Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews and the 'regime' question
--Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent
April
On Friday, I asked Rush Limbaugh for his response to President Obama's description of him as "troublesome" and of his program as "vitriol." Limbaugh told me he does not believe Obama is trying to do what is best for the country and added, "Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely."
By using the word "regime," Limbaugh was doing something he does all the time: throwing the language of the opposition back in their faces. In the Bush years, we often heard the phrase "Bush regime" from some quarters of the left. So Limbaugh applied it to Obama.
Apparently some people didn't get it. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews appeared deeply troubled by the word. "I've never seen language like this in the American press," he said, "referring to an elected representative government, elected in a totally fair, democratic, American election -- we will have another one in November, we'll have another one for president in a couple years -- fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country…. We know that word, 'regime.' It was used by George Bush, 'regime change.' You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They're juntas. They're military coups. The use of the word 'regime' in American political parlance is unacceptable, and someone should tell the walrus [Limbaugh] to stop using it."
Matthews didn't stop there. "I never heard the word 'regime,' before, have you?" he said to NBC's Chuck Todd. "I don't even think Joe McCarthy ever called this government a 'regime.'"
It appears that Matthews has suffered a major memory loss. I don't have the facilities to search for every utterance of Joe McCarthy, but a look at more recent times reveals many, many, many examples of the phrase "Bush regime." In fact, a search of the Nexis database for "Bush regime" yields 6,769 examples from January 20, 2001 to the present.
It was used 16 times in the New York Times, beginning with an April 4, 2001 column by Maureen Dowd -- who wrote, "Seventy-five days into the Bush regime and I'm a wreck" -- and ending with a March 6, 2009 editorial denouncing the "frightening legal claim advanced by the Bush regime to justify holding [accused terrorist Ali al-Marri]."
"Bush regime" was used 24 times in the Washington Post, beginning with a January 22, 2001 profile of Marshall Wittmann by Howard Kurtz -- who noted that Wittmann served as "a Health and Human Services deputy assistant secretary in the first Bush regime" -- and ending with an October 6, 2009 column by Dana Milbank which quoted far-left antiwar protester Medea Benjamin questioning whether the Obama administration "looks very different from the Bush regime."
Perhaps Matthews missed all of those references. If he did, he still might have heard the phrase the many times it was uttered on his own network, MSNBC. For example, on January 8 of this year, Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak said that, "In George Bush's regime, only one million jobs had been created…" On August 21, 2009, MSNBC's Ed Schultz referred to something that happened in 2006, when "the Bush regime was still in power." On October 8, 2007, Democratic strategist Steve McMahon said that "the middle class has not fared quite as well under Bush regime as…" On August 10, 2007, MSNBC played a clip of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan referring to "the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been tragically harmed by the Bush regime." On September 21, 2006, a guest referred to liberals "expressing their dissatisfaction with the Bush regime." On July 7, 2004, Ralph Nader -- appearing with Matthews on "Hardball" -- discussed how he would "take apart the Bush regime." On May 26, 2003, Joe Scarborough noted a left-wing website that "has published a deck of Bush regime playing cards." A September 26, 2002 program featured a viewer email that said, "The Bush regime rhetoric gets goofier and more desperate every day."
Finally -- you knew this was coming -- on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration's conduct of the war on terror. "Let's go to the Reverend Al Sharpton," Matthews said. "Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?"
Oops. Perhaps Joe McCarthy never called the U.S. government a regime, but Chris Matthews did. And a lot of other people did, too. So now we are supposed to believe him when he expresses disgust at Rush Limbaugh doing the same?
Lot's of folks think the likes of Limbaugh are dangerous, but what about the so-called "responsible" media like MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC? They mock Fox's claim to "fair and balanced" but these DNC tools don't even pretend to being fair, let alone balanced.
One of the main reasons that I began to listen and to trust the Conservative talk show hosts (such as Rush and Beck) was because I could listen to their shows, tune into one of the main stream channels and hear people like Matthews lie like a sack of potatoes about what was said. If commentators and reporters could lie about what I had just heard with my own ears, what else were they lying to me about. This started my own journey to find out the truth for myself. And I found that you CANNOT trust the main stream media. Not under any circumstances. The final straw was when they started lying about ME. Yes ME! I attend Tea Parties, and their constant accusations of racism and violent behavior is a direct and slanderous assault on my character as well as thousands of patriots who attend these functions. Matthews and his ilk might be interested to know that, although there are some who believe the propaganda, the majority of us are looking back at the screen and we know exactly what kind of liars they really are. They are a joke. They have no ethical integrity whatsoever and aren't to be taken seriously as journalists.
ReplyDeleteThanks for speaking up Kim. The Left sees you as a very dangerous person because you think for yourself. And also, because I couldn't find one misspelled word in your post. Your grammar, too, is spot on. Your very existence as a free thinking American is a threat to socialist America and the Liberal apparatchik, and you must be stopped. You may even one day find yourself in a government-run reeducation camp... I'll see you there.
ReplyDeleteStand your ground and stay true.
Matthews' idiocy is only exceeded by that of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. That said, he runs a close enough third to be practically indistinguishable from them.
ReplyDeleteBut this idiocy is merely indicative of almost all Liberals. Look at Hank Johnson (the guy who thinks Guam will tip over and capsize), Democrat Representative from Cynthia McKinney's home district in Georgia. Look at Cynthia McKinney. Look at the voters in Johnson/McKinney's district.
Idiots and liars all.
It is people like those who put idiots like Cynthia McKinney and Hank Johnson in office that give strength to the argument that some people-- specifically government dependents --should not be allowed to vote. There is, after all, no constitutional "right to vote" in a general election.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, in the beginning of this country only property owners were allowed to vote, perhaps because only they were viewed as having a stake in the American dream.
However, in fairness to Rep Johnson, he has been battling Hepatitis C for over 10 years. He says he's been declared virus free, but his liver is severely damaged and he still has serious health issues. Who's to say WHAT years of heavy meds have done to his mental capacity. So, using the term 'idiot' with Johnson may not be apropos, but the remarks he made about Guam tipping over DO suggest he is incapable of adequately representing the voters of Georgia's 4th congressional district.
ReplyDeleteIf nothing else, Hank Johnson and Cynthia McKinney are both poster children for why certain folk should not be allowed a vote. Someone who spends his life with hands out, taking from government, and remaining an unproductive dependent of government, should not have a say in government's perpetuation.
That being said, is Hank Johnson capable of performing the duties for which he was elected as representative of Georgia's 4th congressional district?
ReplyDelete