Chris Matthews: Rick Santorum Wants a 'Theocracy' That Will 'Trump' the Constitution
An angry Chris Matthews on Thursday denounced Rick Santorum, smearing the Republican as wanting a "theocracy" to "trump" the Constitution. The MSNBC anchor ranted about birth control after playing a clip of Santorum on "The Bill O'Reilly Show." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]
Santorum told O'Reilly on Wednesday that states do have the right to ban contraception, but added, "[States] shouldn't do it. I wouldn't vote for it if they did. But that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do it." Talking to Robert Traynham, a former staffer of Santorum, Matthews interpreted, "Let me tell you what he said. He's said 'My religion should dominate, should trump issues of the Constitution.'"
A shrieking Matthews continued, "He was saying, 'Bill O'Reilly, you and I are of the same religion, therefore we should deny a woman's constitutional right to buy birth control or a male to buy birth control.' Isn't that what he said? We just showed the tape."
When Traynham replied, "I don't think he said that," Matthews retorted, "He just did. Okay? He just did. And that's what scares me. He thinks we should have a theocracy."
For the record, here is the O'Reilly Factor clip Matthews played:
BILL O'REILLY: You say that the states should have the rights to ban some contraception. That's right off the bat going to be a big one.
RICK SANTORUM: Well, the states have a right to do a lot of things. That doesn't mean they should do it. Someone asked me if the states have the right to do it. Yes, they have the right to do it. They shouldn't do it. I wouldn't vote for it if they did. But that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do it. As you know, Bill, you're a Catholic. Catholic Church teaches that contraception is something you shouldn't do. So, when I was asked the question about contraception, I said I didn't support it.
Hardly a theocracy.
A transcript of the exchange after the O'Reilly clip, which aired at 5:22pm EST on January 5, follows:
5:22
CHRIS MATTHEWS: He takes the moral and theological and puts it right there in confronting the constitutional question of whether a woman or a male has the right to buy birth control devices. Explain that based on your history why he would think like that? Or does he think like that?
ROBERT TRAYNHAM: Well, two things, first and foremost, obviously I'm not a spokesman, so I can't to get too much inside of his head. But knowing Rick the way I know him, I thin what he said there with Bill O'Reilly is, like, "Look, I am for banning partial birth abortion, I am adamantly pro-life and that obviously goes towards the whole entire birth control-"
MATTHEWS: That's not what they were talking about. Robert, you're wrong! They weren't talking about that. They weren't talking about abortion at all. They were talking about contraception. So, stick to the subject. Where does he stand? Does he think you can outlaw contraception under the Constitution. Does he believe that?
TRAYNHAM: Well, Chris, that was my next point, if I could finish, which was transitioning-
MATTHEWS: No, begin, don't finish. Begin. Get to the point here-
TRAYNHAM: Go ahead.
MATTHEWS: Is he against birth control legally? Does he talk about it's okay to illegalize it, to ban it? Does he believe that?
TRAYNHAM: I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is what he just said was, that's really a state's right issue, and if, in fact, I had to vote on that, I would vote no. But he was also saying, to your original question, Chris as a Catholic, my Catholic teaching has told me that the pill is a no-no and thus in the process I believe, meaning Rick Santorum is saying this, that that should not be allowed in the public square. I think that's what he was trying to say.
MATTHEWS: No, he didn't. Let me tell you what he said. He's said 'My religion should dominate, should trump issues of the Constitution.' He was saying, 'Bill O'Reilly, you and I are of the same religion, therefore we should deny a woman's constitutional right to buy birth control or a male to buy birth control.' Isn't that what he said? We just showed the tape.
TRAYNHAM: I don't think he said that.
MATTHEWS: He just did. Okay? He just did. And that's what scares me. He thinks we should have a theocracy.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Santorum wants a theocracy?
Submitted by dzejk113 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 7:31pm.
As opposed to Chris Matthews, who wants an oligarchy, where a few annointed liberal elites rule over the rest of us with totalitarian control. How is this walking bag of bull-excrement not totally irrelevant yet?
Libocracy
Submitted by pockets64 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:15pm.
My thoughts exactly.
Game on!!
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:47pm.
I said yesterday if Santorum gets the nomination, prepare to hear the word "theocracy" until your ears bleed!
Matthews can't even wait that long. Always ahead of the curve on the attack!
⇒ It was a Jamaican gaffe
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:52pm.
What he meant to say was "gay mon!"
Santorum won't get the
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:13pm.
Santorum won't get the nomination. But feel free to jump on his bandwagon like you did Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Newt, and ever other Flavor of the Month.
Newsbusters are the best example of fair weather fans ever. Every time someone jumps to the head of the pack, you figure out a way to support them. It's pretty hilarious frankly. Sadly, your old posts are available in the archive.
Did you even READ what she wrote, Troll?
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:16pm.
NO, OF COURSE YOU DIDN'T.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
No reason to shout Blonde!
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:19pm.
No reason to shout Blonde! Just responding to her point "If Santorum gets the nomination". I merely mentioned he won't, just like every other Flavor of the Month that preceded his rise.
What are you missing? My comment was perfectly clear.
Hardly,
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:49pm.
The gist of your comment was about being a bandwagon supporter. Motherbelt's comment was about "theocracy". Can I sell you a clue?
But feel free to jump on his bandwagon like you did Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Newt, and ever other Flavor of the Month.
^ Your very own words.
Don't get your knicks in a knot when you get called out for trying to morph a conservative poster's words into some sort of liberal day dream.
And BTW, I'll shout whenever I feel like it. As I did when responding TO YOU!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Yea, we have Bandwagons,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:57pm.
They have Volts in a ditch
I was only responding to her
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:50pm.
I was only responding to her hypothesis about what would happen if Santorum got the nod. Again, I was pretty clear.
Shout away. By all means, nothing creepy about TYPING IN CAPS TO EXPRESS ANGER at a complete stranger on the internet.
How do you jump...
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:21pm.
How do you jump onto a hypothetical bandwagon? Would that be a virtual leap?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I was only responding to her
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:52pm.
double! (again!) sorry...
You do realize Blonde that
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:21pm.
You do realize Blonde that the Newsbusters collectively have supported an astonishing amount of Republican contenders right? Again, it's all in the archives. You change as much as the weather.
That's pretty much the point of the primaries.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:23pm.
.
I guess, although I'd rather
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:25pm.
I guess, although I'd rather pick a horse and stick with it. Bachmann was in charge. Then Perry was king around here for a long time. Then it was Cain. Then Newt was on the rise. Now it's Santorum
Pick one and end it. You can't trust someone who keeps changing teams. It's bizarre.
So...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:29pm.
Despite Obama's failure with the economy, insults to our allies, trashing of our Constitution, you would stick with him?
It's people like you who can't be trusted.
Not at all. I will vote for
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:33pm.
Not at all. I will vote for Romney because he can win. I'm merely laughing at the fact that the Newsbusters continually root for the contestant of the minute. It's really funny. Seriously, read through the archives. Look at how many horns were tooted for how many candidates.
I would argue that you have no consistency and, as such, CAN'T be trusted. You would cheer for Joe the Plumber if he won the Iowa Caucus.
You are sure missing something
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:38pm.
Because a variety of people have been favoring a variety of the candidates. This is not a site where we all have to agree, there were heated debates earlier regarding the pros and cons of the candidates. Yes, when the candidate and individual supports is out that person will choose a new candidate to support. What's the option? Allow BO another four years? i think not.
I disagree, I think you all
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:43pm.
I disagree, I think you all do agree and everyone jumps on the same bandwagon at the same time. Dissent is met with group anger. Numerous examples. You're fair weather fans. It's fine, but it's funny considering you let the MSM, that you so harshly rail against, make your decisions for you.
I clearly stated I will not allow BO for another four years. Mitt will win. He'll pick a good VP and it's lights out for Obama. While I pick a winner, you can continue to root for Palin, no wait, Cain, no wait, Santorum, no wait, Newt, no wait, Perry...ad nauseum.
Well then
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:47pm.
you're an idiot.
How so? Care to prove me
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:54pm.
How so? Care to prove me wrong? Or do you know I'm right and would rather not admit it so you call me names? You're really going to pretend that you weren't all rah rah rah in that order? Come on brother. It's all accessible. It's in the record.
No PH, the onus is on you
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 9:43am.
You need to prove individual NBers have jumped from candidate to candidate. I supported one candidate only so far. Same with many other members, I know who they support and have supported for months.
That doesn't mean we can't object when another conservative candidate is being unfairly attacked by the press.
As Blonde said, the clock is ticking. Link or slink.
i think you need to prove
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 9:50am.
i think you need to prove your theorum that we all agree on the same candidate at the same time of the day every day of the week. good luck with that
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
PaleHorse
Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 9:51am.
So let's see, I never declared for any candidate, I said I didn't think Perry would be *too* bad, and was willing to take a second look at Cain - is that what you are referring to? How the hell else do we figure out who to vote for??? Listen to the msm?
Or was the whole point to show your superiority, since you went with Mitt, and the "conventional wisdom" is he has a lock?
Ronald Reagan
I think the colorless horse is missing a lot, Rad
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:51pm.
Manners, for one.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, I have great
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:49pm.
Blonde, I have great etiquette. I don't understand how pointing out the fact that the Newsbusters are fair-weather fans demonstrates a lack of manners. This is merely reality.
Fact Check it, then
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 1:23am.
Take a poster, me, for example....and PROVE with my own posts, "in the record" as you are so fond of tossing about (rudely, I might add), where I've been a bandwagon supporter. (This is customarily done with hyper-links to actual posts which have been made).
Ball is in your court, tick tock.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, I don't have much
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:14pm.
Blonde, I don't have much time today, but I will dig through some posts over the weekend and get you links. Shouldn't be too hard, just a matter of tracking the right posts down, which can be tricky with the NB search function. Ask and you shall receive.
Yet, Palehorse,
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 5:34pm.
you have found plenty of time, hours in fact, to spend on this site telling us all what bandwagoners we are. Perhaps you could have spent a few minutes looking up ALL those links that prove what "frontrunners" we are.
if he was smart he should
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 5:46pm.
if he was smart he should have researched his assertion well enough to already have this information readily available. he's' been going anecdotal observation and now he's stuck.
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
I think I hear his reply
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 10:43pm.
I think I hear his reply right now NC Cop.
And Translucent Gelding, how dare you try and lump all of NB into one stereotype. What an ignorant thing to say. I for one still wish Herman Cain was in the race. If it was not for the high tech lynching your side did he might still be.
I would you suggest that you admit you were wrong and mosey onto another thread because we here at NB do not care much for trolls.
Horsey, ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:10pm.
... I've always found that people who have to point out that they "have great etiquette," usually don't. It's sort of like people who hang all of their diplomas on the wall. It's about the only way that anyone would think that they actually had an education
I've said it before (look it up) and I'll say it again, I will vote for Elmer Fudd before I'll vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Your boy, Romney, isn't my favorite, but if he wins the nomination, I'll hold my nose and vote for him just like I did for McCain.
... FYI, (think you know what that stands for?) I find that the MSM wants to cause confusion and discontent among conservatives. I have noticed that most NBer's don't tend to confuse that easily. They may discuss different qualities of different candidates at times, but for the most part, they will ALL get out and vote AGAINST Obama.
The only ones who worry me are the Romney supporters many of whom, in my opinion, will get their "moderate elitism" in a snit if their boy ain't the Republican candidate.
... but I might change my opinion, you know?
Your perception is your reality....
Submitted by BuffNBone on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 1:29pm.
... as is mine. So please enlighten me (us), was "fair-weather fans" intended as a compliment or a slam? A limitation we face in English is the word you can either be singular or plural. While tracking your comments it was difficult to sort out what your intent was and which you were aiming for.
As a Newsbuster poster, speaking for myself, I'm interested in the Republican contender who most closely aligns with my beliefs and values. That includes what their world-views are based on their faiths. Doubtful there will be an identical match so I go for the best fit.
As the MSM and PACs strive to do their damage, some candidates will rise and others will fall. As the Romans did, the tactic is to divide and conquer. At this point Romney seems to be getting only token scrutiny by the press.....similar to what McCain received 4 years ago. Then when he secured the nomination the long knives came out and.....magically we started hearing negatives from the previously boot licking press.
With Palin, Bachman and Cain, I especially liked the possibility of the political calculus changing because the stereotype for the GOP is it doesn't support females or minorities....I know otherwise. Truth be known I liked Cain because I'd heard him speak over 15 years ago in Omaha. He spoke in specifics unlike the flim-flam we got/get/likely will get from the Oval Office Occupant.
So much for consistency.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:29pm.
So, you support Romney because he's leading in the polls and "can win" at this point? What happens when someone else eclipses him in public support? What happens when he can no longer win? What will you do then, jump onto someone else's band wagon, like you've been accusing others of doing? Of course you will, because you're a hypocrite.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
'Cept they're all on the same team
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:30pm.
What you're seeing is GOP voters properly vetting their eventual candidate. Democrats could learn a lot from this exercise.
BK, they could indeed.
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:34pm.
BK, they could indeed. Except you're not vetting candidates. You're jumping on bandwagons. Big difference. Poll Monkies are useless. Pick a platform and go with it.
Who's changed platforms?
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:43pm.
Eh
Every single person on this
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:45pm.
Every single person on this site who pretended to root for the moronic 9-9-9 or Palin or Perry or Newt or, now, Santorum.
How about you explain the differences in their
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:50pm.
Platforms. Better yet, how about you explain Obama's?
Why would I explain Obama's?
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:48pm.
Why would I explain Obama's? I'm not voting for him. I think he's a disgrace and arguably one of the worst presidents ever. Even worse than Carter which is saying a lot.
Hi 'PaleHorse'. I know you
Submitted by MightyMouth on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 1:25am.
Hi 'PaleHorse'. I know you think us NB people are dumb rednecks, but you are a plant. Hell, you probly don't even know which horse is the pale one... take a hike troll.
"Pretended?"
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:24pm.
And just how do yo know if someone "pretends" to support a given candidate? Do you have means of divining their intent, and their sincerity?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
PalesHorse, You said, "Every
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:26pm.
PalesHorse,
You said, "Every single person on thhis site who pretended to root for the moronic 9-9-9 or Palin or Perry or Newt or, now Santorum."
1) when did Palin start her run for the 2012 Presidency?
2) "Every single person on this site..." Ok, you made the accusation, now prove it. Prove that "every single person on this site..." has been jumping from candidate to candidate including for a person who is not running for the Presidency.
Heck, just prove that a few of us, the people that have replied to you, have done this?
Wth?? person that rides with head on ass????
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 1:46am.
I've been on this site since day one....so ASSHAT, prove your point or STFU???
g
Who's changed platforms?
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:47pm.
Eh
You're confusing polls with vetting
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:49pm.
Polls are a snapshot in time. They're really unreliable at this point anyway, at least until they're localized and within hours of a vote count. Cain was up because people were enthused about what he might have to offer until what surfaced -true or untrue- branded his candidacy unelectable. It doesn't make a great deal of sense to stick with a candidate who's either unelectable, or no longer in the race.
Another reason for this is that most of these candidates have never had national exposure, or recent national exposure, except Romney. How do you know whether you can support a Herman Cain until you see all that he has to offer and listen to his particular policy positions? Same for Bachmann and Perry and Gingrich and Santorum. None of them have a prior run for President and all have varying, yet conservative views.
This is what the primary season is all about. We're not towing the RNC line; we're not letting the media select our candidate. (Some may think so, but the media would much rather have Huntsman than Romney; the Boston Globe proved that tonight.) We'll end up with Romney, I think, but only because all the others will fail the electability test in comparison.
Poll Monkies? Yeah you just
Submitted by ThePickle on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:32pm.
Poll Monkies?
Yeah you're just a deep reservoir of civility, good manners and "great etiquette".
a$$hat.
Furthermore, as I never claimed to be a bastion of manners or "great etiquette", feel free to accept, as my gift to you, big steaming bowl of GFY.
BK, you bloody Bandwagon Jumper!
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:52pm.
Do you even believe this troll?
Tiresome...I'm going back to blogging my Mole Negro de Oaxaca. Killer recipe (6 hours so far and not done until tomorrow, LOL)....but it is going to be epic!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, are you denying that
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:46pm.
double
Blonde, are you denying that
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:47pm.
Blonde, are you denying that the Newsbusters in general have been quick to jump behind candidates? You know I'm right. Change the subject all you want, but the archives don't lie.
Yes, I am
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 1:26am.
DENYING your false assertion.
It's up to you to prove your statement, and as I posted above, the clock is now ticking.
Let's see what you've got.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Hey you bandwagon jumpers and poll monkey climbers.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 3:38am.
While you all have been jumping quickly from one candidate to another like the wishy-washy monkeypipples you are, Palehorse has already made his pronouncement and since he don't watch poll monkeys or jump over bandwagons, his pronouncement is set in stone.
According to Palehorse, President Obama has already won the election. Palehorse has already picked a platform and gone with it.
Don't believe me. Check the internet. It's there. Palehorse has already said Obama will win. So all of this is a useless show. And we know he don't jump bandwagons or climb monkey poles.
Palehorse: ... Care to prove me wrong? Or do you know I'm right and would rather not admit it so you call me names? ... Come on brother. It's all accessible. It's in the record.
Palehorse has proclaimed Obama the winner.
Whoops. How can that be? He just said Mitt will win.
Palehorse: I clearly stated I will not allow BO for another four years. Mitt will win.
But if he said something else, won't that make him a bandwagon jumper and pole monkey shiner? Hmmmm.
Palehorse: They handed Obama the 2012 election on a platter with this dog and pony show.
Why is this troll even here. He knows the election is already wrapped up. Looks like he just wants to tease the losers.
So which is it troll? Monkey shine pole watcher. Bandwagon jumper. One minute you say Obama will win. Next Romney will win. Sounds to me like you ain't made up your mind.
Palehorse: ...Palin, no wait, Cain, no wait, Santorum, no wait, Newt, no wait, Perry...ad nauseum.
Palehorse: ...Mitt will win. No wait. Obama will win. No wait. Mitt will....
Now answer my question troll. Is your ass buttoned on or zippered on because you sure are quick to take it off and proudly march around wearing it for a hat.
Vet, that post was from last
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:12pm.
Vet, that post was from last August. And by the way, that stunt seriously hurt the Republican party. Look what's happened to Boehner since then. Neutered. He's even despised on this site these days. So my analysis was spot on.
As for my presidential prediction, things have changed drastically since then and the economy continues to get worse. If Mitt can survive the barrage of attacks he's going to get from his fellow Republicans AND Obama, then I think he's got a serious shot.
Grab a baton and proclaim yourself Master of the Asshat Parade.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:56pm.
Makes no difference to me. You fail to understand English as written does not stop everyone else here from understanding you were NOT making predictions. You were making statements.
Statement ONE. Obama WILL win.
Palehorse: They handed Obama the 2012 election on a platter with this dog and pony show.
Statement TWO. Romney WILL win.
Palehorse: I clearly stated I will not allow BO for another four years. Mitt will win.
And the Ass hat is removed and plopped right on your head.
Palehorese: I'd rather pick a horse and stick with it.
Hey Grandmaster of the Asshat Parade. YOU DID NOT STICK WITH A HORSE. YOU PICKED TWO SO FAR. And whined because others here supported different candidates.
Palehorse: You change as much as the weather.
Says the Grandmaster of the Asshat Parade that has made two conflicting statements he now claims is juz pardikshunz when cornered.
One. Two. One. Two. Swing that baton. Be careful. Your ass for a hat is slipping off.
bkeyser
Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 9:35am.
Direct hit!
Ronald Reagan
NB
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 5:49am.
doesn't really back anyone. They report the bias of the LSM as they attack the candidates and try to choose for us whom they want for a candidate.
It's not bizarre at all
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 11:41pm.
"Pick one and end it. You can't trust someone who keeps changing teams. It's bizarre."
So, when the facts on the ground change, you ignore them and stick with your original decision? If it comes out tomorrow that Mitt was having sex parties with Jerry Sandusky, that wouldn't affect your vote, lol?
OK, horsie,
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:27pm.
What's your point, other than the one on your head?
The objective for conservatives is to send our Ear Leader back to the fetid Illinois cesspool that he emerged from.
That's in the archives too.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
Right Trix, except how could
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:35pm.
Right Trix, except how could that be your goal when you switch candidates on a weekly basis? Doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me.
Well, horsie,
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:59pm.
I don't know of any conservatives who switching candidates per se. What is a fact is that the monkeys of the media are thrilled with all the fatuous internecine squabbling - which they - not the candidates are foisting upon us.
If Gingrich wins, they'll go after his past life. If Romney wins, they'll go after his religion. If Santorum wins, they'll go after his "lack of experience"
This is exactly what the media monkeys did NOT do when his majesty was vetted.
The goal is attainable. Just one conservative who will be a good steward of our revenue. Just one who will not promise hoax and chains is needed in the WH.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
Trix, the media doesn't even
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:45pm.
Trix, the media doesn't even have to lift a finger when they candidates attack each other. The Newsbusters are a perfect example. The conservative christians vs. the tea partiers vs. the libertarians. Why would you blame the media when it's clear as day that you all do it to each other. This comment board is a microcosm of the race.
wrong pale horse*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:00am.
The media will instigate disagreements, distortions and lies when it involves anyone but a democrat. Look at how the media deals with Obama. Nothing of substance, no discussions of his policies or actions, just his beautiful smile .
Here at NB, posters discuss political issues,, candidates histories, voting records, polls, and present a multitude of sources to openly discuss. NONE of which you see occur with the media. There is more honest, skillful, and substantive discussions here than by any so called "journolists" or political analysts. Today, its about party and power, pushing a political ideology BY the media AT viewers.
Even if we have different degrees of conservatism, even if we prefer different candidates, the one thing we all have in common is a desire to inform ourselves. Looking for the truth never hurts anyone, looking for leadership, forming a community of folks simply wishing to protect our republic , cant be viewed as negatives. Unless you are unable to grasp the complexities of NB posters or you are a troll with a one note tune designed to repeatedly dis on NB.
What is clear to me
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 3:54pm.
Is that PaleHorse holds a liberal's view of how our political offices should be filled. Don't know if he holds other liberal views but this one is clear. He doesn't believe in the messy and disorganized primary process and thinks that the "party" should decide who the simple masses have to choose from. You know like when the democrats picked Hillary early on in 2008 and then the media changed their mind because there was a young black upstart that filled their eyes with twinkles and gave them a thirill up their leg.
Suppose someone was an early supporter of Herman Cain...after the modern day lynching of him and his decision to drop out of the race, wouldn't that person have to look around and pick another candidate to support? That's how this process works. Or would you expect that person to go right on and support a candidate who was no longer running?
The fact of the matter is that the GOP seems to be a much larger "tent" this year than the democrats ever thought about having. There are a wide variety of views and ideas to choose from. Eventually the field will get smaller as the votes are cast and the support is officially tallied.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Bad Trix!
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:56pm.
Changing horsies midstream.
Who is this troll and why is he here?
Question number three.....how long until he is gone?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Oh, awesome Blonde!
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:00pm.
mea culpa. The answer to all three questions is: Oy vey! I dunno.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
So much easier to ignore
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:41pm.
So much easier to ignore reality than to admit that you cheerleaded for Cain (which you did...after others!). Oh which way will the breeze blow next.
Distraction and snark doesn't change facts.
if you could just compile
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 9:56am.
if you could just compile some links to prove your point - how about taking one of us and quote us supporting all of these candidates week after week - one person - you probably can't do it can you
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Still not making sense
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 11:51pm.
you cheerleaded for Cain (which you did...after others!).
Lot's of people cheerleaded from Cain. And then they found out that he possibly has been cheating on his wife for decades, was accused of committing sexual harassment, and is pretty weak when it comes to foreign policy....things they didn't know when they originally supported him. So....what's your point exactly? If I find out my best friend is sleeping with my wife, am I supposed to still consider him my best friend, lol?
You do realize PaleHorse that
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:22pm.
You do realize PaleHorse that the 'objective' media collectively have bashed, nit-picked, and attacked an astonishing amount of Republican contenders right?
Ant, they've bashed,
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:40pm.
Ant, they've bashed, nit-picked, and attacked each other much more viciously and consistently than the MSM. Cannibalism at it's finest. I read a great article today about how the GOP doesn't really exist anymore. It's been battered down into three silos. None of which are willing to support the other. What does this equal? Obama re-election. Sad, but true.
NotTanHorse
Submitted by MrShy on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:33am.
"Ant, they've [Republican candidates] bashed, nit-picked, and attacked each other much more viciously and consistently than the MSM."
No they haven't. Not by a long shot. The MSM runs the show in this country -- or tries its darndest -- working overtime to manipulate U.S. readers and viewers and wean them off anything GOP/conservative, by endlessly picking apart, bashing, nit-picking, past-digging, and flame-starting between primary candidates. And, they'll then do it all over again in defense of Obama or any Democrat candidate. That you are here peddling this "it's not really the MSM's fault" and "we made our own mess/we're eating our own" (cannibalism? really?) meme confirms two things:
1) You're some rarely-posting liberal hack/operative jumping in on this one thread to mock all of "the NewsBusters" as non-critical thinking right-wingers, or some such, repeating the same, dumb stereotype with every post, and...
2) You completely don't get why this site even exists.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Bingo
Submitted by FranklySpeaking on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 3:01am.
I agree...but it isn't just Newsbusters. It seems conservatives are doing everything they can to provide another win for Obama. I'm sick of hearing about RINOs and about people who have zero chance of beating Obama. IMHO, Paul is a kook, Gingrich has numerous credible ethics issues, and Santorum wants to talk about important things like contraception. After forcing some congressional changes in 2010, the tea party seems determined to push an agenda that I believe isn't at all attractive to independents. Do conservatives understand they are destroying the party...at a time the country needs us to be unified, clear thinking, and behind an outstanding candidate. I don't see anyone other than Romney...but the somewhat delusional conservatives will probably destroy his chances.
So, Frankly Speaking
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 3:36am.
You're tired of conservatives doing the same thing you just did, but interjected your support of Romney after bashing the rest of the pack.
Brilliant!
Another conservative (?) who has no problem---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 3:48am.
taking potshots at other conservatives, whom he classifies as 'somewhat delusional'.
Tell us, please, what a "real" conservative agenda would have to look like in order to attract and corral the independents prior to election day.
What exactly, is the agenda of the TEA Party, outside of lower or less taxes, that isn't at all attractive to those independents?
While Romney is more than likely going to be the eventual beneficiary of the GOP selection process, if Willard is the 'outstanding candidate' you are recommending getting behind, then you are carrying a far bigger load of delusion than are those you complain about.
MD
Stereotype much?
Submitted by dzejk113 on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 5:16pm.
That's a hell of a generalization to say EVERYONE on NB is a fair weather supporter of candidates, and simply jump from one bandwagon to the next. For my part, I haven't thrown my support behind any candidate yet, I can see the merits in all of them, and no candidate will be perfect. I think any of them could defeat Obama, and any of them would be a better president than him.
Palehorse is a bigot after all.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 10:31pm.
bigot: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Members of a group
Yet Chris the Marxist has no problem with BO
Submitted by Bodini on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 7:36pm.
the Dicktator!
bodini..nice play on
Submitted by jkwtrading on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:44pm.
bodini..nice play on words..liked that one.
Ha ha ha, this all you got
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 7:42pm.
Ha ha ha, this all you got Matthews? We heard DOOM about Pres. Obama and that turned out... oh wait, they were right!
Uh oh, I guess it's time to run shrieking from the room and re-elect Pres. Obama /sarc.
Ronald Reagan
That's pretty funny for comrade Matthews given it has been...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 7:44pm.
...not even a week since Little Caesar Obumma flushed our Constitution right down the crapper.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
History repeats itself
Submitted by wingnut55 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 7:46pm.
I remember when John Kennedy was running for President. All his opponents were saying that if he is elected the Pope would be ruling the USA. Obviously Chris Matthews is married because he seems to have selected hearing. He only hears what he wants to hear.
Chrissy the moron
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 7:48pm.
MATTHEWS: No, he didn't. Let me tell you what he said. He's said my religion should dominate, should trump issues of the Constitution.
What constitution Chrissy? You mean the one Obama is openly thwarting while you sit there and make up crap about a good patriotic American? That constitution, Chrissy
Syrange words from tingles
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 8:12pm.
Syrange words from tingles since obama has set up islamofascist theocracies all over the mideast without a peep of protest from chrissy and his socialist pals. Or are judeochristiam theocracies the only verboten form of government in the view of libprogs?
How ironic. Chris Matthews, a failed Catholic who pays zero...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 8:23pm.
attention to the teachings of his church, criticizes a strong Catholic like Santorum for being a good Catholic. What would his hero JFK, who received similar empty headed and prejudiced criticisms, say? (And I don't mean John Forbes Kerry either!)
This is a cool example of how Democrats are losing it.
Submitted by acaiguana on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 8:21pm.
Matthews could not have been more desperate than this if he had written a script before he opened the show.
What?
OK....
He had the script written. It was awkward but he made his point which is meaningless in the context of what actually happened. Is Chris becoming the Olbermann of MSNBC (or what)?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
When will someone finally say to this joke:
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:05pm.
"Sorry, Chris, I thought I was coming on to speak w/ a professional journalist and not a partisan hack. I wish you and that thrill up your leg a nice evening."
Amen!!
Submitted by bobsmom on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:15pm.
Either I would have made an excellent politician, or the world's worst. There is no way on God's green earth I'd ever sit and listen to this crap without running my mouth. All of our folks are so worried about what people will think of them. I don't need to "like" my president, I need to trust him, and respect him. They're going to say rotten things about all of our candidates anyway, so why play the game?
Your exactly right
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:20pm.
Obama thinks he only represents the 60mil that voted for him. To he11 with the rest of us, were the enemy.
I actually
Submitted by bobsmom on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:32pm.
had to apologize to my husband (really!) when he was home for the holidays. He and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, and when he used to say "I HATE George Bush!", I'd say "how can you hate someone you don't even know? You can disagree with his ideology, but hate him? That's pretty crazy." Well, after nearly 3 years of this genius, I am able to understand my husband's sentiments.................And, if I see one more picture of his baby's bottom smooth pecs I'm gonna jump out the window.
No, Chris, it is you liberals
Submitted by Darks Shadow Show on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:09pm.
No, Chris, it is you liberals you are trying to create a theocracy, the religion to be established being Marxism, and you want everyone to worship Dear Leader, who is in this case Obama. Stop lying.
So..this is the point NBer
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:36pm.
So..this is the point NBer shawn was talking about in another thread. Hmmm. he misrepresented Santorum's statement too.
Which part of the Constitution is Schultz Jr. talking about? The part that says States have no rights or the part with all that talk about condoms and junk?
Theocracy....
Submitted by GeneralAl on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:38pm.
Theocracy as opposed to an idiocracy!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
Did Santorum actually win Iowa?
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:22pm.
According to TPM, maybe. (Consider the source, though.)
I, personally enjoy libs
Submitted by jkwtrading on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:53pm.
I, personally enjoy libs getting religion or God. it is the straw which breaks the camels back and destroys them.
keep discussing it libs and the corner you find yourself in will be occupied by yourself.
The left never met a dictator
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:02am.
The left never met a dictator they didn't like. Obama is like a dream come true for them.
Once again the liberals are
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:44am.
Once again the liberals are electing GOP candidate, with the help of the GOP.
It's very obvious that an
Submitted by MightyMouth on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:56am.
It's very obvious that an athiest would think this way. So Chrissy admit you don't believe in God and put yourself in the 3% of earth's population that are either gay or are fools.
On Edge
Submitted by FranklySpeaking on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 2:47am.
Matthews seems to be particularly on edge lately. Perhaps he is fearing an Obama loss...the ridicule of conservatives will be relentless. That said, I'm not comfortable with Santorum as a candidate because I think the media will make a big deal about his views on personal matters like contraception. I just don't think that is what we should be concerned about at this time in American history.
On Bono
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 4:58am.
Me too. I make all of my life decisions based upon what the media will make a big deal out of. It is why I did not vote for Reagan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush. The media made a big deal out of all of them. The media however gave a free pass to Clinton and Obama so it was an easy choice voting for them.
I like you. Let's go listen to some U2.
The Vet
Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 9:47am.
I'm still laughing - that was hilarious - U2 *snort*
Ronald Reagan
⇒ On Vixen
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 9:54am.
It was funny!
Thanks amyshulk and Cool Arrow and all the boys and girls.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 1:54pm.
It's a gift, really.
On Donner and Blitzen
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 5:06am.
Say, do you always sign up on a site and post obliviously to the stated motto of said site?
Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias.
The MEDIA with its LIBERAL BIAS will make a big deal out of something so I shall tuck my head and run fer cover! Yeah, that whole exposing and combating, I will leave that to braver souls.
"this time in American history?"
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:43pm.
At which point in American history would it be appropriate for someone like Santorum to speak about the State's ability to make laws, like a law banning contraceptives, or whatever? As he has said, things like that are best left to the individual States to decide, regardless of his personal feelings on the matter, just as the Founding Fathers intended. If that's not important at this time in American history, when the federal government is expanding it's control over every single state, and every single citizen within those states, then I don't know what is.
NOW is the time for people to speak out about State sovereignty. For NOW is the time that this sovereignty is being lost, one federal regulation, one federal law, at a time. As they say, "speak now or forever hold your peace."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
anti-Christian
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 12:14am.
Clearly this is about being anti-Christian, not anti-Theocracy. Islam actualy seeks to merge "church and state" (so to speak), yet you won't hear criticism of Islam from Tingles.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال