On Monday’s Hardball, MSNBC host Chris Matthews and New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters decided to whitewash history and deceive viewers, painting all Republicans as unmistakably belonging to “the Putin party” dead-set on “putting their interests ahead of the country’s” (which means not joining Democrats in seeking to remove Trump from office).
Matthews wondered as much in a tease prior to a commercial break, ignoring Republicans ranging from Congressmen Will Hurd (Tex.) to Senator Marco Rubio (Fl.) who have raised concerns about Russia and what transpired in the 2016 election.
“And why is the Republican Party going along with Trump on the Russians? Is the GOP becoming the Putin party? I love saying that, by the way, the Putin party. That’s the question. And it’s raising concerns that this President and his party are putting their interests ahead of the country’s,” Matthews hackishly shouted.
Later, Matthews ranted to The Boston Globe’s Astead Herdon that the GOP has sadly turned away from being “a party that fought the Cold War the hard way for years, was proud of its opposition to communism in Russia” to “seemingly happy with Russian nationalism as our ally.”
Put bluntly, this is fake news. Barack Obama’s dismissal of Mitt Romney’s Russia warning in 2012 was only one such example. The media have willfully forgotten the near-unanimous horror to Russia’s seizure of Crimea with affiliated rebels taking over a swath of eastern Ukraine. Talk about a massive either-or fallacy.
Anyway, more on this later. Herndon agreed with Matthews, responding:
All Republicans need to do is hold true to the values that they said that they cared about for a long time. They have been the party that has talked about being tough on foreign adversaries, on people like Russia until Trump came along.
Later, Matthews swooned to Peters over his July 14 piece entitled “Reverence for Putin on the Right Buys Trump Cover” before adding:
But this acceptance of Putin messing with our election, this casualness to which they defend, no matter what’s proven — Im still taken aback. I know these people on the hard right are patriotic normally. But why are they so unpatriotic when it comes to letting the Russians mess with us? That’s not a patriotic position to be in. It just isn’t objectively.
Peters then spread some seriously fake news, arguing: “It’s stunning. It’s this head-spinning role reversal from the party that was tough on communists and tough on the Soviet Union. I mean, this used to be a prerequisite for being a Republican, being tough on them.”
Peters dithering away, painting conservatives with a broad brush as “basically apologists for Putin and what’s I think really undergirding this, Chris, is its wrapped up in anti-Obamaism.”
“He was more of a man than Obama was. He was more of a leader. He was decisive. He seized countries. He rode a horse shirtless and he went tiger hunting in the Russian wilderness. So for them, he kind of took on this Paul Bunyan type quality,” he explained.
Peters doubled down in his second set of comments, educating the liberal masses about the supposed behavior of conservatives as if we’re zoo animals with liberals poking on the windows: “He represented somebody who was emasculating and humiliating Barack Obama on the world stage. And because of that, almost any other transgression could be forgiven.”
When Peters tweeted his story upon publication, Republican pollster Kristin Soltis Anderson put him to shame.
“‘Crush on Putin for a while now’ isn't correct. Silly framing, debunked by data. In 2015 Dems were +3 more pos on Putin than GOP,” Anderson explained in her first tweet using Gallup polling.
She wasn’t done:
An annoyed Peters responded with little fire as if he had been caught...wait for it....red handed: “Read the story, Kristen. There are a dozen examples in there alone, and many, many, many more I didn't have room for from prominent figures.”
Using Peters’s own words, Anderson shot back:
“I'm distressed as anyone about the increase in Putin apologia, but to say "the right" has been "fetishizing" him for a while is insulting,” she added.
For the mic drop, she cited another Pew poll with the question having to do with whether or Democrats and Republicans viewed Russia as an adversary:
The Free Beacon’s David Rutz and Andrew Kugle were just two others who chimed in. Kugle pointed out how Peters “might want to explain his paper’s crush on Putin first,” citing a March 28, 2012 editorial mocking Romney’s Russia warnings.
When Peters whined about how this claim was “so bogus” and that The Times has frequently denounced Putin for years, Kugle astutely reminded him: “Funny, so do many conservatives.”
If anything, Peters should have prefaced any such story on Russia and the GOP by doing homework about the left’s cozy relations with the Russians and the former Soviet Union.
Thankfully for us, my colleague Tim Graham did his homework showing Time’s love for Russia or Mark Levin exposing how some on the lefty colluded with the Soviet Union in an attempt to defeat Ronald Reagan.
Here’s the relevant transcript from MSNBC’s Hardball on July 17:
MSNBC’s Hardball
July 17, 2017
7:15 p.m. Eastern [TEASE]
CHRIS MATTHEWS: And why is the Republican Party going along with Trump on the Russians? Is the GOP becoming the Putin party? I love saying that, by the way, the Putin party. That’s the question. And it’s raising concerns that this President and his party are putting their interests ahead of the country’s.
(....)
7:44 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS: Astead, it seems to me the Republican parties are running the risk of being identified as the Putin Party, a party that fought the Cold War the hard way for years, was proud of its opposition to communism in Russia. Its now seemingly happy with Russian nationalism as our ally. How do they avoid the blame game when the time comes to see who was on Putins side and who was against him?
ASTEAD HERNDON: All Republicans need to do is hold true to the values that they said that they cared about for a long time. They have been the party that has talked about being tough on foreign adversaries, on people like Russia until Trump came along. And so, what we need to see from Republicans is to what people are asking for Republicans to do. I think what that column calls for is to move beyond just the words of being troubled or concerned, but really hold consequences -- hold the White House responsible and accountable. And if they do see a string of things that are concerning to them, to really put weight behind that in terms of policy. And thats what people are trying to pressure them to do.
(....)
7:46 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS: But this acceptance of Putin messing with our election, this casualness to which they defend, no matter what’s proven — Im still taken aback. I know these people on the hard right are patriotic normally. But why are they so unpatriotic when it comes to letting the Russians mess with us? That’s not a patriotic position to be in. It just isn’t objectively.
JEREMY PETERS: It’s stunning. It’s this head-spinning role reversal from the party that was tough on communists and tough on the Soviet Union. I mean, this used to be a prerequisite for being a Republican, being tough on them.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
PETERS: And now, all of a sudden, you have this band of conservatives who are basically apologists for Putin. And what’s I think really undergirding this, Chris, is its wrapped up in anti-Obamaism. For a lot of conservatives like Sarah Palin and eventually Donald Trump himself, Putin was the ultimate fuel for Obama. He was more of a man than Obama was. He was more of a leader. He was decisive. He seized countries. He rode a horse shirtless and he went tiger hunting in the Russian wilderness. So for them, he kind of took on this Paul Bunyan type quality.
MATTHEWS: Who does this bare-chested, tiger hunting image, who does that work for? Its pretty primordial. I mean, give me a break here. Is this how they decide their politics? I liked Teddy Roosevelt, but this was a retrained version of this. I don’t know what to say.
PETERS: He almost became like this Paul Bunyan-like figure for a lot of conservatives because to them, he represented somebody who was emasculating and humiliating Barack Obama on the world stage. And because of that, almost any other transgression could be forgiven.
