Offering up what, I can only assume, was something that he thought was a brilliant piece of political commentary, Chris “Mr. Tingle up my leg” Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” launched into what can only be described as being nothing more than a tirade, as he went nearly apoplectic on Monday night trying to explain to his dozen or so viewers, the seemingly inexplicable rise of Newt Gingrich as the GOP frontrunner. “The Republican Party is about to seal a Faustian deal with the devil,” Matthews screeched. I’ve always been a little curious regarding the supposed qualifications which Matthew supposedly possesses that makes him someone worth listening to, or would convince anyone that his opinion worth paying any amount of attention to. Other than being a former speechwriter for that loser Jimmy Carter, what’s his supposed claim to fame? What is it that can cause an individual, a supposed adult, to descend into such juvenile behavior causing him to spew some of the most hateful and vindictive rhetoric imaginable?
What is it about this brain-dead liberal hack and, for that matter, brain-dead liberals in general and for whom apparently old Chris speaks, that gives him, or them, the right to make an attempt to pick our candidate for us. That's what we allowed them do in the last go around and we know how well that worked out. He somehow feels entitled to use all manner slanderous drivel in his bizarre attempts to smear any and all candidates that may eventually go up against the guy that sends "a tingle up his leg?" So just because he doesn't like Gingrich, he accuses those in the GOP who do, of being prepared to make a “deal with the devil”? He seems to possess the perverted notion that the GOP is motivated to support Gingrich not because it’s good business but, to turn a quote from “The Godfather” on its proverbial head, because it’s personal. You see according to this raving imbecile, “The Republicans, led by the angriest among them, are about to give away their partisan souls for one all-consuming political purpose: the destruction of Barack Obama."
In a rant that was more than a bit over the top, and bordered on being some sort of psychotic fit, Matthews launched into a tirade, pausing only briefly, to stop and take a breath, “They are about to begin the nomination for president of a figure who represents the Mephistopheles of what they preach: He is nasty, brutal, ready to fight and kill politically, a man of no discernible commitments or values – who has nothing to offer but a sharp-as-hell intellect and a wicked rapier of words.” (breath) “Why are they on the verge of enlisting in the Army of Newt? Because he voices in cold, nasty, deadly tones the words of their contempt. Because he an opportunist ready to seek any route to his opponent’s heart and thereby kill it,” said Matthews. “He is a political killer, a gun for hire. But he offers a prize so precious he cannot be resisted. This, this is the Faustian deal at hand. Newt Gingrich promises the vision on which they on the right have set their hearts – the few minutes of national television in which the President and his wife stand before them in defeat.” Man, it was amazing to me that old Chris didn't spontaneously combust.
So that’s it? The GOP is leaning towards Newt Gingrich for no other reason than it so desperately desires the defeat of Barry "Almighty" that it would stoop to anything, even nominating Gingrich? Cone on Chris, get a hold of yourself. While Matthews’ assessment of the Gingrich phenomenon may have been more than a little out of control, to put it mildly, there is, I suppose, a legitimate question that needs to be asked. And that would be, what is it that might be behind Gingrich's surging in the polls? It should be pointed out that Glenn Beck was one of the first to question the GOPs’ gravitation towards Gingrich. Look, I like Glenn, I usually agree with what he says, and he's likely right about Gingrich being a “big government” and “progressive” politician. And considering that “big government” is precisely what many conservatives want to run against, how is it that Gingrich is ahead in the polls? Well, personally, I'm for anybody but Obama. Having said that, I will not be voting for Gingrich in my state's primary, but if he ends up being the Republican nominee, I will have no qualms whatsoever in voting for him.
Personally, I can't answer why it is that Gingrich now seems to be so popular with so many in the GOP? Or, exactly what he brings to the table that makes him more “electable” than, say, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, or even Ron Paul? Are we allowing ourselves to be steered toward Gingrich? Anyway, I do think that people have been impressed by his debate performances, but I don’t think that they fully realize that it takes a lot more than a few good debates to win a general election. But at the same time I fail to see how the assessment being presented by Matthews, and others of his ilk, that trying to win a presidential election somehow equals supporting the ‘false god of hatred, is productive in any way, for anybody. If anything, I think, it reveals a hint of desperation on the part of Chris and those on his side. I suppose I do understand, to some degree, the twisted rationale behind it. But I still find asking myself why is it that liberals always assume that the hatred and vindictiveness that motivates them is also what must, therefore, motivate the rest of us? I'm just not a firm believer in their use of scorched earth tactics.
No comments:
Post a Comment