What pundit uttered the following liberal canard that makes it sound like Republicans don't care about poor people?
"He's [John McCain] a conservative. The way he breaks out of it, though, electorally, is to be Teddy Roosevelt, and this is gonna be the toughest thing for his campaign. He's got a group of people around him, and frankly a group, a party that doesn't want the government to do anything to help poor people. And he has to break out of that."
Was it?
A.) Chris Matthews, MSNBC
B.) Geraldo Rivera, Fox News
C.) Eleanor Clift, Newsweek
D.) David Brooks, New York Times
If you guessed D.) you're a winner! The so-called conservative "New York Times" columnist appeared on this weekend's "The Chris Matthews Show," and spoke in the kind of liberal language one would've expected to come from the show's host or any of the other non-conservative panelists that included the "Chicago Tribune's" Clarence Page, NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell and his fellow "Times" colleague Elisabeth Bumiller.
The following is the full exchange as it occurred on the April 13 edition of the syndicated "The Chris Matthews Show:"
CHRIS MATTHEWS: David, the question that a lot of women, especially, care about is choice, abortion rights. And although they may like the cut of his jib, because he seems like a maverick, a sort of suburban independent type, he's not part of some machine--he does relentlessly say he's for strict constructionists. He likes Scalia, he likes Roberts, he likes Alito. How does he break out of that?
DAVID BROOKS: He doesn't. That's who, that's what he believes. He's believed that for 30 years. The guy is pro-life. He's a conservative. The way he breaks out of it, though, electorally, is to be Teddy Roosevelt, and this is gonna be the toughest thing for his campaign. He's got a group of people around him, and frankly a group, a party that doesn't want the government to do anything to help poor people. And he has to break out of that. He's begun to do that on housing.
MATTHEWS: Especially when there are more poor people now because of this recession.
BROOKS: Right. But he's got to, he's got to say, "Hey, Teddy Roosevelt took on corporations. He took on the health insurance, he took on the trusts of his day." And it's going to be up to, and this is gonna be the toughest part of his campaign, is breaking out of the restrictions on the role of government to be aggressive on behalf of people, sometimes against corporations, which is gonna make the party feel uncomfortable, but to me it's his only shot at getting those white, working class he needs.
—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"He's got a group of people
April 16, 2008 - 13:08 ET by Ruths husband Ben"He's got a group of people around him, and frankly a group, a party that doesn't want the government to do anything to help poor people."
I might as well start a firestorm when I say that I actually agree with this statement. In fact, you could put a period right after the word "anything" and that would be most working people's view of the current Republican party. It is partly perception of course (but if the party can't or won't sell its ideology, who will?) but it is partly true. A party that believes in its heart that there is no legitimate role for government beyond national defense and interstate commerce doesn't play well to folks who struggle to pay their bills. And they vote.
“There’s nobody (white) on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any (other) ethnic group.” -Obama (talking about Imus)
(parentheticals added for clarity)
So consevatives should be
April 16, 2008 - 17:48 ET by zfSo consevatives should be as shallow as liberals who think government and throwing money at it is the solution to "poverty" and than lie to people who "struggle" to pay their bills that this method will work? If you want to be a superfical feel gooder, go ahead, leave the rest of us out.
How does it help the poor to force them to pay with their taxes for inefficent and bloated programs that not only will not lift them out of poverty but make them de facto wards to the state? Even FDR said that welfare was a narcotic and destroyer of the human soul.
No, Consevatives don't think social control in the name of reducing poverty (which is not a simple "problem" that can be solved like a damned math equation) is a legitimate government function. But they do think *individuals* have a legitimate role in helping folks, which is why they give twice as much money and actual direct effort to the poor and needy.
Liberals don't care about poor people, they lie and offer them phony simple solutions in order to get votes. The fact these these solutions often hurt more than harm when practiced is irrelvant, they already have the vote and their positions secured. Notice also how when "mean" conservatives enact conservative fanicial policies income, wealth and quality of life go up for those in poverty when with Keynesian policies enacted by those hypocritical and smiling libs dominate, the problem of struggling to pay bills gets worse. So who is it that really cares about poor people?
And despite your assertions I've met many people who have government help and they are often the most against it. Why? Because they face facile socalism everyday and feel it's coldness, uselessness and bureaucratic red tape.
P.S. Believe it or not, but "working people" is not just limited to those who don't make a ton of money. Glad to see the Marxist view of what constitutes a "working" person is alive and well to you.
Well, I agree that Libs
April 17, 2008 - 11:48 ET by Ruths husband BenWell, I agree that Libs don't care about poor people, but neither do Republicans (in my opinion). There is a heck of an oppurtunity being wasted here. In this country, for whatever crazy reason, they allow poor folks to vote. If the Republican party can't do or say anything to appeal to the poor, then they shouldn't piss 'n moan when the Liberals come in with all their lies and sweep up those votes.
P.S. I have had a job since I was 14 years old (52 now). I consider myself a working person. I also have been a lifelong Republican. But I have come to realise that what I really am is a lifelong social conservative. That, to me, means that I want to do things that nurture family values, etc. I don't think that qualifies as Marxist, nor is there anything in my earlier post that I would think was Marxist in nature. But I believe that the Republican party has thrown the social conservatives under the bus for the sake of the fiscal conservatives. So be it. But don't count on my vote come November (and no, I will not vote for the other party. I may write in Jim Dobson, however.).
I caught this blithering
April 16, 2008 - 13:10 ET by bigtimerI caught this blithering idiot blathering this on Sunday, even if I hadn't I would of guessed him anyway....they put him on the show as if he is a real conservative...not.
As to what McCain is going to do regarding all of this seems to be exactly what Brooks has said anyway.
No surpise here to me.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
DUCT TAPE ALERT!!!!
April 16, 2008 - 13:19 ET by motherbeltbreaking out of the restrictions on the role of government to be
aggressive on behalf of people, sometimes against corporations, which
is gonna make the party feel uncomfortable
And there you have it... Not that McCain is a conservative, but Brooks' advice is more to conservatives in general. The way for a conservative to succeed is to be more liberal.
Wanna borrow some duct tape, bt????
I'm laughing out loud
April 16, 2008 - 13:25 ET by bigtimerI'm laughing out loud mb...
I have had to take it slow and easy today, my roll is getting thin, I may need to borrow some before the day is over though....thanks for the offer!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Ok I have tried and tried
April 16, 2008 - 15:43 ET by red_dragon311Ok I have tried and tried to understand what you mean by "Duct Tape Alert" and now i have to ask
is it from the anthrax scare where we had to put duct tape on our windows ?????
(I had to ask what RINO meant a while back)
I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist
OK, red dragon, here ya
April 16, 2008 - 16:17 ET by motherbeltOK, red dragon, here ya go...hat tip to Glenn Beck.
A "duct tape alert" means: before you read this item, wrap duct tape securely around your head. Because this is gonna drive you so nuts your head is going to explode. Duct tape keeps the fragments from flying everywhere.
Thanks I was a
April 16, 2008 - 16:21 ET by red_dragon311Thanks
I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist
If it hasn't been done
April 16, 2008 - 16:22 ET by tracheostomyIf it hasn't been done already, someone really needs to write up a conservative talk radio lexicon of some sort. Citing the origins for the terms would be great too.
Kool-Aid, Hannitized, Kum-by-yah, truth-warrior, buttmonkey (a personal fave), culture war, Demoncat, RINO, "diversity-is-perversity," etc.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
How dare those two idiots
April 16, 2008 - 13:15 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltplay so fast and loose with language!
First of all Chrissy, there is a technical definition to recession that has not yet been reached. I'm not sticking my head in the sand, there are problems now in the economy (CAUSED or at least exacerbated by overreaching government), but you're being completely dishonest with anyone silly enough to take your word as truth when you a)label the economy as in recession and, b) take it as a foregone conclusion that the number of "poor people" has massively increased to the point of requiring immediate and herculean government intervention.
And Brooks, you ignorant slut...where do I begin to b*tch-slap you silly for mischaracterizing an entire political party as having NO concern for poor people. I know NO ONE of either party or persuasion who does not want to do something for poor people. Conservatives just happen to believe that throwing other people's money or foolish, ill-conceived legislation at the problem will actually DO anything. If it did, then wouldn't FDR and Johnson have solved the problem by now? There have always been poor people, always will. Some people will not be helped.
However, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" assumes that the man wants to learn how to fish and makes the effort. If he won't, then I'd just as soon hit him with the damn fish until he leaves me alone.
Asshat.
A man who does not work
April 16, 2008 - 13:28 ET by Dan The Man 2A man who does not work does not eat.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Progressive Word Games
April 16, 2008 - 14:08 ET by nofate"Hey, Teddy Roosevelt took on corporations. He took on the health insurance, he took on the trusts of his day."
That point by the esteemed NY Slimes "conservative". And in support, a comment right up the same back alley: "A party that believes in its heart that there is no legitimate role for government beyond national defense and interstate commerce doesn't play well to folks who struggle to pay their bills."
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. As was FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Jimma, as well as Eisenhower and Nixon. And unfortunately as is McLame. He thinks he is Teddy Roosevelt. He is just a milder version of Hillary and Obama. They are all in the "government will solve all your problems" camp.
So the candidates all need to play to the "folks who struggle to pay their bills??? I guess that's true if you believe, like Wilson, TR, FDR, yada, yada, that the constitution is a living breathing document full of umbras and penumbras. What crap.
Thank God! we have men like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito on the bench, because I'm afraid that it's going to be a while before we get any more like that who believe that the constitution is the constitution and that it is there to constrain the government and protect the people from the baser human instincts of greed and power hunger by unscrupulous politicians and bureaucrats. I would encourage you to read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg to learn more about why McLame is not a conservative and pandering to the "folks who struggle to pay their bills" is a blind alley for conservatives, i.e. classical liberals. We can't keep kissing the buttcheeks of the libs and expect to get respect in return. As Ronaldus Magnus said: (paraphrasing) "The most feared words in the English language are 'Hi! I'm from the government and I'm here to help!'" God save us!
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Michael's new book: Moment of Truth in Iraq. Open Thread information on the book.
Brooks seems to forget
April 16, 2008 - 15:28 ET by IamTinmanBrooks seems to forget that if the government would keep its hands out of our pockets, we may have enough in those pockets that we don't HAVE to struggle to pay our bills!
It's not their money
April 17, 2008 - 23:59 ET by nofateAmen. The only reason it "belongs" to them is because the sheeple keep letting them take it. But they feel they are entitled to more and more, plus they (they being politicians-national, state, and local) are very slick at advancing their arguments. "The children!", "The evil Republicans want to take away your Social Security and Medicare!", etc. As if Medicare wasn't the same thing as going down the street with a gun and forcing people to pay for someone else's medical care, i.e. it's a gift to the recipients. Also, they have more and more middle class, not just poor folk, ensnared in the spreading entitlement web. We've got something like the top 50% of wage earners paying 95% of the taxes! Ronald Reagan is a distant memory at the moment, but we have all seen what is possible when a leader is able to pull back the veil and go over the heads of the media and political class (Bobby Jindal?). God bless us all, and may the guardian angels of this country guide us to the right path. We need all the help we can get.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Michael's new book: Moment of Truth in Iraq. Open Thread information on the book.
God bless us all, and may
April 18, 2008 - 00:05 ET by bigtimerGod bless us all, and may the guardian angels of this country guide us to the right path. We need all the help we can get.
Amen nofate....Amen.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Brooks fells to mention
April 16, 2008 - 18:15 ET by zfBrooks fells to mention that FDR's taking on health insurance and trusts hurt the country and led the way to even more government control.
It's too bad progressives see large private groups and industries not as a part of the American people but a force that is inherently outside to them and against them, despite the fact that history proves this unture again and again. To punish large private groups for breaking the law is one thing, to treat them as inherently wards of the state to be controlled and made to do what the government considers the right thing even if they are within their rights is another.
When to take on corporations and other companies, you are hurting the very people you try to help, as those corporations and companies employ millions, pervice services efficently and cheaply and help keep the economy strong. Hurt this source of freedom and wealth, and you cripple all peoples freedom and wealth, poor, middle class, rich and beyond.
And I suppose reducing the tax budern so many Americans struggle with isn't doing something to help the poor?
David Brooks and Ruth's
April 16, 2008 - 17:33 ET by JerDavid Brooks and Ruth's husband Ben are absolutely correct. How is Brooks statement inappropriate or heretical? It's simply his assessment of the electoral challenges McCain faces viz a viz certain demographics: the working class [poor] and women [pro-life and pro-choice] who admire McCain but believe there is a significant role for the government in assisting the poor.
It is a position which is at odds with the core principles currently embraced by the conservative base of the party, but one Brooks feels McCain must address and moderate--both the perception and the reality--if he is to prevail in November.
Many may not agree with Brooks, but it is an honest and sustainable analysis. What's wrong with that?
Jer
Selling out core principles
April 16, 2008 - 17:59 ET by zfSelling out core principles to get elected, what's wrong with that? "Assisting" the poor by pandering to them and than sticking them with government form of "assistance" which "assists" by making sure those in poverty stay in the cycle, what's wrong with that? Fostering the "government will save us" mentality, what's wrong with that?
And since when has the current conservative base of the party been for smaller government anyway? I remember a certain election a while back where many Republicans lost their seats because they abandoned those conservative princples.
Maybe instead of merely promising many entitlement programs and saying that yes government should help *some* they should just go all the way and tell the people government will get involved with everything and all forms of entitlement in order to show the "working class" that they indeed care. That'll get McCain elected and more Republicans in the House and Senate for sure.
And Brook and Ruth's Husband went further than that and impled that Republicans really *don't* care for poor people. They the main reason they got slammed.