MSNBC's Chris Matthews has been unhinged for awhile. He is continually proving to be off the deep end, and does not disappoint with his most recent comment, "I'm so glad we had that storm last week."
Last week, Matthews referred to people who question man-made global warming (or is it "climate change?") as "pigs." This week, he is thrilled about a storm that has caused people their lives and property, all because of his perception that the storm boosted President Obama's re-election chances.
Even Rachel Maddow let out a little gasp at his comment, and Lawrence O'Donnell (who recently reported on a satire story as if it was real) shook his head.
Matthews should be ashamed of himself for putting his partisan agenda above the very real suffering caused by Hurricane Sandy. It is reminiscent of a similar comment recently made by yet another media figure, Today Show host Savannah Guthrie, who spoke of Hurricane Sandy as an opportunity "seemingly from above" for President Obama "where he could look like that strong, independent, steady in a storm, very appealing to the middle of the road voters".
The disconnect from "real people" by the mainstream media grows more and more apparent by the day.
Watch the inane comment here:
Chris Matthews quickly added that he only meant the comment in the "political" sense, not "in terms of hurting people." His clarification is most likely not so comforting to those who were impacted by Sandy. The storm caused mass devastation, and left tens of thousands without shelter.
Don't expect the steady drumbeat of partisan rhetoric spouted by the mainstream media to go away anytime soon. Unless people start demanding more objectivity by tuning out the crazies; the partisan divide will deepen and the nasty polarization will only continue.
Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 56
Laughs!!!
They don't!
Nevertheless, if the Right wants to say that Obama won on the hardship-backs of the storm victims, then let the Right say it.
But the fact is that the Electorate CHANGED COURSE--because the Undecideds saw Obama as a leader and saw Romney as a man, on an ambitious pulpit in Ohio, who was desperate for votes in the ultimate swing state....all the while
"passing out relief" packages?....while the BRUNT OF THE STORM was FAR AWAY from Ohio's battleground.
Pleeeasssee.
Pride goeth BEFORE THE FALL.
Romney DID HIMSELF IN. He made no concrete, proactive effort to get some organized segment of his constituency to participate DIRECTLY in the Relief Effort.
As for Matthews he wants banning from the airwaves with his ill thought out remarks that have insulted every person who have lost loved ones, property and are still without Gas and electricity.
Wait, you mean when Renee complains about "partisan rhetoric" in the media and calls for more objectivity, she doesn't include examples of conservative partisan rhetoric, or complain about conservatives contributions to the "nasty polarization"?
I'm shocked!
Always assume there is going to be a big storm and the other guy is going to look good in how he handles it. Always assume the other guy is going to pull out an October surprise and make you look bad. Always assume the other guy is going to take some action to make himself look great over the last few days of the campaign.
I do not blame President Obama for using the storm to promote a positive image of himself; I expected it. I am just surprised he did not do more of it.
Always go for the win. Bring up Benghazi and all the unanswered questions. Run adds of the President in his own voice criticizing Bush's debt with a graphic of Obama's debt. Do something.
You have MY permission to say all you would like to say about the Integrity and Wisdom of the American people.
But the fact is this:
If the GOP wants to win then it has to wake up the CHANGING NEEDS of the American people and it has to wake up to the changing demography of the American people who proclaim those needs.
Regardless of who is right or who is wrong, it is THE PEOPLE who have the final say, my friend.
Additionally, I have ALREADY condemned Matthews' remarks, in my comment, above.
Thanks for your comment, Brett. I don't think that is it.
Obama goes on the View, Letterman, etc to appeal to the low info voter - that is not saying the voters are stupid, just that they do not pay attention.
The right does not share the obsessive focus on race, gender, age, etc on the right - they just look at people like individuals. Eqaulity of opportunity.
Brett, well thanks forgiving me your permission however I think you will find that I don't have to have your permission to say what I feel is true but thanks anyway.
One of the main facts about Sandy was the way the Obama camp portrayed Obama as the great leader that he only wished he could be when he took time out to visit the area in his bomber jacket. And how the masses fell for it hook line and sinker. The sad truth of the matter though was that Sandy which hit Atlantic City at a speed of 80mph, spent more time in New Jersey than Obama. And five minutes after the President had tweeted pictures of himself empathizing with storm victims, it was everybody back on Air Force One for another election rally in Nevada.
I wasn't exactly being sarcastic. I was being satirical.
An armed masked man who robbed a Warren convenience store on Tuesday also told the clerk at gunpoint to vote for President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign.
http://www.wkbn.com/content/news/local/story/Robber-Asks-Store-Clerk-Who-He-Voted-For-At/GL-GkDjqAUyRNBzye4GtWA.cspx?
If you truly believe what you say, at 2:00 PM, then you are ignoring the basic fundamentals of politics.
A political party--with any viable vision for the people of its country--conforms its shape, structure and platform to accommodate a big Tent.
If it doesn't do that, then that party compiles nothing but losing numbers.
If that political party cannot attract enough of a constituency, then it will eventually become marginal.
The GOP is, of course, certainly NOT marginal.
But, currently, it has typically ignored, effectively, the views and the needs of African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and enough of the youth and women's vote.
It is, basically, the party of older white men elites. That is a LOSING formula--in a country whose demography is changing dramatically.
The GOP's Tea Party is helping to make the entire GOP more marginal--by virtue of that Movement's uncompromising policies.
Unless the GOP conforms to the changing demographics of the culture, the party WILL become marginal.
The country is becoming more and more a mixed group of ethnicity and target-cultural allegiances.
The GOP, these days, is largely full of recalcitrant men, who will not compromise nor recognize the true needs of the voters.
If you don't listen to the voters, you lose.
The voters are not happy with:
GOP tax policy
GOP immigration policy
GOP views of entitlements
GOP views of women's rights, now expanding to include contraceptive issues,
among a number other serious matters.
Hell, even the Jewish vote broke Obama's way, overwhelmingly.
Wake up, Renee.
People as bright as you, sometimes have one major failing:
They fall in love with their high intelligence so much, that they believe that they are much more often right--much less even think, for even one moment, that their thinking could be wrong.
THE GOP cannot see that it DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THEY ARE RIGHT OR NOT.
What matters is whether THE PEOPLE think so.
It needs to change.
"Unless people start demanding more objectivity by tuning out the crazies; the partisan divide will deepen and the nasty polarization will only continue."
Maybe you ought to try a little objectivity in your own articles and comments, Renee.
Now what strikes me as just not setting right is this: Why, would Jersey and New York vote for him knowing that, even if its not them whose lives were just destroyed by this weather, that many people are still doing without electric, food, adquate housing, etc.. and many have blamed Obama for turning his back on them and off to the campaign trail.... So, why, would these people still go with him and not have compassion for their fellow neighbors? It just make sense to me...
Obama, did the Dream Act thing, then he made gay marraige a reality... Obama, is much like hilly, they say and do what will get them the most votes even if its not the right thing to do... or even if it costs more money for the taxpayers... Its doesnt matter to them, they have money and will have enough to give to their kids... extra taxes supporting illegals or more welfare programs wont bother those that have millions of dollars... Its the working class, middle class that are the real victims here...
It's very sad that there are such attitudes of discussing anything that might reduce our numbers or is being considered. Yes, his perspective was voiced towards the re-election of our President, but the underlining attitude is indifferent to others in the "quest" to a certain end.
How can he not have concern for others whose lives maybe forever changed by this storm, and those who died. Well when you consider "the ends" justifying the means... and "for the good of the people"... it can indicate he is one of those who views other people as disposable... as there are some who feel we need to big time lower the worlds population. War is just not doing it, evidently.
Consider what Bill Gates said...
"One of the world’s wealthiest men and the founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates, has suggested vaccines as one method of reducing the world’s population.
Gates made his remarks to the invitation-only Technology, Entertainment and Design 2010 Conference in Long Beach, Calif. His February address was titled, “Innovating to Zero!” http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/127346/
I found this too...
http://asis.com/stag/starchiv/transcriptions/Illuminati%20Series/ILL_Index.html
And she suggested that we get rid of all the human “weeds”. The Illuminati want to reduce the population of the world down to a half a billion people. Now here's ..
Ted Turner is for lower the population also
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread850135/pg1
I understand there is concern, but the numbers mentioned in some things I've heard online boggles my mind. Ted Turner thinks it should be reduced by 5 billion people.
Um which 5 billion does he have in mind? Overseas? Or the non-tax payers - ie the poor in our country.
Makes me wonder why he did that and talked about a vaccine...to lower the population. There are decisions being made even in this country that indicate to me that people are viewing others as lesser beings and it goes beyond my comprehension. People talk about their being a "one world" government and get worried about a government with that much power ... and attempting to get all nations under it's control... but when times are rough and people want a leader to "make things better" it seems the hidden or unknown way is to eliminate the a section of the population. We can find this has happened with many regimes, but Niemöller put it best.
They are likely to get that, but they will be part of the reduction,too.
It has been estimated, but I don't remember by whom, that in a ideal world, e.g. no Sahara, perfect weather, and so on, that the Earth could support over 50 BILLION people. That feels way to crowded to me.