Matthews: Jewish voters "have one key concern," Israel; "[I]f you're African-American ... [y]ou care about certain programs of the federal government"
SUMMARY: Discussing "the Catholic vote" on Hardball, Chris Matthews said: "It isn't like a vote like, for example, if you're a Jewish voter probably you care about Israel, that's a safe bet. You have one key concern. ... But clearly, if you're African-American, you care about civil rights. You care about certain programs of the federal government. That's a generalization, but probably true."
On the April 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked MSNBC political analyst Mike Barnicle, "What is the Catholic vote, Mike Barnicle?" Continuing, Matthews asserted: "It isn't like a vote like, for example, if you're a Jewish voter probably you care about Israel, that's a safe bet. You have one key concern. I can't think of other groups that would make it that simple. But clearly, if you're African-American, you care about civil rights. You care about certain programs of the federal government. That's a generalization, but probably true. You're more progressive."
From the April 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: What is the Catholic vote, Mike Barnicle? It isn't like a vote like, for example, if you're a Jewish voter probably you care about Israel, that's a safe bet. You have one key concern. I can't think of other groups that would make it that simple. But clearly, if you're African-American, you care about civil rights. You care about certain programs of the federal government. That's a generalization, but probably true. You're more progressive. But Catholics -- where would you put them? Is there a squirrel box or a rabbit hole you can put them in politically?
"if you're a Jewish voter probably you care about Israel, that's a safe bet."
Then you should care about what John McCain has in mind for Israel.
"But clearly, if you're African-American, you care about civil rights. You care about certain programs of the federal government. That's a generalization, but probably true."--Tweety
Let's see if I got this--It's a true generalzation? Hmmm. Sound kind of like a deserved stereotype.
"Catholics -- where would you put them? Is there a squirrel box or a rabbit hole you can put them in politically?"--Tweety
Squirrel box? Rabbit hole? Chris, how did you get this job?
A squirrel box to put Catholics in?
Is Tweety threatening the pope?
Yes, that is insulting. Last weekend in a string with Columbus I made a reference to which factors African American voters considered when voting and included the good of America. Columbus sneered at the very idea. He pretty much stated that the only factors AAs considered were race and "entitlements."
How does one counter ethnic bigotry such as those two examples?
You also implied without sarcasm that I would vote for Bin Laden. Your exact words were; "I wouldn't put it past you."
It was insulting, and completely uncalled for.
Sure because it fits your delusional fantasies and that is enough for you to believe ANYTHING. How does the 90% support for Clinton by African Americans fit into this fantasy? Where did you get this statistic that Obama gets 90% support from blacks anyway?Which hateradio screechmonkey told you to repeat that BS?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/18/poll.2008/index.html
In a national survey by CNN/Opinion Research Corp., 59 percent of black Democrats backed Obama, an Illinois Democrat, for their party's presidential nomination, with 31 percent supporting Clinton, the senator from New York.
The 28 point lead for Obama is a major reversal from October, when Clinton held a 24 point lead among black Democrats.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/black-support-shifts-toward-obama/
The poll shows that Mr. Obama is now backed by 59 percent of black Democrats
You know what might be good the next time you are looking for all the proof you need to back up your biases you choose some proof that actually exists.
First I didnt say all, I said most. And I stand by my statement. 90% vote for Barack Obama is all the proof I need. - Columbus
It was also pointed out to you that a great many AA candidates have received nowhere near that level of support from AA voters. Obama's political positions earned him high levels of support from them. His race was likely a tipping point when all other things are approximately equal, but it's ignorant and bigoted to suggest race is the only reason for that support. Your "proof" lies in misapplication of the facts.
I also pointed out that the large majority of AAs receive none of what you ignorantly call "entitlements." If AAs as a group are as self-serving as you imply, why would they choose candidates for their support of programs from which most AAs receive no benefit?
I also notice that you continue to stand behind your assertion that the good of the country isn't a factor for AA voters. Unless you believe that the good of the country isn't a factor for ANY voters, that is an extremely bigoted position.
90% vote for Barack Obama is all the proof I need.
And one idiotic post from you after another is all the proof WE need to show you're an ignorant racist who doesn't know squat about anything.
We Catholics are very concerned with burdensome liquor laws, the rising costs of secret dual citizenship, and tax credits for our broods of howling, filthy Papists-in-training.
So somewhere between the welfare-dependent blacks and the Elders of Zion as far as Matthews is concerned.
I know ALOT MORE black voters who too busy working to take a weekday sightseeing cruise through the "hood." How old were those individuals? My suspicion is that you saw a handful of black youth skipping school.
As for government benefits, Public roads, transit systems, schools, police departments, bridges, etc...are government benefits. So it's not surprising that they would be concern with who manages the bureaucracy that cares for these.
I meant to write that I agree with Matthews. Sorry for the mistake!
There is no question... you are right about that.
I just don't think eight years of Obama is going to make everything better. None of our previous progressive presidents has been able to just turn things completely around. It seems to be a zero-sum type of situation. In order to help one group of people you would have to hurt another group.
"I just don't think eight years of Obama is going to make everything better."
That’s called making the perfect the enemy of the good.
None of our previous progressive presidents has been able to just turn things completely around.
Same thing.
"It seems to be a zero-sum type of situation. In order to help one group of people you would have to hurt another group."
If Bush’s base had been roughly a half of the electorate your assertion might have some credibility. But his true base has been the super wealthy, way less than half. The amount of help given has been disproportionate and the fix should be accordingly disproportionate.
>>That’s called making the perfect the enemy of the good.
That and making excuses. It's easy to check poverty and unemployment statistics under Dubya and Clinton and see who was better.
"It seems to be a zero-sum type of situation. In order to help one group of people you would have to hurt another group."
The right does that all of the time. They call it trickle down.
The trickle down part is where you raise the rich persons taxes and he passes them on down the line to everyone else. That's the reality of tax increases. Personally I think that there should be a flat tax or the Fair Tax should be implemented. Let's all just pay the same rate or pay based upon our consumption.
“The trickle down part is where you raise the rich persons taxes and he passes them on down the line to everyone else.”
You may be using or confusing the theory that all taxes on business get passed on to the consumer. Obviously a person can’t pass his taxes or his tax bill on---only through business dealings can he possibly do that. But I disagree with that theory also. Business, over time, will adjust prices to maximize profit without consideration to their costs, taxes includedNo, what is idiotic spin out of you is that you have some clue what you are talking about, which you don't. On one hand, you rail against corporations and fat cat CEOs here all the time, call them greedy and lets soak them with as much tax burder as we can - and in the next breath you are banking on their goodwill and generosity to absorb such tax increases........hardly symptomatic of a greedy CEO is it?
Which makes your liberal theory ridiculous. Business owners always pass their costs onto their consumers, it's called business otherwise they would be out of business, can you understand that? So tax them all you want and dream of no consequences for the "little guy", but it ain't gonna happen.
You have NO evidence this is correct. It rests on the assumption that CEOs can just raise the price of their goods anytime they want without taking into account that they might not SELL at a higher price. Or that bussinesses ONLY charge the lowest price they can afford instead of what the market can bear. These two propostions not only cannot be supported but also it is an argument that would say we should never tax bussinesses at ALL. You always have your appologies why we cannot ask anything more of the wealthy and why we must keep GIVING them more and more for OUR OWN GOOD. What you ask is that we forego a direct benifit because there MIGHT be an indirect consequence as in a fit of pique they soak society to maintain a lavish lifestyle. The average CEO makes more than 400 times as much money as the average worker. I think he can absorb a bit of a tax increase and not be seen in the poorhouse.
“…you are banking on their goodwill and generosity to absorb such tax increases...”
Goodwill doesn’t come into play in the price setting process. Profit maximization is the only significant motivator, over time.
Generosity on the part of a corporation is a PR measure to draw or keep business by improving image.
“Business owners always pass their costs onto their consumers, it's called business otherwise they would be out of business,…”
If an efficient business could have charged a higher price before a cost increase it would have. It wouldn’t wait. .............. Also, only the relatively lower performing businesses will be put out of business by any given cost increase.
If you were to have specified a particular industry at a particular time in history, your points may or may not apply there, due to special circumstances particular to that given industry. But you are making general economic assertions.
…”idiotic spin…”
Boy this is a great example of the virtue of restraint in debate. Anyone can make a mistake and wrongly disagree with someone But no one looks more foolish than when wrongly disagreeing with someone and at the same time demeaning the others’ intelligence.
Being not existing catholic, jewish or just any typical white / black person (voter) is not the question or the problem?!
It's depressing to watch my friend Chris getting less and less of a journalist, thinker, political pundit but more and more sad example of a narcissistic, sexist, bitter and self centered hardball player who would never play , interview or invite any panel that would not agree to echo his unique answers bundled with his monologue of questions...
Stop being so politically correct. You are choosing not to see reality my friend.
Question, who's playing identity politics?
Answer, Chris Mathews.
That's a generalization, but probably true." - Matthews
All teevee talking heads are idiots. That's also a generalization, but probably true.
OMG. I just read through these posts and I had to write. People actualy believe that we no longer need programs like affirmative action, protections for civil rights, causes of action for discrimination and etc. because they think we are getting past the racist attitudes and sterotypes that make employers, real estate brokers, government agencies and school systems feel free to humiliate and exclude minority applicants and participants.
But a quick read here is all they need to see the blatant hate and ignorance that created the KKK and skinheads.
And just for Pig: you are a sad sad little man. Please crawl back into your hovel of Guns and Ammo and Jugs back issues you pastey-skinned mullet-headed wife-beater-wearing tall-boy-drinking snuff-spitting red-necked knuckle-dragging slouch of a meat sack waste of air and water. It's a good thing you have mastered hunt and peck or you wouldn't have a soul in the world to talk to. From here on out, your posts are blank to me. No amount of fact or pursuasion could premeate your granite skull at this point. You are a fossil on so many levels.
If you're AA, you're sitting watching Mr. Matthews each night on Hardball, in near apoplexy as he sputters, spits and has tantrums because he can't fix this election.
He should not presume to know how each black person lives or what we think. Perhaps a review of growth and development would be helpful as he advances his thoughts about people who are, for the most part, Americans that he either deliberately denigrates or about whom he is hopeslessly ignorant.
"We are not a monolithic society and so do not all think, feel alike, nor do we see the government as a solution to every problem. The exception being, those fixes common to all Americans: highway building, repairs and maintenance, clean air, clean water, assistance to those who are truly less fortunate, education support, safety, etc.
More thoughtful and respectful analyses would be very helpful in advancing clarity and understanding amongst all Americans as we work toward becoming a more unified and just nation .
Here are two claims by controversial ministers in current events:
•Jeremiah Wright claims that the CIA was involved in smuggling drugs into the U.S., and that those drugs wound up in African American neighborhoods.
•John Hagee claims that God gave the land of Israel to the Jews, and that they have a divine right to it.
Here's the inconvenient truth: There is much more evidence to support Reverend Wright's claim than John Hagee's.
I attended Hagee's church two Sundays ago. It's quite an impressive place.
there is a courtyard made of Jerusalem stone, with the 122nd psalm inscribed on a wall. inside, the Israeli shares the bima with the US flag. there are tapestries of the 12 tribes hanging from the walls of the church.
They are having a traditional seder next thursday.
Hagee wasn't there. He was in Jerusalem. I like him, and believe him.