Free Markets, Free People

So how’s that “civil discourse” working out for you?

First up on the “thee but not me” list of being for “civil discourse” but not practicing it, is our old buddy from a show which should be called “Beanball”, Chris Matthews.

Chris is a great proponent of “civil discourse” unless you try to apply it to him.  He is apparently attempting to repeal Goodwin’s law or to so cheapen the term “Nazi” that it no longer carries the horror it should.   Mr. Moral Equivalence’s latest?  Here’s his intro:

Good evening. I’m Chris Matthews in Washington. Leading off tonight: Glenn Beck shoots off his mouth. Today Jared Loughner pled not guilty. So has the right wing to the charge it promotes trouble with its endless rants about guns and hatred of government. Take Glenn Beck — please. He targets what he calls radicals in Washington who, quote, "believe in communism," and "you’re going to have to shoot them in the head." Gotcha!

We’ve got a Republican member of Congress out there going full bore on this stuff, saying he wants him and his fellow members of Congress to carry guns at the Capitol. Welcome to the State of the Union 2011. The violent rhetoric of the right won’t stop. It’s our top story tonight.

There’s your set up – the “violent rhetoric of the right won’t stop”, and it’s his top story.  Lead with a discredited Glenn Beck story.   Got it.

Commercial break and what do we see and hear?   A few vids of Obama, McConnell and Cantor – discussing each side’s take on Obama economic policy.

And Matthews next statement?  The next one after seeing the three vids noted?

MATTHEWS: Don’t you just love the new Republican Party? We have the Tea Party people with the placards and the Nazi stuff, and then you have these two Junior Chamber types representing them in Washington.

The irony bug hasn’t yet found Matthews apparently.  The guy (and much of the left) are walking, talking hypocrites.  Palin is lambasted for putting crosshairs on a campaign map months ago and 3 days ago, what does Matthews and company do?  Yeah, put crosshairs on the US Capitol with the title “Fire on the Right”.  Uh, the word “on” is significant when used in conjunction with a crosshairs graphic, wouldn’t you say – using the left’s standard for this sort of thing and all.  Notice it isn’t “fire from the right” or “fire of the right” or even “fire by the right.”

It is “Fire on the Right” which, one assumes, given their instant pop analysis of the Tucson shooting would mean that if any assassin of a left leaning persuasion should shoot at a politician (or anyone) on the right in the next, oh, 6 months or so, it’s Matthews fault.  Because his graphic and its title told them to do so.

Right? 

Oh, and how did Matthews use the graphic?  Hypocritically, of course:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Leading off tonight: Words and actions. Are people affected by what they hear? If not, why do people speak? If the messages people get day after day have no effect on their behavior, why do big corporations spend millions on advertising? Why do politicians? Does the daily climate of attack, the constant torrent of angry attack and questioning of loyalty, of legitimacy, of Americanness, stir people up? Does it trigger the zealots, the unstable, those who are a bit of both?

The politically correct judgment is that we can`t blame anyone for what we`ve seen recently, that words don`t matter in this discussion of people`s violent actions. But do we really believe words don`t matter, that they don`t incite, that they don`t cause trouble? Do we really believe you can say anything you want about someone and not expose them to the actions of a zealot or a nut?

Well we’ll see, won’t we Chris, now that using the left’s standards, you’ve done more than enough to incite “a zealot or a nut”.

Meanwhile down in GA, we have a different and appallingly ignorant revocation of Goodwin’s law and even more moral equivalence:

A Spanish-language newspaper in Georgia has drawn bipartisan criticism for publishing a doctored photograph depicting the state’s new governor as a Nazi.

Some whackado editor of a Spanish-language paper depicts a governor who has been in office all of a week as a Nazi.  Why?

But Navarro said the picture represents the fear immigrants in Georgia feel with the arrival of Deal to the state’s top office, because of Deal’s strong anti-immigrant rhetoric during the last campaign.

Well there you go.  He disagrees with Deal’s political approach to the issue – which is, btw, not “anti-immigration”, but against “illegal immigration” (I refuse to let the left conflate the two).  So what do you do?  Depict your political opponent as a Nazi obviously.

Nice. 

And here’s the irony – the boob depicts Deal as a Nazi (and everyone knows how they dealt with opposition press) and then says:

Navarro, who immigrated to the United States from Colombia, said he printed the picture knowing he didn’t have to fear retaliation from the governor because of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Yeah, that happened all the time in Nazi Germany Mr. Navarro, you ignorant jackwagon. 

Yeesh … you just can’t make some of this stuff up.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

32 Responses to So how’s that “civil discourse” working out for you?

  • I’m not looking forward to media coverage (and political spin) the next time some teenager or twenty-something who played violent video games goes on a shooting spree.

  • Shut up!
    That is all the Collective means by “civility”.
    Civilly, I say, “Bite me!”

  • Oh Bruce, there you go cherry picking again, you know the right is just as bad. I have no examples right off hand, but you know it’s true!

    • Examples of the right calling others Nazis???
       
      TDS, as they so often effectively do, puts together a montage that embarrasses Fox News.
      Lemme guess… it’s different … somehow.
       
      Cheers.

      • Yes it is different, the daily show CHERRY PICKED DAMMNIT !

        • The cherries, are plump, ripe, and tasty.  Hey, if you want to forage around and see if any of them are taken out of context, then go right ahead.  My guess is that they are as blatant as they appear.

          • Well my first reply was a bit tongue in cheek but.

            I started thinking about it and I came to the conclusion that you and Jon Stewart are both guilty of the worst sort of bogus crap 

            Because you are drawing an equivalent that is not there. You can point to a handful of pundits on the Fox Network, but that is a far cry from a Sitting US congressman calling people Nazis repeatedly.

            And it is not equivalent to what MSNBC does either because it is a handful of examples vs literally a non-stop hate festival against the right each and every night on all of their various shows.

            What you and Stewart are doing is the equivalent of pointing to some isolated American military atrocities like My Lai and saying that it is the same as Pol Pot’s campaign of deliberate genocide.

          • Wait, I thought it was “cherry picking.”  Now it is crying from afar.
             
            The story was about hypocrisy in the media.  Namely Mathews.  Now you’re talking about Rep. Cohen.  And you’re willing to gamble that no GOP politician has compared their opposition to Nazis?  Really?
            Seriously, that’s where you’re going?

          • Where ever I like. My blog, remember? But tell me, which side was it that jumped on the Tucson shooting as an indication of what violent rhetoric from the right had brought on (only to be found to be full of the usual bovine waste material) and called for “civil rhetoric”? As I recall, it was the left. That’s where I’m going with it. Short memory or just not paying attention?

          • @McQ
            That last response in this tier is directed to Kyle, not you.

          • You’ve got to quit talking to yourself in public. ;)

      • It’s about the hypocrisy, Pogue. Read what Matthews said first and then immediately follows it with the Nazi thing. Doh!

        • Oh, make no mistake, the hypocrisy is in full swell.  I love watching Hardball because Mathews embarrasses himself on almost every episode.
          But if one suggests that the right doesn’t do it too … well, … that’s just embarrassingly false.  Meagan Kelly says that FoxNews personalities do not compare their opposition as Nazis, while calling out others that do.
          That’s hypocrisy.
           
          Same sour fruit, dontcha think?

          • Ain’t nothin’ to do with sour fruit. It is the LEFT calling for ‘civil discourse’. I’m not here to be fair or balanced – I’m here in the short time I have each day, to talk about things I’m interested in. And that happens to include the hypocrites on the left who’ve called for one thing while they continue to practice to opposite.

          • @McQ
            Okay, but do you not see the same hypocrisy from those on the right?  Do you not think that it is juvenile to start pointing fingers “well they started it”?
            Someone calls someone a Nazi, then someone says “well your someone called us a Nazi” then someone says “no we didn’t”, and on and on…  It’s pointless.  Only Nazis are Nazis.
             
            You wanna point them out.  Fine.  I won’t disagree with you.  But when others suggest that this only happens on one side, then it is just too easy to prove them false.  And in this short time that I have, that’s what I choose to do.  And thanks for letting me do that, btw.  It is most satisfying.
             
            Cheers.

          • Do I see the same hypocrisy on the right? Is it the right who decided that we must have “civil discourse”? That’s the BASIS of the hypocrisy I’m pointing out Pogue – you do understand that, right?

          • Megyn Kelly did not say that.
            She was responding to this assertion:
            SOCARIDES: “Every night on the very network that we’re on right now, the leading commenters on this network use this kind of language”.
            Kelly responded:
             “I don’t know if you sit and watch our programming every night, but I watch it every day and you’re wrong.”

      • Pouge,

        I’d like to see the context of those quotes. Those were short video snips spliced together, and without context. If you want to argue equivelence, provide the context. We have already gone through the left attacking Beck et al out of context.

        • I’d like to see the context of those quotes.
           
          Go fish.  I’ll save you some time though.  The context is “the other guy is like a Nazi.”
          Because, really, given the known history of O’Rielly, Beck, and the other primetime personalities at FoxNews, the onus is really on the skeptic.

          • Most of the clips were so short they provided no context at all. The only context was Bill saying that he wasn’t calling them nazis, but they acted like Nazis, or something to that effect.

            I actually don’t like Bill. I think he’s a pr*ck. And i think he’s too happy with big government, as long as it is doing what he wants.

            I’m not a Beck fan per se, but there is plenty of examples of him being taken out of context by the left. He deserves credit for taking down Van Jones, he’s done some good stuff. For that, the left tries to paint him as bad as possible, and he actually seems to say things that the left can take out of context–maybe for ratings.

            If Stewart is your argument, fine, but it is thin soup, and if you don’t want to provide the context to back it up don’t expect anyone else to do it for you.

    • Good description of the “logic” behind leftish journalists or should that be journOlists
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF3hbPtCttc&feature=player_embedded
      so true it is eery

  • That last quote says it all — and proves that the imbecile in charge of the paper has made a comparison that does not stand up to even the most basic analysis.

  • Part of the problem with this sort of thing is that it really broadens the divide between left and right in the country and makes civil discourse not only difficult but apparently pointless.  What message do we get from Matthews?

    1.  To the handful of idiots who watch his program, “the right” is a pack of nazis led by smooth, “Junior Chamber” types.  DON’T TRUST THEM!

    2.  To the people who get wind of what Matthews says, it’s, “These people are such hateful, delusional, hypocritical morons that it doesn’t make a bit of sense to even speak to them.”

    Nice.

    • “These people are such hateful, delusional, hypocritical morons that it doesn’t make a bit of sense to even speak to them.”
      Well.  Yeah.
      That is perfectly true of dogmatic Collectivists.  WOT (waste of time).
      Now, they are a small minority…but a very effective minority.  There is a bell-curve here, and most people are in the “big part”.  Not at all a waste of time to engage them.  A duty, in fact.

  • Here’s MY new civility towards Matthews and the like:

    I tell them to go eff themselves, and if they don’t like it, they can feel free to drop dead.

    I think it will work just swell.

  • Oh quit whining.   Every time someone on the left says something tough — not even that uncivil, just not nice — there’s a thread whining about it.   Sheesh.   I didn’t know you guys were so sensitive to every tiny slight.   I know from experience you guys can dish it out, but I’m not sure you’re very good at taking it.

    • Oh shut up.

    • “These people (i.e., Erp) are  are such hateful, delusional, hypocritical morons that it doesn’t make a bit of sense to even speak to them.”

      I KNEW that would come in handy…!!!

    • EFF YOU.

      See, I told you.  Every time I’m lectured by the left, that’s my response.

      See, it’s working just fine so far!

    • Scott, look for Maine: http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png