Chris Matthews Snaps at RNC Chairman Over ‘Foreignization’ of Obama in Heated Segment

The Blaze ^ | 8/27/2012 | Eddie Scarry

[ronnyquest]

There is much speculation that some Obama revelation will be publicized at the RNC. The administration seems to know something big is in the works, as they have begun shuttling their rent-a-mobs to the convention area.

[knarf]

Any and every American can pull from their own childhood memories, a laundry list of events and people that are uniquely American ... THAT'S how simple it is to bury obama.

He ain't American.

[nathanbedford]

I suppose that most of the FReepers who saw that outrageous episode concluded against the reaction of the live audience who persistently applauded Chris Matthews that Reince Priebus garnered more votes for his man then did Chris Matthews. I suppose most of us who saw this felt that Chris Matthews was obnoxious and overplayed his hand.

I think there is another way to look at this which suggests that perhaps the stalemate in the polls is reflective of the moral equivalency in which the Obama campaign has been able to traffic and of which this episode is illustrative. It begins with the proposition articulated by Matthews that both sides have engaged in negative campaigning. After Matthews went over the top, Brokaw, as the soul of reasonableness concedes that he does not agree with Matthews but then he seconds the proposition that the Republicans are also guilty of negative campaigning.

The problem with this is that once moral equivalence is established, the Romney campaign is severely disadvantaged. It means that Obama need pay no price, or at least no price more than Romney must pay, for the negativity which Obama himself has unilaterally generated. Obama gets to spew poison and Romney gets to share equally in the blame for cheapening our discourse. Worse, it opens the door to Obama to make even more extravagant and illegitimate claims. It provides cover for Obama to avoid an accounting. It induces the electorate, as Brokaw observed, to say, "a plague on both your houses."

I have been arguing since before McCain explicitly declined to attack Obama and muzzled Sarah Palin that Obama must be morally destroyed if McCain was to win in 2008. It now appears that Romney is embarking on the same course in which he will not attack Obama for his radicalism but Romney has actually offered that Obama is a good person but inept. Rush Limbaugh spoke about this today.

I have no doubt that Romney has experts who have more to offer by way of advice than merely their opinions. I am sure that these decisions are made not by navel gazing but by very close analysis of polling data and focus group reactions. I have no doubt that these experts have concluded from these data that this is the more prudent course, probably because it will bring in the independents. It is probable that there is data which shows that some of Obama's attacks have boomerang and brought down his heretofore high likability numbers.

On the other hand, we have D'sousa with his documentary movie arguing that Obama can be explained by reference to his anticolonial training. I believe this is a valid explanation but one which should be augmented and modified to demonstrate that he is a socialist, in other words, a Marxist black liberationist.

It is interesting that in this brouhaha Chris Matthews accused the Republicans of calling Obama a socialist. Obama actually joined the New Party-an explicitly socialist party in Chicago. Obama's associations, his appointments, his policies, his writings, his explicit statements, all point to the fact that Obama is a radical leftist, a redistributionist, certainly a Marxist and perhaps a communist. Why, oh why, must Reince Priebus since mute and handcuffed to his chair while he is berated by the likes of Chris Matthews without the option to insist that, yes, Obama is a Marxist and that, sir, explains every policy that is wrecking America!

This is in keeping with my tagline, "attack, repeat, attack! It offers the electorate not just a series of disconnected negative allegations about Barack Obama but a coherent narrative that explains both Obama and his otherwise inexplicable policies. Why do we enter into an argument about whether Obama's policies are prudent or ill advised which we will only partially win and therefore convince only a limited segment of the electorate when we can frame and argument that puts him squarely on the defensive?

I understand that we want to keep our presidential candidate's hands clean but that is why we have surrogates. Can one believe that John Sununu, Newt Gingrich, and D'sousa himself, to name just a few possible surrogates, cannot beat back Chris Matthews and make the reality of Obama was radical character stick? As I recall, when Leo Derosher said, "nice guys finish last," he went on to win the pennant race. Ronald Reagan probably went a long way to winning the nomination when he got publicly angry and said, "I paid for that microphone!" I think our spokesmen have a right to be righteously indignant. I fear that we are more concerned about our image than the substance of the argument. I think that months and months have gone by in which the predicate could have been laid to establish Barack Obama for the radical he is. At what cost have we played Mr. nice guy? What would have been the downside, that we would be called "mean-spirited"? The country is being destroyed and we are worried about how a few hypersensitive, single white females with children react to a healthy exchange between grown men with testosterone.

I certainly hope that these polling data and those focus groups "give good data."

[BuckeyeGOP]

Cable suppliers should make MSNBC pay per view election night. I for one would pay a hefty sum to watch those idiots meltdown.

[Tucker39]

Ping

[tapatio]

bookmark

[tapatio]

Newt is giving it back to Matthews!

[Retired Greyhound]

Matthews rant aside, could the GOP have found a bigger idiot to put on that show this morning? The guy was incoherent.

[Tamzee]

Did Obama ever go to a non-Muslim elementary school? Did he ever play Little League baseball? Does he know the words to “Silent Night”? Did he ever go to a Christian Sunday School? Did he ever have a lemonade stand to make money during summer vacation? Was he a Boy Scout? Did he ever work at a fast food restaurant in high school or wait tables during college?

The percentage of Americans who have done most of these things is really high. Why does this man not seem at all like an American?

EXCELLENT point, thank you!

[iontheball]

didn’t think Priebus exactly came off like a good debater.
Didn't think so either. Very poor. He didn’t have very good command of any arguments supporting his position.
_______________________________________________________

Priebus let Mathews walk all over him. When are the Rebubicans going to honestly deal with the birth certificate issue? Why are they so afraid of the truth? They are being called everything in the book now anyway so why sell their soul to the devil. I got sick watching Priebus slobber all over himself by repeatedly joining hands with the devil by acknowledging Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii when everyone knows there is absolutely no authentic evidence to prove it. It is obvious that the libs are scared silly over this issue. Otherwise, why are they going nuts and raising the volume to a fear pitch whenever the issue comes up. They are smart enough to see that the wheel is slowly turning and more and more facts keep coming out on the fictionalized Obama as time goes by. It really bugs them that they can not kill this issue with ridicule. It is driving them stark raving mad. When Obama’s house of cards finally comes down, it is going to be one helluva earthquake felt around the world. Obama and his minions can not keep pushing this ‘mother of all frauds’ much farther.

[Irish Eyes]

He didn't. He appeared to be unwilling to debate. He was critical of his opponent rather than Obama. He couldn't stick to the facts.

You must be kidding, when did he have a chance to say more than one or two words. Chris Matthews was a rabid dog. You do not debate a rabid dog.

[griswold3]

‘Social Democrats’, just another word for socialists.

Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works.

Paul Krugman (Princeton), January 10, 2010

Reminds me of my current favorite touche`:
“Blaming the Prince of Fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.”

How ya gonna keep ‘em down on the farm?

[Arrowhead1952]

I was just kidding, since anything said about 0 bummer - either black or white, is racist.

[Arrowhead1952]

I was just kidding, since anything said about 0 bummer - either black or white, is racist.

[Arrowhead1952]

I was just kidding, since anything said about 0 bummer - either black or white, is racist.

[andyk]

No worries, I felt that!

[arrogantsob]

You don’t even understand how the Fed works so your conspiracy theory has no value. Silly stuff.

[arrogantsob]

If you watched The Disaster throw out the first ball at the opening of the season his first year you know he never played baseball at all. He threw like a girl. A sissy girl.

[Arrowhead1952]

I know there are gremlins on FR now. I hit the “post” button and went to the garage. Came back and my reply posted three times with different times. It must be Algore’s fault, since he invented the internet.

[arrogantsob]

Haven’t we been told it is not the truth in a charge that matters but the seriousness of the charge itself.

Place of birth aside, however, The Disaster is not constitutionally qualified to be president not being a Natural Born Citizen.