The Spectacle Blog
Time for Matthews to Go
try to avoid commenting about or rebuking Leftists, especially those on television networks whosetiny viewership reflects their extremism, but Chris Matthews on Friday blurted a remark so ridiculous and so offensive that it ought to cost him his job — even at bottom-scraping MSNBC.
I try to avoid commenting about or rebuking Leftists on television networks whose tiny viewership reflects their extremism, but Chris Matthews on Friday blurted a remark so ridiculous and so offensive that it ought to cost him his job — even at bottom-scraping MSNBC. As Newsbusters captured, the Hardball host likened conservative Republicans to the murderous Khmer Rouge regime in 1970s Cambodia:
Having tracked last year’s Nuremburg-type trial of Khmer Rouge prison-torture specialist Kaing Guek Eav (known as “Comrade Duch”), let’s revisit some of the evidence that shows how similar they were to today’s conservative Republicans:
Duch:
“When children arrived at the center I gave the order to kill them because we were afraid those children would take revenge,” the 66-year-old told the court. “I had to implement the policy of the Communist party.”
“I vouched for my younger sister and I vouched to educate her, but I could not do that for my brother-in-law,” said Duch, who acknowledges overseeing the extermination of some 15,000 people at the jail.
“The people who were arrested and sent (to Tuol Sleng prison), they were all killed,” Duch said, refuting the idea that the list cast him in a more favourable light. “I did not release anyone… It is not exculpatory evidence at all because I am responsible for my crimes.”
“The children were separated from their mothers and those children were smashed. Because they needed the mothers to be separated so they could be interrogated, those children were smashed,” he added.
Yes, I can see the resemblance, Chris.
View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Paul Chesser
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/02/time-for-matthews-to-go
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pete| 2.2.10 @ 11:16AM
Must have been opposites day. Everyone knows communism is a natural extension of socialism, and remind me which party is exhibiting socialist tendencies these days?
Deborah D | 2.2.10 @ 12:16PM
Why does he care whether Republicans are conservative enough? Hmmm? If he thinks it's dangerous that more Americans are learning about the Constitution and about the founders, then that might be considered "re-educating" because many Americans are no longer taught anything about the founding or the founders. Or maybe he's worried about Americans learning more about limited government and the benefits of that. Or maybe he's worried about Americans learning about the horrors of socialism and what it necessarily leads to.
But, to equate that education with anything like the Communist murders of Cambodia, he should be ashamed. Since the murders happened because we left Vietnam. So those deaths can be laid solely at the feet of the leftists in this country (Jane Fonda and her ilk) who hated their own country more than communism. Sounds a lot like today's Dems.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 12:17PM
Well, it's a good thing no conservatives ever compare the Democrats to Nazis or Soviet Communists or else this complaint might seem hypocritical.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.2.10 @ 12:50PM
Yes, Paul.............thanks.
Please excuse me. I gotta go smash a bunch of babies now.
Darn it, wait a minute...I gotta' get my priorities in order here.
I have an appointment to go smash a bunch of moms first.
Darn it, there I go again.
(sigh) I forgot the meeting about gassing Jewish folks.
Yeah, I equate. heh I ain't organized enough. I guess I'm a hypocrite.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 1:07PM
Heh.
tonypal| 2.2.10 @ 1:00PM
It's funny that your only defense is to reference conservatives. I thought leftists such as yourself were more evolved and advanced. It really casts you and your fellow travelers in a poor light to compare yourselves to us trolls over on the right.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 1:14PM
Defense? I'm not defending the comparison to the Khmer Rouge - I'm highlighting the hypocrisy of the Fox News Right, which engages in this sort of absurd, degenerate caricaturization all the time. Or perhaps you missed the mobs of misguided Americans holding signs alleging Obama is a Nazi/terrorist/Communist etc. I wonder how strenuously the author objected to that bit of nonsense.
marc t| 2.2.10 @ 7:30PM
your the one that's misguided, toddard. you were born a fool and you will die a fool. hopefully God will impart a little wisdom to you before you and your kind can destroy this country.
Missy| 2.2.10 @ 8:48PM
BUSHITLER to you, Toddard! Chew on that little nugget for a while, moron.
AJsDaddie| 2.2.10 @ 12:39PM
Keep tossing up those strawmen, SL.
1. Nancy Pelosi compared the Tea Party conservatives to Nazis, not vice versa.
2. The comparison of the Liberal agenda to that of socialism and then to communism is absolutely apt. That this by extension compares Democrats to Communists only occurs when Democrats embrace the Liberal agenda.
3. We're not talking about "liberals" we're talking about a TV commentator with a - well, a larger audience than most bloggers, anyway.
I know logic is unlikely to prevent trolling. But it's Groundhog Day, so it just seemed okay to do something even if it was ultimately useless.
Liberal Reader| 2.2.10 @ 12:59PM
This IS a ridiculous comparison made by Matthews.
I wonder if you guys are willing to muster this same earnest appeal to decency when people on your side compare Democrats to socialists, communists, and even Nazis.
I wonder if you have the BALLS to demand the same respect from the rash, brainless blowhards -- like Beck, Limbaugh, and many others -- who make these kinds of spurious and irresponsible comparisons on a DAILY BASIS.
My guess is that you are not men of your convictions; you are wee men and tools of demogogues.
tonypal| 2.2.10 @ 1:05PM
Lib, there's a big difference between a murderous thug and a socialist.
Incidentally, as a Dittohead, I'm wondering if you would be willing to give us a pointed response to a specific allegation made by Limbaugh that, for example, Obama's policies are socialist or communist in nature. Also, I would point out to you that Limbaugh doesn't use the term "nazi" but instead uses fascist, an accurate depiction of many of the President's policies.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 1:16PM
Oh boy. Someone who read widdoo Jonah Goldberg's silly book that alleges that fascism is "leftist" because Hitler was a vegetarian, among other such universally-discredited "arguments".
Interested Conservative| 2.2.10 @ 1:46PM
SLT - Have you read the book? For starters, would you care to explain the difference between national socialism and international socialism, and how either or both are not "leftist"?
That's just one point among many which are not only NOT "universally-discredited", but have hardly been considered by "respected" "authorities".
Orwell's description remains most apt, and it says nothing to contradict the notion that fascism is essentially leftist. Largely because fascism is essentially leftist.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 3:40PM
"Have you read the book? For starters, would you care to explain the difference between national socialism and international socialism, and how either or both are not "leftist"?"
Sure - national socialism specifically and fascism generally rely on a blood-and-soil romantic nationalism, which places it on the right. International socialism generally abhors that sort of romantic nationalism, and is placed on the left for relying on abstract principles that deny and seek to destroy the traditions and folkways that bind people together into distinct peoples. Socialism is generally antagonistic to ethno-nationalism (which places socialism on the left), whereas it is one of the pillars of fascism (which places fascism on the right). Socialism seeks "progress" - change, radical transformation, which places it on the left. Fascism seeks the rebirth of a golden age, the preservation and cultivation of ethnic greatness, which places it on the right.
Now, let me also state that merely because romantic nationalism is a component of fascism does not make romantic nationalism a bad thing - the problem with fascism is not that it relied on romantic nationalism, or ethno-nationalism, but that it *exploited* romantic nationalism.
Anyway, that's my short answer - other people have done a far better job than I have in destroying Goldberg's truly ridiculous argument. Here's the argument he should have made: Fascism is on the "right" as much as Stalinism is on the "left" - so what? Both were abhorrent monstrosities, and neither has anything to do with American conservatism.
"Orwell's description remains most apt, and it says nothing to contradict the notion that fascism is essentially leftist. "
Sure - except that wasn't "Orwell's description" - Orwell was bemoaning the loss of meaning the word had suffered. It had become - and now, with Jonah Goldberg's book, is - completely meaningless.
kingsmill| 2.2.10 @ 6:33PM
By your measure, Stalin was a fascist because he proposed "socialism in one country" and Trotsky, as an internationalist, was the pure leftist.
The very essence of Mussolini and Hitler was revolutionary change by means of total control of the state. That is Leftism. The only so called "fascist" who could be deemed Right of center would have to be Franco. The very idea of complete societal change cannot be squared with any sane definition of conservatism.
The means Hitler chose were socialist. His ends were derived from a twisted interpretation of the German idealist tradition.
John Lukacs is a prominent historian of this period, who cannot be pigeonholed into ideological categories. He sees Hitler as a modernistic revolutionary, who correctly saw nationalism as the moving force in modern history. Nationalism is not the same as conservatism.
Joanie| 7.9.10 @ 12:28PM
Yoohoo, Turddard, where are you? Crickets.
Nick| 2.2.10 @ 3:16PM
Mr. Toddard,
Actually, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the history of the first half of the 20th century knows that fascism came from radical leftists.
So, I'm not surprised that you didn't know.
I found out Mussolini was a socialist 10 years ago when I watched a biography of him on A&E. Maybe Jonah Goldberg saw the same show and that is where he got the idea for his outstanding book. Also, he doesn't "allege" anything. He comes right out and states it. And proves it with quotations and copious endnotes.
It is the truly ignorant who dismiss an argument simply because it clashes with their worldview, rather than investigate it, and determine if the claims are true or not.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 3:43PM
"Actually, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the history of the first half of the 20th century knows that fascism came from radical leftists."
Really. That must include more or less all historians. Could you name me a dozen prominent historians who agree with that statement? Historians who do not write for politically partisan magazines.
"I found out Mussolini was a socialist 10 years ago when I watched a biography of him on A&E"
Oh boy. Mussolini "was" a socialist. Guess what - Reagan "was" a Democrat. I guess that means his presidency was a Democratic one, in Nick World.
Nick| 2.2.10 @ 4:12PM
Mr. Toddard,
I probably couldn't name 12 prominent historians!
The vast majority of them being commie academics, you see!
From what highly acclaimed historian did you get your erroneous definitions of "fascist" and "socialist"?
"Mussolini 'was' a socialist."
You really need that remedial reading coarse.
Mussolini WAS a socialist, because Mussolini IS dead!
He never stopped being a socialist, Einstein. Or, are you claiming he did a 180?
He was kicked out by the socialists because he was for Italy entering the Great War. In other words, Mussolini was pro-war.
Interested Conservative| 2.2.10 @ 1:40PM
But LR - Many, many democrats are socialists (certainly of the western European stripe), and quite a few (note "few") are socialist/communist of the east European type.
I don't know that any have been compared to Nazi's, politically, and Godwin's Law seems to cover the rest.
Would "leftist" be preferable?
As tonypal notes, a specific reference or two would help as well.
Al Adab| 2.2.10 @ 4:13PM
Autocratic? Regulator? Tyrant? Ideologue? Central planner?
Others?
Oldefarte| 2.2.10 @ 3:16PM
LIBERAL MORON speaks! The difference between Democrats and conservatives [ie Limbaugh, Beck,etc] is that the latter are intelligent, work for a living/pay taxes [which supports government], and are decent human beings. The former are mostly lazy indigents and stupid, preferring to live off of goverment welfare benefits [paid for by conservative taxpayers]; to spend their days committing election fraud to facilitate the coronation of THE CHOSEN ONE and other Democrats who will guarantee the granting of additional governmental [and free] benefits to these indigent constituents [all at taxpayer expense]. Democrats always demand government provide benefits to these indigents, instead of providing same from their own [private] billfolds. Your questioning of conservatives' labeling Democrats as socialists is ludicrous, as usual!!!!!
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 2.2.10 @ 2:27PM
Leave Matthews right where he is. He, along with Olberman & Maddow are perfect examples to the American people of how that dreaded mental disorder known as liberalism negatively affects a human being's ability to think, reason, & behave in a civilized manner. The padded cell brigade on MSLSD are viewed by so few Americans most probably didn't realize the idiot said what he did until they read about it here. Ask yourself, if Chris Matthews fell on the set of MSLSD, would anyone see or hear it?
"Life is hard; it's harder when you're stupid" - John Wayne
perez hilton| 2.2.10 @ 2:35PM
I say let him talk all he wants to. Let MSNBC have 24-hour Chrissy and Overbite. And LR and SL are dumb bitches, okay?
Smitty| 2.2.10 @ 8:50PM
LMAO!!
Oldefarte| 2.2.10 @ 3:24PM
As to 'tingle down the leg' Chris; I couldn't agree more [but would add that Maddow, Olbermann and Ed should be fired as well]. The whole bunch of them are one continuous stream of regurgitation! Olbermann is possibly the worst, and is nothing but a little momma's boy, moronic runt of a male human being! None of them ever consistantly have respected guests on their individual programs, but fill their hour continually ranting and raving about Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh,etc. In line with Air of America radio recently folding off the airwaves, it would be nice if MSNBC did likewise!!!!
Al Adab| 2.2.10 @ 3:58PM
In keeping with our recent Haiku contest from Gill I submit the following for Chris Matthews.
Fibrilation comes
He speaks, my heart is rapid
My leg now tingles.
Liberal Reader| 2.2.10 @ 4:28PM
The notion that Democrats are fascists is just stupid.
The claim divests the word "fascist" of all meaning.
The claim that all socialists are fascist is equally stupid.
Sweden is a fascist state? That's news to me -- and to Swedes everywhere.
Goldberg's tendentious political opinions aside, there's just no point to conflating all forms of political thought except for the one you hold under one label.
Much better to recognize the importance of making DISTINCTIONS between philosophies and systems you may think have interesting similarities.
To be a liberal is NOT to be a socialist.
The one is defined by NOT being the other.
A liberal likes government action to increase competitive advantages of marginalized people; a socialist doesn't like competition at all and wants only equality. The difference between the stated ideals of the two ways of thinking is much more salient than any similarities.
And fascism is something else altogether.
Back to high school civics, folks! Glenn Beck and any ol' gibberish you pull out of your ass is just not enough to help you have an interesting political debate with other adults.
Oldefarte| 2.2.10 @ 5:04PM
LM: You and other liberal morons will be now forced to view Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity,etc; since Olbermann's pathetic TV monologues are now down to a rating of 30% of O'Reilly's/Fox's. Hopefully Olbermann, Schultz, Maddow, Matthews and MSNBC will soon be a thing of the past!!!!
Nick| 2.2.10 @ 5:22PM
Marxist Reader,
"A liberal likes [...]; a socialist doesn't like [...]"
Sorry, but you're not the arbiter of the definitions of "liberal", "socialist", and "fascist."
You're definitions are simplistic, cookie-cutter explanations repeated by propagandist poli-sci professors.
Go educate yourself. Or refute us with facts.
You know, like with quotes.
Something like Hitler saying, "I'm a right-wing extremist! And I always have been."
Also, include the date and location of the quote.
Liberal Reader| 2.2.10 @ 5:41PM
Nick --
Are you telling me that the only way to define fascism is by looking at Hitler's proclaimations of what it is?
Hitler was a PROPAGANDIST of fascism; if he said he's a leftist (which he did not) it would almost by definition mean he was NOT one.
The fact that Hitler led a movement called "National Socialism" does NOT mean it was a socialist movement.
The name was a part of the PROPAGANDA. It was a LIE to rope in the many, many young, disaffected men in Germany who were increasingly attracted to socialism.
In fact, Hitler hated socialism and everything it stands for.
You make these spurious, absurd arguments that no educated person would take seriously. Really, it's embarrassing that you are grown man living in the wealthiest, greatest nation on earth and yet you do not understand the major political movements that have shaped the historical context of the modern world.
The political spectrum is useful precisely because it separates communism on the one side from fascism on the other. If you conflate the two, you don't say anything about either one, you simply lose the heuristic benefit of the spectrum.
I'm not at all certain why this is so difficult for you to understand.
However, I think it has something to do with the fact that you deep down inside feel the only way for conservative ideas to win the day is for "liberalism" to somehow be equated with totalitarian communism and Hitlerism.
Well, I'm very sorry Nick, but only a goddamn FOOL would accept that analogy, because it's just not true and you have no evidence, not a shred, to substantiate such a hopeless, stupid, shallow argument.
Nick| 2.2.10 @ 6:09PM
Marxist Reader,
Don't break one of the Ten Commandments just because you can't make a cogent argument. You're endangering your soul.
So, Hitler was a liar, therefore no one can believe what he said. What you're really saying is no one can believe anything he said that disagrees with your concept of the world. When he said nasty things about the Jews, was he also lying?
Okay, how about the guy who propagated the term "fascista"? Give me quotes of Mussolini saying he rejected socialism or was a right-winger.
Hitler and El Duce were not anti-socialist. Hitler was anti-communist because of the Jewish influence in the party. Mussolini was kicked out of the party because he supported Italy's entry into the Great War.
National socialists that didn't follow Stalin's orders were rejected and branded right-wing. Hitler and Stalin were fighting for the same lefties. And Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were winning.
Useful Idiots like yourself continue to spread Stalin's lies.
eRtwngr | 2.2.10 @ 4:53PM
The callous disregard for life exhibited by the Khmer Rhouge reminds me a lot of the abortion practices the left if fond of. I don't recall conservative Republicans showing as little regard for innocent life at any time in my life. A million dead babies a year testify to what folks like Matthews have wrought on our society.
Missy| 2.3.10 @ 12:57AM
Great post. Thank you.
Oldefarte| 2.2.10 @ 5:07PM
MSNBC should be relabeled the FAG NETWORK!!!
Ellis Wyatt| 2.2.10 @ 5:24PM
I think comedian Jon Stewart said it best regarding Chris Matthews:
"I swear this guy is one scotch away from being Ron Burgundy."
Nick| 2.2.10 @ 8:14PM
Hello? Hello?
Toddard? Hello?
Marxist Reader? Hello?
Missy| 2.2.10 @ 8:52PM
Nick, good job at taking the liberal troll trash out tonight.
Such sad little men.
owen | 2.3.10 @ 8:48AM
Creazy man , Crazy thing.
iPhone Contacts Backup
Mark Osborne| 2.4.10 @ 8:16PM
Had no idea Chris Matthews was still on the air.
Robert| 2.8.10 @ 4:18PM
Of course Hitler and Mussolini were national socialists, but there is a vast difference between left socialism and their variety, building a "corporate state" that can finance weapons, aggression, and domination. Hitler's revival of Teutonic virtue and Mussolini's revival of the Roman Empire were not reflected in anything similar in the USSR or Mao's China.
I've been a staunch conservative ever since Nixon, but the leaders for me were Buckley, Bork, and Milton Friedman. I don't want to be led by Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin, whose approaches lead to such silly arguments as Hitler was a socialist and so is President Obama. The economic expertise of Beck, Limbaugh, and McCain must have Professor Friedman turning over in his grave.
Pingback| 5.12.10 @ 5:52PM
Ed Driscoll » One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Charles W. Brown, Ph.D.| 5.17.10 @ 10:08PM
I have a suggestion for those NeoCons who call themselve "Republicans." Get a candidate to run for some office (president, senator or governor)and his agenda should be (to be a FULLY conservative): eliminate medicare, medicade, public schools, the US Post Office, national parks, national forests (to be managed by lumber corporations, environmental protection agency (to be run by the NRA), Social Security, the army, navy, air force and marines (they are run by the government), public works, and any other form of governmental run services. After all these agencies and institutions are socialistic!Either put up or shut up.
Nate| 7.9.10 @ 12:33PM
How about you, Chuck? Get off your ass and help out--no one gets to be a bystander anymore.
Yosemeti Sam| 7.10.10 @ 12:38AM
" ... Hardball host likened conservative Republicans to the murderous Khmer Rouge regime in 1970s Cambodia ...."
Thanks for the flashback - I missed that column on messNBCs' favorite leg-tinkling-Leftoids' robust assessment of barbaric human nature vilely imputed as mimicked by conservatives.
Yo, Matthews - 40, 50, but who's counting, millions of humans aborted/murdered to date!
Wax eloquent Matthews on - i.e. why don't you liken - the abortion champion Democrats as reflective of the "murderous Khymer Rouge regime in 1970s cambodia"; no doubt you'll soon feel a gush of release down your pant legs.
JmsA| 7.10.10 @ 3:35PM
Chris Matthews is a prime living example of what has been referred by some as psychotic leftism.