Matthews, Duffy talk nonsense on Dems, religion

Sometimes, I just have to shake my head at how dumb shows like Hardball are. Somehow, these programs manage to give viewers less news and information than if folks just watched a blank screen.

This exchange, for example, is just mindless, ignorant drivel, offered by media figures who presumably know better. Here’s MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Time magazine assistant managing editor Michael Duffy:

MATTHEWS: Joe Biden…said the other day, yesterday, that the people like Al Gore and John Kerry, the last two Democratic candidates for president, said — created an image that they were somehow — we’re looking at it right now — that if they were — as he put it, when they’re sitting next to the pew, that maybe he really doesn’t respect your view. In other words, they’re not really religious people. They don’t share your evangelical views and your deeply religious views. They’re too secular.

DUFFY: Yeah. Well, I think, for the last 25 years, Democrats have done everything they can to alienate religious voters, faith-minded voters, and the —

MATTHEWS: Not a smart move politically.

DUFFY: Oh, no. And it seemed to be part of the program. They did it to woo a secular left that they thought didn’t want to have anything to do with that.

Duffy said it started “with Jimmy Carter…making fun of Jerry Falwell.” Matthews added that Democrats have been “making fun of the people in the churches, in the tents, in the megachurches.” He added, “Elitism doesn’t really work in politics, does it?”

This is political analysis at most ridiculous. I’m practically embarrassed for Matthews and Duffy, because, as professional media personalities, they should feel some shame for having uttered such nonsense for a national television audience.

Let’s unpack their ignorance a bit.

First, Matthews can’t just blame Biden, who was talking about a public perception, not a reality. The perception is reinforced by pathetic “journalism” like that found on Hardball.

Second, the idea that Gore was anti-religion is absurd. This, of course, was the same church-going candidate who frequently reminded audiences in 2000 that he liked to ask himself, “What would Jesus do?” On the day Gore introduced Joe Lieberman as his running mate, the two led a large public audience in prayer. Gore spent the bulk of the campaign in 2000 infusing his speeches with religious talk, scriptural references, and spirituality — to the great annoyance of the secular left.

Third is the notion that Kerry was also an anti-religion candidate. I don’t expect Matthews and Duffy to remember this — it was three whole years ago — but I’d remind folks of these comments Kerry made during a debate with Bush: “I grew up a Catholic. I was an altar boy. I know that throughout my life this has made a difference to me. And as President Kennedy said when he ran for president, he said, ‘I’m not running to be a Catholic president. I’m running to be a president who happens to be Catholic.’ My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There’s a great passage of the Bible that says, ‘What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.’ And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.” A message aimed at fans of Richard Dawkins? I kind of doubt it.

Fourth, Duffy said the Democratic Party has spent the last quarter-century doing “everything they can to alienate religious voters.” Really? Name one example. Just one. Given that it’s been 25 years of constant effort, there should be hundreds of examples, but I’d like Duffy to name a single one. If he can’t, he ought to apologize for making such a ridiculous and baseless claim.

Fifth, these media personalities believe Jimmy Carter — a devout, evangelical Democrat — made fun of Jerry Falwell. And that’s proof of … what, exactly? Everyone made fun of Falwell. He was a clown who said ridiculous things on a very regular basis. Barry Goldwater used to make fun of Falwell all the time. By Duffy’s bizarre logic, that suggests Republicans are hostile towards religious people.

And sixth, Matthews had the gall to argue that Democrats have been “making fun of the people in the churches.” I’d offer the same challenge to him as I did Duffy: name once. Name a single instance in which a Democratic lawmaker or major-office candidate mocked a churchgoer for his or her beliefs. If he can’t, he ought to apologize for making such a ridiculous and baseless claim.

Honestly, what is wrong with these people? Are most secularists Democrats? Yes. Do Democrats honor the separation of church and state more than the GOP? Absolutely. Does that mean Dems have spent the last 25 years mocking the faithful and denigrating religion? Only if you have no idea what you’re talking about.

There’s a mistaken public perception about the party and faith communities. Instead of informing people about the truth, and actually using their positions as “journalists” to cut through the nonsense, Matthews and Duffy perpetuate the myth, buy into the caricature they helped create, and in the process, mislead their audience.

It’s just so tiresome.

Matthews and Duffy are boobs. Thank you, CB, for watching TV so I don’t have to!

  • It is the nattering of two upper class twits who couldn’t rub two brain cells together.

    I’m sure that the French noble equivalent of Mathews and Duffy were saying pretty much the same thing right up till they arrived at Place Du Concord.

  • Isn’t it true that born-again, chosen-by-God, Dear Leader Bush rarely attends Sunday church services?

  • Dumb? No, smart, very smart actions by Jack Welch’s boys.
    I believe that this is propaganda intended to hurt the Democrats, plain and simple.
    Steve, playing nice is polite. It’s nice to give them credit as journalists, and then express embarassment for their actions. But they are not journalists, they are partisans and propagandists.
    I’m angry, not embarrassed. Let’s call it straight. They are liars. Ridicule them, don’t give them credit.

  • Fourth, Duffy said the Democratic Party has spent the last quarter-century doing “everything they can to alienate religious voters.” Really? Name one example. Just one.

    First you have to understand that “religious voters,” means “voters that follow my specific religious beliefs.” In which case the examples would include our refusual to outlaw sex between unmarried people, allowing women to leave the house, not bombing every family clinic into the ground, not stoning gays and lesbians on sight…

    The list goes on.

  • They are liars. BuzzMon #4.

    They may not intend to lie. They may believe the crap they are saying, in the same way Tim Russert believes he is free to ask guests any question he wishes to on Meet the Press. Russert is free to ask anything he wishs, because he’s a fuckin’ tool who would never wish to ask anything that fell outside the corportist line. If he were, he’s have never been hired in the first place. Ya see how that works? But I agree with BuzzMon’s general point. Any supposed “news program” on the GE channels is nothing but a commerical for the military industrial complex. Steve does give these two douchebag tools, Matthews and Duffy, way too much credit.

  • What’s wrong with them? You mean being lazy, so-called journalists who apparently have no idea what is coming out of their mouths until it appears isn’t enough?

    I guess when you are sloppy with the truth, and lazy about doing any homework or research on what you’re about to opine on, you probably don’t bother to try to see the connection between freedom of religion, and the efforts of Democrats to maintain the separation of church and state, which do more to preserve one’s right to believe and practice the religion of one’s choosing – clearly what the founders wanted – than do the efforts of those who want the government to avow itself and this country as Christian in its ideals and purpose.

    I suppose when you’re paid gobs of money to babble in an articulate way that fools people into thinking you’re actually saying something that makes sense, you miss those important things about how we think it’s bad for other countries to have state religions like Islam, and rather than acknowledge that by maintaining the division between the government and any religion, we perhaps avoid the kinds of problems that others have been warring over for generations, the lazy journalist just says things like “Democrats are too secular.”

    How do the stupid and lazy manage to be so richly rewarded for things most people do not think of as positive traits?

  • Funny how the black churches are a major Democratic constituency – and black ministers such as Rev Jesse Jackson and Rev Al Sharpton have had widely publicized runs for the Democratic nomination where they and their platforms were treated with respect by the Democratic party – yet I guess African-Americans just don’t show up on these guys radars.

  • The elephant in room that Matthews and Duffy were dancing around was abortion rights. Pushing back against those (the Christian Right) that would take away “choice” is apparently considered “anti-religious.”

  • It’s a sad slap in the face of the founding fathers that this discussion exists at all in political discourse.

  • “How do the stupid and lazy manage to be so richly rewarded for things most people do not think of as positive traits?”

    It is called WingNut welfare.

    See Scaife, Richard Mellon, Welch, Jack, and Murdoch, Rupert.

    But it’s not just the media, it’s also Societial organizations (think Federalist), foundations (Olin), and Think-Tanks like the Cato Institute.

  • It consistently amazes me how people who I would have fired for incompetence 30 years ago manage to not only survive and thrive but to advance in modern American journalism.

  • To add to TAIO’s list at #5, there’s being pro-ACLU. That’s not being anti-religious, of course, but it does alienate “religious” voters.

    So that’s basically it: pro-gender equality, pro-abortion, pro-sexual liberation, pro-gay, and pro-ACLU. Oh, and pro-teaching evolution.

  • It would be nice if anyone ever went on Hardball and called Tweety on his ever-gushing bullshit. But I won’t hold my breath.

  • In truth, we are alienating the religious simply by not alienating everyone else. It is part of their core belief that non-believers (atheists, secularists, gays, Muslims, Catholics to Protestants, Protestants to Catholics, Baptists to Methodists, non-denominationals to… everyone of any religion/non-religion) cannot and should not be afforded the same rights as they.

    The only way they will ever be satisfied is if not only would everyone convert to Christianity, but that everyone convert to their inherently and granularly narrow version of Christianity. In short, their ultimate purpose would seem to be the total destruction of all life (as no two people will ever agree on all doctrine). It is tragic that mainstream media coddle them in this way.


  • Grumpy: To add to TAIO’s list at #5, there’s being pro-ACLU.

    The very acronym ACLU has been defiled in the Christian lexicon; has been for as long as I can remember. The moment the letters are uttered, fingers go in ears.

    In fact, they really should take a cue from the corporate world (and the right wing) and just change the name.

  • Duffy said it started “with Jimmy Carter…making fun of Jerry Falwell.”

    Apparently Duffy doesn’t remember Senator Barry Goldwater stating that every Christian ought to kick Jerry Falwell right in the ass.

  • Can you please sign / publicize the following petition ?
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protest-treatement-of-zed-and-ellison

    thanks so much for considering this.

    Text below:

    Dear Representatives:

    I would like to call your attention to the recent statement by Representative William Sali of Idaho regarding the Founding Fathers views on freedom of religion:

    “We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes — and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers”.

    I beseech you, our Congressional representatives to unite and inform Representative Salli in writing, that the views of the Founding Fathers can be found in the U.S. Constitution, and that his statement is in direct contradiction to the U.S. Constitution he has sworn to uphold, which reads:

    Bill of Rights – Amendment I, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,”

    Additionally Article VI, paragraph 3, clearly states: “…no religious Test shall be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    The last thing we need in America is to split along religious lines. The idea that membership in a certain religion should be a requirement of eligibility to hold governmental office is completely contrary to the fundamental core American values on which our Nation was established. Please take a stand against this gross rewriting of history, don’t let us forget that America was founded on the idea of freedom of religion.

    Sincerely,

  • When will this country grow up and stop sticking its collective nose into the personal lives of politicians? It’s the country that introduced to the world the concept of separation of church and state. Yet it’s also the only supposedly civilized country in the Westerm world that uses “faith” as a measure of governmental qualification. The woman who ran second in the French presidential election has several children without being married. Tell me how this affects her ability to govern.
    The cultural isolation and intellectual bankruptcy of the United States is beginning to get hard to take.

  • I have no idea how sincere the Democratic politicians, or the Republican ones, are about their beliefs, and I understand that the politicans have to act extremely respectful of religion, in light of all the polls indicating how large a proportion of Americans believe in fairy tales (i.e. religion).

    So accepting that, and acknowledging this is off-point, I know we’re not supposed to say this out loud, but it’s hard not make fun of grownups who believe in magic (i.e. religion), once you realize how silly it is. Regular people who aren’t running for office can and should make fun of this imaginary nonsense that dominates the world to such a ridiculous degree. It’s just so f-ing tiresome after awhile to see politicians and moronic commentators fight over who believes in this utter crap more.

  • What they should have is that the Democrats don’t use and placate religious folks they way the Repubs do so well. Getting them to vote against their best interest by using their worst fearful beliefs in order con them out of house and home.

  • Thank you for putting such a coherent rebuttal together. Please deliver your challenge directly to Mr. Duffy:
    “Name one example. Just one. Given that it’s been 25 years of constant effort, there should be hundreds of examples, but I’d like Duffy to name a single one. If he can’t, he ought to apologize for making such a ridiculous and baseless claim.”

    Make him back up his bull.

  • “Matthews and Duffy are boobs”

    Don’t put Matthews and boobs in the same sentence. You’ll get the poor child overexcited . . .

  • What has been going on w/ Matthews the past 2+ years? Not to say the boob was ever a favorite, but his logic has severely deteriorated, and his on-air sexual masterbation has been out-of-control to the point that he is outright intolerable (drooling over Bush’s masculinity standing in front of the “Mission Accomplished sign, his rant about Romney’s clean cut suits, his awe over the way Fred Thompson smells, and his fawning over Coultergeist for an entire hour). The most disturbing aspect is his link of Dem’s to “elitists.” Hold on——gulp—–what? I mean, for starters the Republicans definitely ARE NOT elitists. I mean look at our president? It wasn’t him who was born to one of the wealthiest oil families in U.S. history, and who later was a part of the skull-and-bones secret society at an Ivy League school, and who is currently sailing in Nantucket on the “Fidelity.” I mean, there is no elitism AT ALL on the right. And, I would love for Matthews to tell John Edwards of his elitism during his campain against poverty. Or, perhaps he can tell that to every single labor union worker.

  • Are you kidding? Liberals have been telling Christians that they are stupid for believing in creation for forty years now. How about the fun that was made of President Bush for his religious faith? Howard Dean has done his fair share of attacking Christianity as Democratic Chair and much of it is knee-jerk reaction that has ensued because the religious right is organized and politically powerful.

  • Yes, the left is certainly lacking. Let’s see, William Sloane Coffin, James Forbes, Michael Lerner, Joan Chittister, Jimmy Carter, Bill Moyers (ordained minister), Bob Edgar, Jim Wallis, to name just of few of our most inspired spokesman. Oops, I guess Mattews and Duffy were wrong. I would much rather have these examples of Christian Faith speaking on my behalf than the narrow power mongers like James Dobson, John Hagge, James Kennedy, Rod Parsley, and who can forget Ted Haggard.

  • Of course there are religious liberals. That’s not the point. The problem has been the vitriolic nature by which liberals in general have treated religion. Xargaw just illustrated the problem with his/her closing sentence about Dobson and Haggard. And the consequences are that candidates like Obama are seen as suspicious by religious America in terms of his faith. It’s not Obama’s fault but the years of animosity that have driven a wedge between the left and the right.

  • Keith Olbermann, whom I love, just two nights ago made fun of Christians for believing in a six thousand year old planet. How many progressive blogs and news shows made fun of the Rep. candidates who raised their hands on the queston of evolution during the debate. I don’t have any of Dean’s quotes handy but I’m amazed at the seeming confusion around this issue. Maybe you can help me. In full disclosure, I am a religious naturalist who clearly saw the destructive characteristics of Jerry Falwell but there is a larger promblem that has driven a wedge between “religious America” and the Democratic party.

  • …also, ask Jim Wallis and Michael Lerner if they believe there is this problem that Duffy is articulating and you will hear a resounding YES! Wallis is desperately trying to get Evangelicals to focus on their “love your neighbor ethic” but is thwarted because of the left’s hostility to religion in general.

  • …Who bought Sam Harris’ vitriolic and intellectually dishonest book The End of Faith? He made a fortune off of angry liberals who love seeing religion “destroyed” as Harris seeks to do.

  • #21 dignan: assuming you’re a Democrat, by calling religion “fairy tales” and “magic” you are proving Matthew’s and Duffy’s “points”.

    Please don’t belittle my faith. By not believing, the fundies would say you’re going to hell, but I never would. I would never try to force my beliefs or morals on you, but the fundies would. That’s the difference between the religious right and the religious left. See? The left is tolerant, tries to see the other guy’s point, is open-minded.

    Can you prove that God doesn’t exist? Of course not. Can I prove that He does? Of course not. Can we agree to disagree without insulting one another, please?

  • Hannah, sorry to insult you, but it’s exhausting trying to be polite and respectful about this stuff when it’s all so RIDICULOUSLY MADE-UP, so occasionally somebody needs to point out the truth. I have no idea if there’s a God or not, but that’s a broader, separate question, but I’m pretty sure the burden of proof is on the people who insist that Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam are based on reality (just like if I insisted there’s an invisible unicorn in my kitchen the burden of proof would be on me), and saying they “feel” it or “have faith” without anything facts isn’t really much of an argument.

  • dignan, your self-righteous arrogance confirms Duffy’s point and this attitude actually created the power of the religious right. “somebody needs to point out the truth”? Its nice to know that the fundamentalism of the right has an equal on the left. Both sides of fundamentalism presume to know more than they can know.

  • Dan: (1) assuming for the moment there is a God (which if you knew how to read I already acknowledged I don’t know, that’s not fundamentalist, dummy), I anxiously await your proof that he/she/it knows or cares whether we believe in him/her/it, and whether we pray or eat pork or loan money or do anal or dance. Also, (2)please explain why I have to give Christianity or Islam more respect than the homeless guy down the street who says aliens control Oprah Winfrey.

  • “Keith Olbermann, whom I love, just two nights ago made fun of Christians for believing in a six thousand year old planet”

    Most Christians DON’T believe in a 6000 year old Earth, ergo, Olbermann wasn’t making fun of “Christians”.

  • Goes to show what he knows — we replaced Oprah with a bio-engineered duplicate, like, three years ago. Pathetic Earth humans.

  • Jim, your logic doesn’t work. First, check out this poll that shows that 47% of Americans believe in a creation/10,000 year-old earth. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
    Second, Olberman was taking a shot at the Republican candidates for their belief in a young earth! How is that not making fun of their Christianity? Of course there is no monolythic Christianity but lets not dumb down the argument by believing that there isn’t a general hostility toward Christianity among progressives.

  • dignan, your questions and comments are incoherent. I was characterizing your claim to “know the truth” not you agnosticism as being fundamentalist. And, when did I suggest that we should “respect” Christians more than homeless people? The issue that Duffy raised was the issue of hostility that Democrats often express toward religous America.

  • ” Olberman was taking a shot at the Republican candidates for their belief in a young earth! How is that not making fun of their Christianity?”

    Dan: Even when “Conservative Christians” are polled, less than half believe in a young Earth. When asked solely about the age of the Earth (without wrapping up God creating humans, etc.), the numbers are even lower.

    He’s making fun of them for believing a seriously outdated idea along the lines of “the earth is flat” or “the sun revolves around the earth” or “epilepsy is caused by demons”, not for their faith in Jesus as Saviour.

    Belief in a young Earth is not a a fundamental tenet of Christianity. Most Churches do not see either a old Earth or evolution as incompatible with faith:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom1.htm

  • Dan:

    (1) Nothing I wrote was incoherent, learn how to read, dude. (and check how to spell “monolithic” while you’re at it.)

    (2) It’s not “fundamentalist” to roll one’s eyes at the idea that there’s an invisible being who loves us and cares whether we believe in him/her/it, and whether we pray or eat pork or loan money or do anal or wear a burka or a cross. It’s rational to roll one’s eyes at such an idea. Still looking forward to your proof of such a being. You seem awfully quiet on that point, though. The burden of proof’s on you, not me.

    (3) I didn’t suggest that we should respect Christians more or less than homeless people, I suggested that we shouldn’t respect Christianity or Islam any more than the beliefs of a homeless lunatic. Again, work on that reading comp.

  • Comments are closed.