On Broad-Brushing the Republican Party
October 28, 2011 24 Comments
Here’s a party that — I’m just keeping the list. They want more people to fry. They love executions. They want people that don’t have insurance to die on the gurney in the hospital bed. They want that to happen. They want — forget about illegal aliens. Gay soldiers, forget about them. They’re not — they’re to be booed. If you’re homeless, foreclose — if you have a home, foreclose on the people. If you’re a teacher, fireman or a cop, get rid of the guy! I mean, this attitude of causing cruel pain on people and getting cheers for it, what’s that about, Howard? You’re giving me that look. They’re in my head with this. I want to know where these candidates are heading with this.
Let’s break this down civilly, and give the increasingly unhinged Chris Matthews from the increasingly unhinged MSNBC a response on the merits, mindful that his slanderous gush had little to do with the merits and much to do with embarrassingly juvenile anger.
1. “They want more people to fry. They love executions.” This is the kind of preposterous statement that says so much more about the speaker than the target. No person of either party “loves” executions. It is impossible to be human and “love” an execution. I’m thoroughly Republican and hate executions. I just re-watched Anne of the Thousand Days with Richard Burton and Genevieve Bujold, and I cringed and winced at every single execution ordered by Henry VIII, and despised Henry VIII all the more for his profligate killing. Nothing about executions is appealing.
If the question is support for the death penalty, most Americans do, including 58% of Democrats. It is possible to support the death penalty because some particularly heinous crimes take a person beyond entitlement to dwell with us — without “loving ” executions. It is possible to believe justice is served when a killer is killed without “loving” executions.
The Obama administration has executed, without trial, Osama bin Ladin and Anwar al-Awlaki, among others. I haven’t celebrated. I’m glad they’re dead and good for the president. Democrats are more likely to celebrate these killings as proof of the president’s national security bona fides. Rah rah, Chris. Who’s loving it?
2. “They want people that don’t have insurance to die on the gurney in the hospital bed. They want that to happen.” Note the redoubled insistence — “they want that to happen.” They want people to die. Republicans really want people to die.
Republicans don’t want ObamaCare — but that doesn’t mean they don’t want more people insured and medical care to be more affordable and accessible (much less wanting people to die). Republicans have a different approach, a more market-based approach that drives down costs (tort reform — the resistance to which demonstrates Democrats’ desire for people to die — just kidding and channeling Chris) and ensures medical care competition rather than the government monopoly toward which ObamaCare drives. This is a fair debate. I would hope in any event to call it a fair debate, unless I’m being accused of wanting people to die.
Wasn’t it outrageous when Sarah Palin rallied against “death panels”? Wasn’t that the left’s energetic attack on the right as “lies, lies, lies” and proof that conservatives would resort to any rhetoric to rally the base? Oh my, never mind that Sarah Palin’s claim enjoyed a kernel of truth in the bill, even if the rhetoric was beyond the pale. She suggested that a bill would result in “death panels.” Chris Matthews suggests that Republicans — the entire party — want uninsured people to die, really, “they want that to happen.” I’d suggest a measure of self-policing, of some very basic description of what counts for acceptable rhetoric.
3. “They want- forget about illegal aliens.” I think this sort of vacuously speaks for itself.
4. “Gay soldiers, forget about them. They’re not- they’re to be booed.” Granted, a bad moment for the Republican party in one debate. But think about the issue here: a hypocritical expectation that Republicans seize the moment to condemn booers in a Republican debate, when the moment moved very quickly to another topic. Who gets credit in that scenario? How is that navigated? And who yet in the Democratic party has condemned Chris Matthews? That said, Republicans, get serious about respecting our men and women in uniform who happen to be gay.
5. “If you’re homeless, foreclose- if you have a home, foreclose on the people.” Yes, that’s what Republicans want to do, foreclose on the homeless — and the homeful, hahaha. Anybody who can be without a home, that’s good. The people suck. We hate them. Are you following me?
What Republicans wanted was less profligate demand by Congress and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that lenders extend mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them. If fewer people who can’t afford mortgages had actually gotten them, then fewer people would have defaulted, and we might not be in this recession.
A foreclosure, like an execution (above), is never something any actual human being ever celebrates. To suggest that it is, and to paint an entire party as giddy about it, is the worst political rhetoric there is. Except for this:
6. “If you’re a teacher, fireman or a cop, get rid of the guy! I mean, this attitude of causing cruel pain on people and getting cheers for it, what’s that about, Howard?”
To be sure, Republicans want to get rid of teachers, fireman and cops. Vermin, all. But not before “causing them cruel pain and getting cheers for it.” That’s the Republican party. (And Howard helpfully agreed by the way.)
And this is what passes for the kind of discourse that’s acceptable as against the reviled Fox Network?
UPDATE (11/18/2011): Larry Elder does a Chris on Chris, and Chris crumbles.