I must have missed the memo, but exactly when did liberals begin caring about religion?
It appears the Democrats are throwing out all stops in an effort to defeat Scott Brown and retain control of “Ted’s seat.” No insult, ridicule or smear is too low to stoop. Earlier this weekend Chris Matthews fretted the Democrats might not find enough votes to buy in the Massachusetts’ special election for “Ted’s seat” between Brown and Martha Coakley. I guess he didn’t scare up enough voters to attend President Obama’s speech at Coakley’s Sunday rally because he’s kicked into high gear.
Appearing on the Morning Joe show, Matthews played the religion card, reminding voters in the heavily Catholic Massachusetts that Brown is Protestant and Coakley is Catholic.
But this election’s interesting. I don’t even know what religion–religion seems to play no role in this election, which is so unique in Massachusetts. Brown is a Protestant. Nobody’s even mentioned it—I guess I just did. And Coakley’s I guess a Catholic, although I don’t think that she sort of squares away that way in terms of her politics. So I mean it’s just so interesting: it’s sort of post-tribal.
So now being Protestant is the same as being an evil Republican? What’s next? Will Matthews be going after Brown because he’s male, has hair,…?
- Massacre in Massachusetts: Brown Annihilates Coakley
- Chris Matthews Worried There Aren’t Any Votes for Democrats to Buy in MA Tuesday
- Chris Gone Wild: Matthews Berates Catholic Bishop as Having â€œTransgressed,â€ Says He Has No Authority to Advocate Against Abortion in Health Care Bill