POLL: Do you think that the current state of US Republicanism is pathological?

when Obama came into power, my P&L dropped drastically due to inaction in the markets, that's when i knew any party is better than the democraps. Actually i only have beef with Obama, If obama leaves quietly and NEVER TO RETURN i can consider voting for the democrats again.

 

Regardless of the answer, all of Matthews’ hyperventilation concerning Limbaugh’s use of the word “regime” was rather hypocritical, for all he’d have to do was go back in the MSNBC archives to find a so-called journalist similarly referring to the Bush administration on September 11, 2006


Maybe Matthews should correct himself Monday, but don’t hold your breath.

*****Update: Olbermann wasn’t the only person on MSNBC to refer to the Bush administration as a regime.

Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak did it on the January 8 episode of the “Ed Show”:

In George Bush`s regime only one million jobs have been created in his whole eight years, net, and in President Clinton`s 23 million.

Schultz himself said it on the August 21, 2009, installment of his show:

The Bush regime was still in power, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, the whole crowd was still there.

Rachel Sklar said it on the September 21, 2006, installment of “Scarborough Country”:

Well, I mean, Rush`s statements kind of darkly suggested that the liberal media, expressing their dissatisfaction with the Bush regime, was emboldening other leaders and other countries.

Ralph Nader actually said it on Matthew’s own “Hardball” on July 7, 2004:

And if you look at our Web site, Chris, VoteNader.org, you’ll see how we take apart the Bush regime in ways that the Democrats should emulate, if they had the nerve.

Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry called for “regime change” in America while on the stump in 2003, and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough discussed it in detail with guest Frank Luntz on April 11 of that year:

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSSETTS: What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq but we need a regime change in the United States.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: Now that guy was obviously playing – I mean Kerry’s a smart guy, obviously playing to New England Democrats but how is that going to play on one of your focus groups next year that clip right there comparing the regime of George Bush to the regime of Saddam Hussein?

LUNTZ: Not does that not play with mainstream America but even with mainstream Democrats who are watching, people who voted for Al Gore, more than half of them are going to hear that clip and it’s going to make them cringe. It’s too strong actually equating a regime in America with a regime in Iraq, the fact that we are a democracy and they obviously were not, are not and we hope that they may be at some point in the future. That was targeted specifically at raising money from only the most left wing Democrats but here’s the problem. He could end up winning the battle, which is the Democratic nomination. With quotes like that and that anger, with quotes like that he’ll never become President of the United States.

SCARBOROUGH: It’s going to kill him with the swing voters. It’s got to kill him with the swing voters that you focus on every four years around the presidential election.

But even better, Matthews said “Bush regime” on his own “Hardball” program on June 14, 2002:

So is the Bush administration using the, using the terror war to curb civil liberties here at home? Let’s go to the Reverend Al Sharpton. Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?

You were saying, Chris?

*****Update II: Matthews used the walrus underwater term later in the program while chatting with the Washington Post’s Perry Bacon and Mother Jones’s David Corn:

MATTHEWS: What about the walrus, walrus underwater, Rush Limbaugh? What do you make of a guy calling this a regime today to the D.C. newspaper? He calls this government a regime.

I have never heard that language. This is not Stalin. This isn`t some junta. He was elected the same way, and a Republican would be elected. And next time, if a Republican is elected, it will be a Republican administration. It won`t be a regime. We don`t have regimes in this country. We have Franklin Roosevelt. We have Truman. We have Ronald Reagan. We have administrations.

To use that word regime suggests to me, just kill the Nazis, regime change. More part of this neo-con lingo.

BACON: It certainly does. I disagree with David slightly here. I`m not sure the Republican leadership could stop these things if they wanted to. John Boehner –

MATTHEWS: What about waiving the flag, the “don`t tread on me” flag, the Gadsden Flag, that was rabble-rousing.

CORN: They appeared before an audience that was shouting Nazis, referring to the Democrats and Obama, and they didn`t stop it. They didn`t say don`t do that. So they actually got the permit for the crowd to appear and do that. It seems at least it`s implied acceptance.

BACON: They should condemn the rhetoric. I`m not sure John Boehner is the leader of the Tea — if John Boehner condemned it tomorrow, do you think these things would stop?

MATTHEWS: Let me follow you up there, Perry, follow you up on the post. Why do you think the president — let`s spread this around a bit — do you think he is — we had this Michele Bachmann, who is a figure on the right. She was saying that Nancy Pelosi, by walking past all the protesters during the vote over health care, was stirring them up, by creating kind of a civil rights rally look to it, that would trigger them. Do you buy that? Did that trigger the crowd up?

BACON: I don`t think that triggered the crowd up. The imagery with her and John Lewis was, I think, a design, in some ways, to say we are standing together.

MATTHEWS: Was it meant to be provocative?

BACON: I don`t think it was meant to be provocative. I wouldn`t agree with that at all. Yes.

MATTHEWS: What are about the president zeroing in — the new phrase is calling out, going after Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, the fact that he is using the names of basically personalities, not office holders? Is that something you think is to provoke more trouble? Does he want them to hate him? Does he want them to be the chief haters? I`m trying to be open minded here. You`re on the liberal side. Why is the president naming names?

CORN: Listen, because we all know who the 80 pound gorillas or elephants are in the room. He was acknowledging reality.

MATTHEWS: I think it`s walrus in this case.

According to LexisNexis, Matthews has referred to Limbaugh as a walrus underwater before, most recently on January 13:

RUSH LIMBAUGH (radio talk show host): (From videotape.) This will play right into Obama’s hands — humanitarian, compassionate. They’ll use this to burnish their, shall we say, credibility with the black community, the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It’s made to order for him. That’s why he couldn’t wait to get out there — could not wait to get out there.

MATTHEWS: What do you make of that? I mean, I’ve compared him — he talks like he’s a walrus underwater. But yet the words are worse than the sound. What do you make of that kind of commentary, stirring the pot on race in this country, on complexion within the black community, the whole thing, using this tragedy to do that?

For the record, this was six days after the Huffington Post published the viral YouTube walrus video (link withheld for decency).

The video in question was posted at YouTube on March 15, 2009. Three months later, on June 10, Matthews also used this expression: “Doug, it`s not too cartoonish to describe Rush Limbaugh as sort of a walrus underwater.”

According to LexisNexis, these are the only times Matthews has used this phrase to describe Limbaugh, all subsequent to the walrus video’s posting on YouTube.

Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews and the ‘regime’ question

http://www.infidelsparadise.com/?p=22391

 

In the age of the internet there are very few opinions which will not be proven hypocritical if given enough time, i would have thought you would known that after i schooled you on your racism thread the other day. I could easily turn this into a 100 page thread of videos pointing out the hypocrisy of anyone who is on T.V. for an hour a day 200 days a year, you want proof simply google the name of your favourite left wing pundit and then the word hypocrite right beside it.

 

Evidently, however, some hypocrites require less time than others to be outed.

 

You mean the 5 seconds it takes for google to do a search is not quick enough? If you want a faster route simply click on the thread you started in the Feedback forum regarding people being banned for racism. That should get you a quick fix of hypocrisy.

 

Again, I don't watch MSNBC. But, if what you say about it is true, and if we consider relative viewership to be representative of the public at large, then we can safely conclude that there are far more Right Wing extremists than there are Left Wing extremists, because more people watch Fringe Fox than Fringe MSNBC. And the fact that key, prominent Republican figures are featured and interviewed regularly on Fringe FOX suggests that the extremists and the Republican "mainstream" are becoming fairly interchangeable. And that essentially brings us back to the point of this thread.

What else you got?

 

Show me these interviews of these key fringe republican figures who regularly appear on fox and get positive representation. And then prove to me that these same people dont appear on left wing networks, You are talking out of your ass again.


You just absolutely buried yourself again, you dont even have a chance of getting out of that statement.

 

All of the words you used to describe a current political belief system actually represent and describe all belief systems.

Having any type of belief in a group, value or principle is illogical if you take the emotive bias out it. Think about it. Conservatives value ethical egoism because they think individuals will be better off practicing social darwinism. Liberals value ethical altruism because they think society will be better off if there is a devotion to general welfare. College students value accomplishment. Comedians value humor. CEO's value supremacy.

Now if you were to ask all these groups why they pursue such values and tasks, what do you think their answers would be? They would say I pursue it because it made me happy. They would say I pursue it because I think I am helping society.

They pursue it because it gives them postive emotion. In other words, they enjoy it because they enjoy it. That is circular reasoning.

 

You did not read my post that you quoted in part and, sadly, I cannot do it for you. Whether you agree or disagree with me is quite beside the point because you evidently didn't understand what I wrote. What you asked has nothing to do with what I wrote. Read it again for the first time or have your guardian do it for you.

 

Your post is a pretty good one. However, I have to disagree on one point. Republicans in their present form are principally preoccuppied with making themselves happy at the expense of society. That is where the pathologies come in.