This is the first installment of a periodic series in which I post about events from the past.
One year ago today during a segment of Morning Joe, the hosts and their guests discussed the then-upcoming Republican National Convention and what candidate Mitt Romney could do to turn things around. At about the 2:35 mark of the clip below, the fireworks start when Chris Matthews takes RNC Chairman Reince Priebus to task for what he felt were the GOP's underhanded attacks against President Obama. Chris is like a pitbull because once he gets his teeth in an opponent's ass, he isn't going to let go easily. Because I rarely see Priebus get called on his BS when he's on news programs, it was nice to see him get challenged. Damn I love live TV!
8 comments:
My pit bull never got thrills up its leg. Just sayin'...
But watching these two reminds me of why I don't turn to these channels anymore.
Josh: Still making "thrill up his leg" jokes in 2013?! I love how Chris responds to the infamous comment in the clip below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pZb12hhdpU
lol...
Hey, somebody doesn't get to act like that much of a fanboy and not catch grief over it. Tis the ways of the world.
In the past two weeks, I've seen three different guys on a national stage grill Bill O'Reilly for those Sylvia's comments he made years ago, not even affording him context. One of whom even came to Bill's show to have his back over them, then throws him under the bus a couple of years later. So some things you just can't live down.
Sorry, Chris, but having a leg that's perpetually thrilled just makes it worse! I highly doubt he gets this big wave of national pride when an ideological foe lays out his or her talking points. But Obama saying some hope-and-change stuff that cannot and will not be seen to fruition causes the thrill? Stuff that, love or hate the man, is 90% empty political rhetoric, just like 90% of politicians period -- that does it?
Some folks are very easy to please! That video just made it worse! lol
Josh: He said this 5 years ago! I understand giving him some razzing, but I'd think you guys would update your material a bit. :-) I think a lot of you on the right are under the impression that Matthews has never criticized President Obama. Hopefully, you know better.
I'm not sure where you're getting that Chris has a perpetual thrill up his leg. In his quote, he says he doesn't get that feeling often. Also, it wasn't the "hope and change" stuff which inspired Chris to make his infamous comment. It was then-candidate Obama talking about American exceptionalism (how his story could only happen in America). Chris' physical reactions also aren't based on ideology. In the clip that I linked to above, he said he would get a thrill up his spine whenever Reagan came to the House chamber.
One reason the Sylvia's comment keeps coming up is because O'Reilly constantly tries to paint himself as an authority on black culture. Just listening to him for a minute and it's clear he's nothing of the sort. Also, the "context" argument doesn't work because O'Reilly clearly expressed amazement that the patrons at Sylvia's behaved in a civilized manner. I don't see how anyone can spin that into a positive. Another reason the Sylvia's incident has legs is because O'Reilly himself can't let it go. That's one of his favorite tactics, playing the victim.
The spine doesn't seem as fanboyish as the leg. But that's just me. Something else in proximity to the leg I'm questioning with Matthews.
As to O'Reilly and context: The context goes beyond what he said and/or what he really meant. Sharpton helped defend O'Reilly until convenient to throw him under the bus, and Dyson sat on national TV and said something to the effect of "O'Reilly was surprised the black folks weren't throwing banana peels." I forget the third guy I seen do it.
So giving him grief over it is one thing; turning it into straight-up racism attacks is another entirely.
I might be breaking Matthews' chops over this, but that's all I'm doing, ffs. Some folks take things too damn far.
As to the "authority" bit: No doubt he isn't. Although, even if he were black, poor and lived dead-center Chiraq, his ideology would make his opinion all but void in the mainstream. So who is an authority on these matters? Hell if I know. I just know it seems to be a catch-22 if you're non-black and non-liberal. Don't say anything and it's "White people don't care." Say something that isn't the same old stuff just rehashed, it's "Stay out of it!"
Only way to be seen as an authority or ally is to side politically with the ever-growing bureaucracy that wants more, more, more from the outside without wanting anything more from the inside. But that's certainly off topic.
Matthews and his damn leg need to simmer down!
"Something else in proximity to the leg I'm questioning with Matthews."
C'mon, you're better than that Josh.
Are you saying that Sharpton defended O'Reilly's comments about Sylvia's? Do you have a link to a video or transcript? I looked and couldn't find anything.
Michael Eric Dyson's "throwing bananas" comment was over the line. However, you seem to be ignoring the valid points he made in that clip:
1. How people like O'Reilly want to lecture blacks instead of having an honest conversation about race.
2. How O'Reilly ignored the fact that President Obama has talked to African-Americans about personal responsibility as has other prominent blacks.
3. How white-on-white crime is as devastating as the much more talked about black-on-black crime.
O'Reilly's ideology doesn't have anything to do with how his comments about the black community are taken. Also, if he was a poor black who lived in Chicago, I doubt he'd be talking that nonsense. As for skin color being a factor, I'd listen to what Joe Scarborough has to say about race over any of the black conservatives at Fox whose profiles have risen since the election of President Obama (Jesse Lee Peterson, Deneen Borelli, David Webb, etc.).
You talk about the same old stuff being rehashed from the left. What new ideas are O'Reilly and his ilk bringing to the table?
Yeah, I wasn't trying to critique Dyson's overall comments; nor was I trying to really get into whether or not O'Reilly has a leg to stand on with his criticisms of the black community.
Though I love to type and we can definitely get into all that. No biggie.
I personally don't agree with the "out of wedlock" stuff O'Reilly preaches, as I don't really see marriage/traditional family as the most important factor like some religious people do. However, all these black mothers raising babies by themselves is a huge issue. (And it's an epidemic for all races, just disproportionately black). And the government giving mothers so much incentive to raise children on their own, while still tweaking a system that only demands money from fathers (or potential jail time), is crippling children. No amount of school funding or outreach programs are ever going to replace good parenting and good role models.
Doesn't need to be a married household or even a two-parent household IMO. People just need to have some semblance of financial security before laying down and comin' up with more babies.
And I don't know if it's a "new" idea, but what guys like O'Reilly are obviously saying is: Clean up the damn communities, stop having babies you can't afford to care for, and be better parents. Your own children are more Zimmerman than Zimmerman could ever Zimmerman. Who's raising the gang-bangers and drug dealers and dropouts and scum that are ripping these communities apart? Single mothers. So O'Reilly's definitely screaming about personal responsibility. I agree he doesn't want a "conversation"; he wants to scold folks for acting irresponsibly.
So do I.
STAHP!!
I see that as very ideological, because a more left-leaning line there is: It's not your fault, black folks. You're victims. Sure, try to act more responsibly, but we need to funnel more money into schools, assistance programs, food banks, gas-card programs, daycare, housing, parenting classes, clinics, etc, because white folks have neglected you.
But that's off on an entirely different topic.
I was just pointing out that folks don't soon let things go, like I hold the leg thrills over Matthews' head. Only I'm just breaking balls and trying to joke on the guy.
As for the link: I searched YT for the vid, but I can't find it. I remember it clear as day, though. Bill had Al on the show, via satellite, and Al was defending Bill's comments. Not staunchly like "Leave the man alone!" or anything. More in a roundabout way. But on Al's show it's a 180.
Josh: If you ever find that clip of Al defending Bill, let me know. As for why Al is now dogging Bill, could it be for reasons other than convenience? Is it possible that Al simply reevaulated Bill's comments and had a change of heart? Al probably wasn't happy that in those comments about Sylvia's, Bill took a swipe at Al (talking about how blacks are thinking more for themselves and moving away from the Sharptons and the Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture).
Post a Comment