Chris Matthews Hammers Tea Party Leader Over Bachmann's

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7HvR5NAEnc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Matthews was a bit harsh there, but he was right. A lot of the historical stuff Bachman mentioned was incorrect. The Founding Fathers couldn't come to agreement on what to do about slavery so they left it as a open-ended question for future generations to deal with. (and that's what happened) By the time the question of slavery was finally dealt with, the Founding Fathers were long since dead... even J.Q. Adams(not that he didn't try).

The Tea Party guy really should have tried to give a better answer than just attempting to spew talking points.

LOL
History fail
Also, '21' generations? Isn't the US definition of 'generation' 25 years?

And I care what Chris Matthews says why?

It is msnbc, what do you expect.

It isn't what Matthews is saying that matters, but rather what he is pointing out

The founding fathers weren't saints or monolithic in their thinking, and anyone who thinks they should try to read history books a bit more objectively without losing all their attention on cherry trees and period costumes.

You shouldn't just focus on their faults at the expense of what good they did either.

Who's doing that? It goes without saying that the founding fathers were responsible for some truly revolutionary things, in the truest sense of the word "revolutionary". The whole point is that Michele Bachmann said things about their accomplishments that were historically untrue. Chris Matthews wasn't focusing on their faults-- he was merely asserting that Bachmann presented a false vision of history.

Assuming you didn't know anything about American history already, to listen to Bachmann's version of events, where the founding fathers "worked tirelessly" to end slavery, you'd never know about the 80 years that passed between the ratification of the US Constitution and the adoption of its Fourteenth Amendment, or the founding fathers from the Southern states who argued in favor of slavery even during the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, or the tense pre-Civil War conditions which resulted in events like Bleeding Kansas and the Dred Scott case (which was, by the way, largely based on Scott's time in what is now Bachmann's home state of Minnesota). With a couple of misdirected statements, Bachmann just glossed over all of that.

Only watched the first half of the video but I think I get the gist of it. Matthews seems to be really nitpicking and also using the falsehood that the 3/5th provision was a measurement of human-worth. It's really not worth responding to. Matthews also has a history of being extremely disrespectful to Bachmann(and other female politicians) for whatever reason. He can have his moments(him grilling Jack Conway on the Aqua Buddha fiasco was great) but other times he's just a cheerleader or overemotional, hyperbolic, and personally insulting.

I think Bachmann has potential for good. She's wrong on the wars and certain social issues but I think her heart is in the right place and I hope that one day that she'll see that her views on liberty and war/social issues are contradictory. Unlike Palin, Bachmann has shown a keen interest in learning and refining her views rather than a purely ambitious ego-driven pursuit of power.

Now I would never vote her for president or appoint her the leader of any movement but I think she has the potential to be an ally to the cause of liberty. I don't know why she's so prominent as opposed real statesmen like Mike Lee and Rand Paul. The media probably plays a big part of it, they'd rather put their focus on the Palins and Bachmanns rather than the real intellectual leaders. 'And people wonder why the political discourse in this country is so bad. What she decides to do(and who she endorses) in 2012 should tell us a lot about her true beliefs.

Twenty one generatons?
The declaration of independence was roughly ten generations ago.

And the founding fathers succeeded in ending slavery?
And what does any of this have to do with government spending today?

In the words of Sarah Palin "WTF????"

You don't get the gist.

The gist was that he was grilling the leader of the Tea Party for putting someone up to speak for the Tea Party who doesn't even know basic American history rather less understand its significance. Bachmann displayed in her speech that she doesn't even know this country's history and yet she claims to be a "real American" and to be some kind of patriot with the presumptuous name "Tea Party". It's not nitpicking to demand to know why someone is being put on TV who doesn't even know when slavery was ended.

Uh...umm.....do you mean the thirteen amendment? The fourteenth amendment is related but doesn't ban slavery; it deals more with citizenship and overturns Dred Scott v Sanford.

It's not really a matter of ignorance as much as it is a matter of outright rejection of reality in favor of an ideologically useful fantasy. Historical revisionism is a pretty common occurrence when you look at ideological movements. Look up "W. Cleon Skousen" if you want to see the roots of this "Founding Fathers" cult that has become a symbol of the modern Tea Party movement.

The right-wing's worship of some imaginary caricature of the "Founding Fathers" reminds me forcefully of the Cult of Lenin that sprouted up in the Soviet Union.

It's an insane nationalistic viewpoint that seeks to look at everything through rose-colored glasses...which is the absolute worst thing you can do in politics.

Well considering the fact that even the leftist Dan Rather has been bashing Chris Matthews lately for going too far, I think Jacoby's assessment is the more accurate one.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr ... e-service-