Matthews claims Romney supporters fueled by racial hatred

[gongoozler]

Presidential Debate III was more like “Rocky” Round 16, an afterthought where neither boxer really lands a clean punch on the other and where the crowd has dozed off or gone to bed. Only in the land of MSNBC were sparks flying.

Famously tingly MSNBC host Chris Matthews decided the whole race came down to, well, race. In one of the more outlandish rants of an outlandish career, Matthews said the right hates Obama more than they want to destroy Al Qaeda, according to The Hill. The rant is too priceless to edit:

“I think they hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy Al Qaeda. Their No. 1 enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred, hatred for Obama. And we can go into that about the white working class in the South and looking at these numbers we're getting the last couple days about racial hatred in many cases … this isn't about being a better president, they want to get rid of this president,’ he said.”

Other than that bout of inanity/insanity, the night was pretty mellow. The sleepy debate was made even sleepier by longtime CBS News anchor Bob Schieffer, who brought his long questions and mellow tone to a viewing public already worn out by a 24-7 campaign.

The result was one where both sides get to claim victory and where few major points will jump from the transcript into the popular conversation. Obama scored with a bogus quip about bayonets, something our Marines still rely on. But he also had to fend off a lot of discussion about economics – something his lefty supporters took offense over.

The Huffington Post, a major prObama operation, criticized the economic focus and the moderator’s inability to change that. “Schieffer seemed to be unwilling or unable to move the conversation back to international issues for some minutes,” wrote HuffPo.

One key point that might haunt the president came about the issue of “sequestration,” where a compromise budget was OK’d that would gut defense spending. Obama, fending off repeated attacks on the issue finally responded. “First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen.”

White House senior adviser and 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe backed off that almost immediately after the debate. “No one thinks it should happen,” Politico reported him saying.

The CNN team summed up the debate in a few succinct ways, with anchor Wolf Blitzer calling it “much more civilized” and Chief National Correspondent John King saying the “president won on points.”

As CNN’s now-much-more-famous Candy Crowley put it, “the president came to rough up Mitt Romney.” GOP candidate Romney, on the other hand, “approached this like a physician: ‘first do no harm’”

Neither entirely failed or succeeded.

Two NBC staffers noted a key difference between the candidats. “Meet The Press” host David Gregory agreed with Crowley. “Romney seemed more interested in coming across as a sober and careful commander in chief than a bellicose alt to President,” he commented on Twitter.

NBC Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd seemed surprised by Obama’s aggressive tone. “POTUS is consistently trying to draw Romney into a more contentious debate. It's what challengers do who think they are behind,” he wrote on Twitter.

Supporters on the right and the left saw what they wanted to see. Lefty MSNBC analyst Jonathan Alter naturally felt even a peace-supporting Romney was bad. “By reversing his views on war and peace, Romney has raised a character issue about his ability to be trusted as a steadfast defender of U.S.,” he argued.

Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, took the exactly opposite view. “Oh, the debate. Romney wants peace, trade, a growing economy, american strength. Obama wants to keep spending and running up debt,” he wrote.

Brent Bozell, head of the Media Research Center, credited the job Schieffer did. “Whatever his biases, and he has biases, Bob Schieffer didn't show them tonight. Unlike Candy Crowley and Martha Raddatz, Schieffer managed to moderate this debate without revealing his own positions. Well done.”

Early on in the debate, Ben Smith of Buzzfeed summarized the view that filtered through much of Twitter later: “Calling it for zzzzzzzzzzzz.”

The debate was not without its Schieffer-isms. To end a discussion of education, Schieffer added: “I think we all love teachers.” And, of course, he began the first debate question with a reference to liberal icon John F. Kennedy.

Schieffer has a long record of liberal positions, but they didn’t play a major role. However, he never called Obama on the closure of Guantanamo, something that Schieffer had called a “cancer.”

And yes, Obama once again had more time than Romney, though only 35 extra seconds. That made the Democrats 4-for-4 in debates, garnering an extra 9 minutes and 27 seconds.

But zzzzzzzzzz or race-baiting, one thing’s certain, the last debate will be analyzed to death between now and the election.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/ ... al-hatred/

[Tertius]

Presidential Debate III was more like “Rocky” Round 16, an afterthought where neither boxer really lands a clean punch on the other and where the crowd has dozed off or gone to bed. Only in the land of MSNBC were sparks flying.

Famously tingly MSNBC host Chris Matthews decided the whole race came down to, well, race. In one of the more outlandish rants of an outlandish career, Matthews said the right hates Obama more than they want to destroy Al Qaeda, according to The Hill. The rant is too priceless to edit:

“I think they hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy Al Qaeda. Their No. 1 enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred, hatred for Obama. And we can go into that about the white working class in the South and looking at these numbers we're getting the last couple days about racial hatred in many cases … this isn't about being a better president, they want to get rid of this president,’ he said.”

Other than that bout of inanity/insanity, the night was pretty mellow. The sleepy debate was made even sleepier by longtime CBS News anchor Bob Schieffer, who brought his long questions and mellow tone to a viewing public already worn out by a 24-7 campaign.

The result was one where both sides get to claim victory and where few major points will jump from the transcript into the popular conversation. Obama scored with a bogus quip about bayonets, something our Marines still rely on. But he also had to fend off a lot of discussion about economics – something his lefty supporters took offense over.

The Huffington Post, a major prObama operation, criticized the economic focus and the moderator’s inability to change that. “Schieffer seemed to be unwilling or unable to move the conversation back to international issues for some minutes,” wrote HuffPo.

One key point that might haunt the president came about the issue of “sequestration,” where a compromise budget was OK’d that would gut defense spending. Obama, fending off repeated attacks on the issue finally responded. “First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen.”

White House senior adviser and 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe backed off that almost immediately after the debate. “No one thinks it should happen,” Politico reported him saying.

The CNN team summed up the debate in a few succinct ways, with anchor Wolf Blitzer calling it “much more civilized” and Chief National Correspondent John King saying the “president won on points.”

As CNN’s now-much-more-famous Candy Crowley put it, “the president came to rough up Mitt Romney.” GOP candidate Romney, on the other hand, “approached this like a physician: ‘first do no harm’”

Neither entirely failed or succeeded.

Two NBC staffers noted a key difference between the candidats. “Meet The Press” host David Gregory agreed with Crowley. “Romney seemed more interested in coming across as a sober and careful commander in chief than a bellicose alt to President,” he commented on Twitter.

NBC Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd seemed surprised by Obama’s aggressive tone. “POTUS is consistently trying to draw Romney into a more contentious debate. It's what challengers do who think they are behind,” he wrote on Twitter.

Supporters on the right and the left saw what they wanted to see. Lefty MSNBC analyst Jonathan Alter naturally felt even a peace-supporting Romney was bad. “By reversing his views on war and peace, Romney has raised a character issue about his ability to be trusted as a steadfast defender of U.S.,” he argued.

Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, took the exactly opposite view. “Oh, the debate. Romney wants peace, trade, a growing economy, american strength. Obama wants to keep spending and running up debt,” he wrote.

Brent Bozell, head of the Media Research Center, credited the job Schieffer did. “Whatever his biases, and he has biases, Bob Schieffer didn't show them tonight. Unlike Candy Crowley and Martha Raddatz, Schieffer managed to moderate this debate without revealing his own positions. Well done.”

Early on in the debate, Ben Smith of Buzzfeed summarized the view that filtered through much of Twitter later: “Calling it for zzzzzzzzzzzz.”

The debate was not without its Schieffer-isms. To end a discussion of education, Schieffer added: “I think we all love teachers.” And, of course, he began the first debate question with a reference to liberal icon John F. Kennedy.

Schieffer has a long record of liberal positions, but they didn’t play a major role. However, he never called Obama on the closure of Guantanamo, something that Schieffer had called a “cancer.”

And yes, Obama once again had more time than Romney, though only 35 extra seconds. That made the Democrats 4-for-4 in debates, garnering an extra 9 minutes and 27 seconds.

But zzzzzzzzzz or race-baiting, one thing’s certain, the last debate will be analyzed to death between now and the election.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/ ... al-hatred/

What he said. So many good points. Even the professional liberals are showing the same loser characteristics that have been demonstrated by the liberals posting here since this board started.

Starting this board is the only thing one of them has got right yet.

[Reality]

You are exactly correct Vrede "point proven". Someone ask a legitimate question and it immediately get's turned into being racial.

Do all lefties attend the Chris Matthews school of racial distortion?

[billy.pilgrim]

Read the linked thread. It never was a legitimate question, it was an unfounded racial claim based on anecdotes and designed to divert from Tagg being a blowhard and Mitten being a chicken and a hawk at the same time.

and his wife being a bitch. did you see that look she gave him when he failed so miserably in the 2nd debate - I bet she wore him out when they got the car back in the elevator

[billy.pilgrim]

And, Tertius' 1st question (coming just after Reality flubbed understanding of UK military control) was just stupid, based on the notion that Obama, Sr. split because Ann Dunham would get sick and die 34 years later.

there you go again - trying to make poor turdius relate cause and effect to some sort of chronological order

[Apache]

There is so proof in that statement. Gonz, if you are a local, you have heard such nonsense. At one of the benefits, a faith based band was promoting religion and the election. They asked for you to look into your heart and make the decision. Someone yelled out "well it want be no nigger." This band later went on to state this was totally unacceptable to them as Christians and as human beings. And such hatred went against their beliefs. Are all Romneys supporters this way, hell no! But it is there.

[billy.pilgrim]

There is so proof in that statement. Gonz, if you are a local, you have heard such nonsense. At one of the benefits, a faith based band was promoting religion and the election. They asked for you to look into your heart and make the decision. Someone yelled out "well it want be no nigger." This band later went on to state this was totally unacceptable to them as Christians and as human beings. And such hatred went against their beliefs. Are all Romneys supporters this way, hell no! But it is there.

we all know goozer is one for taking bits and pieces out of context in his attacks

I did notice in another of goozer's threads, his ragin bud said, "And you will vote for a half-breed Socialist/Marxist/Communist Kenyan muslim Usurper" followed with a replay to ragins next post, turdius said, "Right on target."

of course turdius didn't promote the pure racism of the ragin idiot but he was silent and only stood by clapping at the next post


gooser likes to point out racism on the left (real and perceived), could it be to hide his own feelings

[gongoozler]

There is so proof in that statement. Gonz, if you are a local, you have heard such nonsense. At one of the benefits, a faith based band was promoting religion and the election. They asked for you to look into your heart and make the decision. Someone yelled out "well it want be no nigger." This band later went on to state this was totally unacceptable to them as Christians and as human beings. And such hatred went against their beliefs. Are all Romneys supporters this way, hell no! But it is there.

we all know goozer is one for taking bits and pieces out of context in his attacks

I did notice in another of goozer's threads, his ragin bud said, "And you will vote for a half-breed Socialist/Marxist/Communist Kenyan muslim Usurper" followed with a replay to ragins next post, turdius said, "Right on target."

of course turdius didn't promote the pure racism of the ragin idiot but he was silent and only stood by clapping at the next post


gooser likes to point out racism on the left (real and perceived), could it be to hide his own feelings

Please link the discussion you are talking about.

[Bungalow Bill]

Some of the wingnuts, national and local, do seem to have an intense hatred of Big O that goes
beyond the usual political back and forth. Are there some, likely a small number, who hate him
because he is black? Sure, there will always be racists around. You'd have to be delusional to
believe otherwise.

[gongoozler]

we all know goozer is one for taking bits and pieces out of context in his attacks

I did notice in another of goozer's threads, his ragin bud said, "And you will vote for a half-breed Socialist/Marxist/Communist Kenyan muslim Usurper" followed with a replay to ragins next post, turdius said, "Right on target."

of course turdius didn't promote the pure racism of the ragin idiot but he was silent and only stood by clapping at the next post

gooser likes to point out racism on the left (real and perceived), could it be to hide his own feelings

Please link the discussion you are talking about.

Already done above:

And you will vote for a half-breed...

Point proven, again.

Tertius immediately cheered the racism:

Right on target.

And, gongoozler completely ignored Ragin Rebel's racism - on the same page! - 3 posts after Ragin Rebel was called out on it. Apparently, discussing "Romney's facial expressions" is more important to gongoozler than the very topic of this thread he started, at least when it's a rightwingnut that's the perp.

You're trying to call me out on something somebody else said. Your assumption that all conservatives think alike is wrong.

[O Really]

You're trying to call me out on something somebody else said. Your assumption that all conservatives think alike is wrong.

I'm sure not all conservatives think alike. Or some not at all. But if you're running for office, you have to be careful not to get too far off the rez or Norquist's goons will track you down with torches, tar, feathers, and pitchforks.

Most of our [on the left] comments about conservatives are not so much the private citizen ones, but the political ones. Along with, of course, those who have specifically offered their views. Conversely, most of the comments about the left by, for example, Colonel Thorn, are based on fictional characters created in his fertile mind.

[gongoozler]

You're trying to call me out on something somebody else said. Your assumption that all conservatives think alike is wrong.

No, you asked about the link even though it was already here. I provided it again.

Your question was in response to billy.pilgrim calling out Tertius' cheerleading and your silence.

Your utter, and continuing, silence is on the very topic that you considered worthy of starting this thread.

I said nothing about "all conservatives", my distaste is specific.

Those are all facts, I made no assertions about your thinking. People can draw their own conclusions, or you can address:

And you will vote for a half-breed...

and:

Why didn't Obama's black grandparents raise him? It seems few mulatto children abandon by parents end up with black grandparents. Why is that?

Your choice.

I have nothing to do with any of this discussion that you posted, except that I started a thread about Chris Matthews playing the race card. He, like you, thinks that all conservatives are alike. He, like you, is wrong.

[billy.pilgrim]

once again goozie lies to prove his point. matthews does not say that he thinks all cons think alike

goozie's thread and he lies about his own cut and paste to make his point

[Stinger]

You are exactly correct Vrede "point proven". Someone ask a legitimate question and it immediately get's turned into being racial.

Do all lefties attend the Chris Matthews school of racial distortion?

It's not a legitimate question, RealButt Ugly.

There's no support whatsoever for his question, no validity in positing supposition as truth.

He doesn't know any mulatto children and doesn't know any who have been raised by black, white, yellow, red, or green grandparents.

That he asks a loaded question without the slightest bit of proof suggests an inherent bias.

But the Reality is that all of that's beyond you, so carry on with your "I'm last and getting laster" posts.

[Stinger]

once again goozie lies to prove his point.

Cons tend to do that a lot. It helps keep those pesky facts at bay.

[Stinger]

“I think they hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy Al Qaeda. Their No. 1 enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred, hatred for Obama.

That much, however clumsily worded, is 100% correct. The biggest motivation the far-right extremists have is their hatred for Obama. It makes them completely irrational and unhinged. Then they end up believing all sorts of stupid things like the economy's getting worse, oil production's down, unemployment's getting worse, etc., etc.

If they had any pride at all, they'd get a grip and stop embarrassing themselves by posting such easily-discredited bits of ignorance.

[Tertius]

You are exactly correct Vrede "point proven". Someone ask a legitimate question and it immediately get's turned into being racial.

Do all lefties attend the Chris Matthews school of racial distortion?

It's not a legitimate question, RealButt Ugly.

There's no support whatsoever for his question, no validity in positing supposition as truth.

He doesn't know any mulatto children and doesn't know any who have been raised by black, white, yellow, red, or green grandparents.

As a matter of fact I do know of several adopted mixed race families. No red or green ones though. You got me there. It was seeing one of these families at lunch the day I first posted the question that triggered the thought to ask the question.

See that is both the good and bad of this screen name animosity. Questions are ask that might not otherwise be ask; accusations are made that might not otherwise be made.

You do know you have taken us off the topic and onto what should be called "Stinger Wants to Call You Names" topic.

[Stinger]

You are exactly correct Vrede "point proven". Someone ask a legitimate question and it immediately get's turned into being racial.

Do all lefties attend the Chris Matthews school of racial distortion?

It's not a legitimate question, RealButt Ugly.

There's no support whatsoever for his question, no validity in positing supposition as truth.

He doesn't know any mulatto children and doesn't know any who have been raised by black, white, yellow, red, or green grandparents.

As a matter of fact I do know of several adopted mixed race families. No red or green ones though. You got me there. It was seeing one of these families at lunch the day I first posted the question that triggered the thought to ask the question.

See that is both the good and bad of this screen name animosity. Questions are ask that might not otherwise be ask; accusations are made that might not otherwise be made.

You do know you have taken us off the topic and onto what should be called "Stinger Wants to Call You Names" topic.

I don't just call people names. You have to earn them. Really/Butt Ugly has more than earned his name. You're still Tertius.

Your dishonest weaseling on several threads leads me to doubt that you know "several." It would be a statistical anomaly for you to know several. Especially for one who doesn't get out much.

Let's say you do know several. Your original claimed interest -- now changed ... more dishonesty? -- was why Obama didn't go to Africa. It was pointed out that that was an ignorant and wrong question on many levels.

How many have a set of grandparents in another country?

By the way, there's still no support for your assumption other than your own supposition.

[Stinger]

You are exactly correct Vrede "point proven". Someone ask a legitimate question and it immediately get's turned into being racial.

Do all lefties attend the Chris Matthews school of racial distortion?

It's not a legitimate question, RealButt Ugly.

There's no support whatsoever for his question, no validity in positing supposition as truth.

He doesn't know any mulatto children and doesn't know any who have been raised by black, white, yellow, red, or green grandparents.

As a matter of fact I do know of several adopted mixed race families. No red or green ones though. You got me there. It was seeing one of these families at lunch the day I first posted the question that triggered the thought to ask the question.

See that is both the good and bad of this screen name animosity. Questions are ask that might not otherwise be ask; accusations are made that might not otherwise be made.

You do know you have taken us off the topic and onto what should be called "Stinger Wants to Call You Names" topic.

I don't just call people names. You have to earn them. Really/Butt Ugly has more than earned his name. You're still Tertius.

Your dishonest weaseling on several threads leads me to doubt that you know "several," especially "several" where a "mulatto" grandchild is staying with white grandparents. It would be a statistical anomaly for you to know several. Especially for one who doesn't get out much.

Knowing several mixed-race children wouldn't be so difficult, but knowing several who have been abandoned by both parents and stay with white grandparents would be.

Let's say you do know several. Your original claimed interest -- now changed ... more dishonesty? -- was why Obama didn't go to Africa. It was pointed out that that was an ignorant and wrong question on many levels.

How many have a set of grandparents in another country?

By the way, there's still no support for your assumption other than your own supposition.

[Stinger]

As already discussed at length here, a few anecdotes do not equal validity.

Why didn't Obama's black grandparents raise him? It seems few mulatto children abandon by parents end up with black grandparents. Why is that?

(Matthews') Point proven.

You've had a long time to find a shred of support for your claim, and you haven't.

He never does. I think we can safely toss him into the "Talks a mediocre game but never backs anything up" pile with the rest of them.

The only difference is that he has admitted he was wrong, and his delusions are farther out than most.