right there? Smearing this guy? I mean, does everybody know what’s happening here? He didn’t answer the question. Rush Limbaugh has an IQ as high as anybody’s around. He’s a smart guy. He knows exactly what he’s doing here. He switched the topic from what a man says his religion is to “How much do we hate Jeremiah Wright?” FINEMAN: Yeah well, everybody who watches this show knows exactly what’s going on because we’re explaining it to them. And this has a deep history of fearing the other, of fearing the outsider. Look Barack Obama came in as a president representing something new, big change- MATTHEWS: Right. FINEMAN: He kind of came out of nowhere. This scares the heck out of these people. And they’ll use any element of fear they can. Sometimes I think Rush Limbaugh is amusing. Sometimes I think he’s useful in the conversation. This is wrong, because ministers such as Joel Hunter, who’s a conservative Republican of Florida, is one of the people- MATTHEWS: Right. Approved putting- FINEMAN: -is one of the people that, whom Obama consults with- MATTHEWS: Making your point- FINEMAN: -who he talks to all the time. There, there are- MATTHEWS: We got the new Pew poll out says 34 percent say he’s a Christian. One in three, even though he says he is. You’d think most people would get credit for what they say. That’s down from 48 percent in March of 2009. Eighteen percent say he’s Muslim, 43 percent say they don’t know. This “don’t know” thing is getting out of hand. That’s the game that Mitch McConnell is playing – “I don’t know.” STEIN: Yeah see… MATTHEWS: “I don’t know” is a character assault. If somebody says, “I’m Jewish” and [somebody] says “No way, you’re not.” That’s a character assault. You are, who you say you are in this country. And if somebody says you’re not who you say you are, they’re calling you a liar. STEIN: Yeah. MATTHEWS: It’s basically what you’re saying. It’s worst than any religion, to call a guy a liar. STEIN: Well the whole, the whole idea is to seed doubt. I mean there’s so many conflicting, contradiction labels that they’re putting on this man. It went from a black liberation theologist, to a communis, to a Marxist to a Muslim sympathizer, to a Muslim himself. MATTHEWS: Okay here’s a question. Pure politics. They got the economy in bad shape, most people are hurt. Middle aged people are getting hurt. People are losing jobs. Companies are dropping people they’ve had for years. Right? It’s not the usual unemployed. All kinds of people are facing unemployment right now. They got high debt that doesn’t sell. They got taxes maybe about to be back raised again, back to Clinton levels, at least. They have all of the things going for them. Why are the Republicans playing the dirt ball game when they don’t need it? This is like Nixon when he could have won an election easily, he still reverted to this. I don’t know why people do this. Why are they using this? STEIN: We were talking about, we were talking about this and trying to put it in historical context, in looking back at the Great Depression when there were smears against Franklin Roosevelt for being a supposed Jew. And I think a lot of it has to- MATTHEWS: Well that was Coughlin. Pretty far out. STEIN: Yeah I mean driven by… MATTHEWS: Did actual, did actual Republicans say that stuff? FINEMAN: But millions and millions of people listened to Father Coughlin back in the day. MATTHEWS: Yeah. FINEMAN: But the answer to your question is right now there are two tracks. There’s the economic track and there’s this track involving immigration, race and religion. MATTHEWS: Right. FINEMAN: What I foresee happening is the two of them coming together at some point. MATTHEWS: November election then? FINEMAN: Sam was making the point earlier, when people are worried about the economic status that they have, they’re more open to- MATTHEWS: To a scapegoat. FINEMAN: -these kinds of appeals of fear. MATTHEWS: Hey we’ve seen this! FINEMAN: And we’ve seen it with immigration and you may see it with the Islam issue as well. MATTHEWS: Okay here’s the question. Sam, hard question and then back to Howard. STEIN: Sure. MATTHEWS: Could it be that Mitch McConnell as a politician? Just guessing? STEIN: Shocking, yes. MATTHEWS: I take him at his word. He’s a politician. Okay, he knows he’s got a very good chance of picking up four or five Senate seats, but still being at the short end of that thing. Still having to face whoever the Democrats have. Whether it’s Harry Reid or it’s Chuck [Schumer] or it’s Dick Durbin or somebody running the party. But he may well be on the short end, probably. I looked at the numbers. We all, it’s very hard for him to run 11 to 1 which he would have to do among the top 12 races to get the 10 point, 10 seat pick up. Could it be that he figures this is gonna be the winning cap? “We’ll win on the economy, win five or six seats on the economy and then we’ll take it away on culture and ethnicity and, and, and Americanism. That we can really knock the Democrats out of the batting box on this and grab the Senate.” STEIN: If that is- MATTHEWS: With this, with this stuff. STEIN: If that is his philosophy, the he is actually going against some people in the Republican Party who insist that’s the wrong way to go about it. They look back at the impeachment trial- MATTHEWS: How do they get hurt? STEIN: They go back to the impeachment trial of Clinton and say that, that, that detracted from the idea that it should have been all about the economy. MATTHEWS: Yeah but Clinton was popular. STEIN: True. FINEMAN: I think, I think and, most of the time, Karl Rove thinks that the economy is the way to do it. Okay? So he sort of agrees… MATTHEWS: That’s how Reagan got elected. FINEMAN: Okay and Karl goes back to George W. etcetera and don’t forget George W. was rather benign on some of these issues related to culture and so forth. MATTHEWS: Back in 2000 he was! FINEMAN: Okay, he was. But Mitch McConnell is looking at it through the lens of Kentucky. And since I used to work there, I understand it. MATTHEWS: He wants Rand to win. FINEMAN: And that’s a native, that’s a state where the nativist appeal outside of Louisville really works big time. He’s trying to defend this guy, Rand Paul. And they’re gonna use whatever fear message they can. MATTHEWS: So the nativism is aimed at the center of the country? FINEMAN: Well it’s aimed at Kentucky, for sure. MATTHEWS: Yeah okay, well that’s what we’re looking at. And I like doing this, on this show. Understand why people do what they do. These guys like Mitch McConnell know exactly what they’re doing. When he says “I take him at his word,” those words are crafted. Thank you. As always, you won on the reporting, by the way. FINEMAN: No I didn’t. MATTHEWS: Howard Fineman, Sam Stein. This guy working his reporter’s notebook to the last minute. He’s the best this the business. Later on this show I’m going to tell you what I really think about some of this sleazy and dangerous stuff, I’ve begun to. It’s smart, if you’re evil.

Link:
Matthews Attacks! McConnell and Limbaugh Trying to ‘De-Americanize Obama’

Gloria Borger Bashes Obama’s Teleprompter

Gloria Borger this weekend ridiculed Barack Obama’s dependence on his trusted teleprompter. During the opening segment of the syndicated “Chris Matthews Show,” the host was comparing the current White House resident to the late John F. Kennedy. After Matthews showed video clips of JFK and Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential campaign, guest Dan Rather remarked, “I noticed in the acceptance speeches neither one of them used a teleprompter. You can’t imagine any candidate today going without a teleprompter for an acceptance speech.” Borger marvelously quipped, “Particularly Obama” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  DAN RATHER, HDNET: Well, I was thinking. Take ourselves back to 1960. We hadn’t had our first television campaign. We were about to have Kennedy versus Nixon. I noticed in the acceptance speeches neither one of them used a teleprompter. You can’t imagine any candidate today going without a teleprompter for an acceptance speech. GLORIA BORGER, CNN: Particularly Obama! Nice, Gloria. Makes you wonder how many others in the Obama-loving media feel uncomfortable with the President’s reliance on his teleprompter but just aren’t willing to say it when the cameras are rolling. 

Read the rest here:
Gloria Borger Bashes Obama’s Teleprompter

MSNBC Mosque Double-Standard: Went Crazy Over Kostric Bearing Arms On Church Property

When people seek to build a mosque near Ground Zero, the consensus among MSNBC liberals seems to be that their exercise of First Amendment rights to freedom of religion cannot be questioned. But it was a different story at MSNBC when, hours before and blocks away from where Pres. Obama was scheduled to speak, a man exercised his Second Amendment right to bear arms. Readers will recall the case of William Kostric.  He was the New Hampshire man who was part of a protest group in Portsmouth, New Hampshire in August 2009 when Pres. Obama came to town for a health care town hall. Ironically, given the mosque controversy, Kostric was standing on . . . church property.  But that made no difference to the wise men of MSNBC.   Host Carlos Watson was sure there must be some kind of “emergency injuntion” available to have the man removed.  And Chris Matthews, in the memorable interview embedded here, got testy when Kostric tried to cite his legal rights. “I know the law,” snapped Matthews, choosing instead to query Kostric on why he was carrying “a goddam gun.” Can we expect to see MSNBC hosts subjecting the mosque-builders to similarly sharp inquiry about their motives?

More here:
MSNBC Mosque Double-Standard: Went Crazy Over Kostric Bearing Arms On Church Property