Posts tagged ‘Chris Matthews’
It’s Not Adultery When You Make Love to America
Some of the talking heads particularly on MSNBC are in an uproar over remarks Newt Gingrich made to The Brody File on CBN regarding his past marital infidelities. Chris Matthews and Mika Brzezinski looked about to have a brain aneurysm over Gingrich’s claim that “how passionately I feel about this country” and that “I worked far too hard” led him to be unfaithful to his wife.
The folks on TV cannot wrap their liberal talking heads around this statement by Newt. Clearly they have no understanding of psychology. Newt Gingrich was (and is) in love with the United States of America. Clearly he was not able to make love to the entire nation. So he needed a proxy. That’s all there is folks. The woman with whom Newt cheated on his cancer suffering wife was simply a proxy for America. Newt was making love to America. The only way he could have fulfilled this need any better was to make love to a woman named America. Perhaps America Ferrera?
Newt made love to a proxy for America. What could possibly be more patriotic than that?
Who’s with me?
Newt in 2012!
Newt in 2012!
Newt in 2012!
Elect Newt in 2012 and let him screw America all over again!
Respectfully,
Rutherford
Notes from the Fringe
What is it about 2010 that each political headline seems wackier than the previous one? Here are some random thoughts on some random wackiness.
Gay is Disgusting but it Pays the Rent
Carl Paladino, Republican candidate for New York State Governor, has a major problem with gays. In fact, he thinks taking your kid to a Gay Pride Parade is one of the worst things you can do — letting your kids see those queers bumping and grinding. After Carl expressed his disgust in public, he then issued an apology to the gay community. Could it have anything to do with his owning properties that house gay bars? Well I have to be honest here. I find Carl and his antics a breath of fresh air. If we overlook this minor hypocrisy, Carl has so far called ‘em like he sees them, politics be damned. Pundits have remarked that this is a by-product of people new to politics not knowing what to say or when to keep their mouth shut. But seriously, how can you resist a guy who in this PC age, says he finds the gay lifestyle revolting, tells a reporter “I will take you out”, and then asks for your vote in the next breath? Plus, if you close your eyes and just listen to him, it sounds like Andy Sipowicz from “NYPD Blue” is running for office.
Speaking of Gays, We Can Give Thanks for the End of DADT to … The GOP?
That’s right folks, the plaintiffs in the court case that may have ended Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, were the Log Cabin Republicans. How lame can our Democratic run government with our Democratic President be that it took a group of Republicans (albeit gay ones) to put an end to DADT? Well this really should not surprise us too much. President Obama has never done a particularly good job of hiding his disdain for the gay community. Whether it is his refusal to recognize gay marriage or his refusal to use the power of his office to end the practice of DADT, it is abundantly clear that gays offend Obama’s Christian sensibilities. It doesn’t win him any points with the moral majority conservatives because being born in Kenya trumps being a fellow homophobe in their book.
Christine O’Donnell Should be Running Against Alvin Greene
It is plain as day that neither Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell nor Democratic Senate candidate Alvin Greene are in a fair fight. O’Donnell, with witchcraft in her past is being slaughtered in the polls by her challenger Chris Coons. No one has yet figured out how Greene won the Democratic primary in South Carolina much less how he could possibly beat Jim DeMint. However, the two are such priceless candidates that it would be much more fun to see them square off against each other.
On Lawrence “Crazy Larry” O’Donnell’s new MSNBC show, The Last Word, Alvin Greene got his opportunity to speak to the issues. No slick subterfuge from this man. To almost every question Lawrence asked him (like where he got the nickname Turtle), Greene replied “Jim DeMint caused the recession.” Never have I seen any politician so doggedly stay on his talking points. DeMint could learn a thing or two from his opponent. Maybe if Jim stayed on a narrow script, he wouldn’t say dumb-ass crap like gays and single women shouldn’t be school teachers.
Then there is my new sweetheart, Christine O’Donnell. For the past two years I have been criticizing Rich Lowry of The National Review for his entirely penis-based support of Sarah Palin. It took some time but when Christine O’Donnell gave me that sideways look while the pretty music played in the background and she said “I’m not a witch. I’m nothing you’ve heard. I’m you.”, well my readers, my heart went all aflutter. In the space of a few weeks, O’Donnell has made Palin yesterday’s news. She’s pretty without the snark. She’s chirpy without the nagging Palin voice. And most of all, she is truly media savvy. After more than a decade of appearing on TV (mostly on Bill Maher’s old show Politically Incorrect), O’Donnell knows how to make love to a camera. I watched a few minutes of her debate with Chris Coons this evening and I have to admit I liked her. Unlike Palin who is dumb and sounds dumb, O’Donnell might not know jack-sh*t but she sells it. When she couldn’t name a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed, it came off as honest, not idiotic. And when Wolf Blitzer volunteered Roe v. Wade, she reminded him that it wasn’t a recent case. I almost want her to win just so I can continue lusting after her for six years. Then again, several insiders say she’s not in this to win it in the first place. She just wants that contract at Fox News. So, heck, I may get to watch her anyway. (Please keep this between just you and me … I don’t want my wife to find out!)
If Only He Had Been a Confederate Soldier
Rich Iott, running for the House from Ohio made a splash with photos documenting his participation in a WWII reenactment “club” that he and his son bonded over. How could a little father-son bonding be a political football? Well it gets a bit tricky when Daddy plays a Nazi soldier in the reenactment and expresses admiration for WWII Germany as the little country that could. The other night, Chris Matthews used his MSNBC show Hardball to call out Iott and dismiss any comparison of WWII reenactors to Civil War reenactors. Sadly, that is where Chris missed the ball altogether. Civil War rebel soldiers are our Nazi’s, civil war era plantations are our concentration camps and blacks of the day are our Jews. You’d never know this by visiting the South. The last time I was in Atlanta the hotel TV advertised tours of plantations to give us a slice of Southern culture, with no mention of the degradation that went on there. I don’t know which is the greater American sin, the peculiar institution itself or our lack of true shame over our past. Perhaps we need to take a lesson from modern-day Germany which shows its remorse and, in fact, makes dressing up like a Nazi illegal. That’s serious regret. They don’t offer nostalgic tours of Buchenwald.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
Obama Oval Office Address: Even Left Says Epic Fail
I noticed recently that one of my conservative readers started quoting from liberal media sources, sources that he had previously derided. He helped me understand why and tonight I got a full blast of confirmation. You see, the liberal media is starting to turn on Barack Obama and conservative Obama-haters everywhere no longer need to seek refuge at Fox “News” to get their daily fix of Obama-ass-kicking. (That’s Obama being kicked, not the other way around.)
Tonight, Obama spent about 15 minutes broadcasting from the Oval Office his plan of action for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster. Oh wait a minute, there was no discernible plan discussed. Forget O’Reilly, Hannity or Limbaugh. Keith Olbermann, yes the left’s answer to the Fox stable of opinion-meisters, was nearly apoplectic at the conclusion of Obama’s address tonight. He wasn’t alone. His guests, Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman piled on too.
Nearly everyone on the left defined tonight as Obama’s opportunity to make the Kennedy-moon-mission speech with the new mission being energy independence. It didn’t happen. At one moment it came close. You see, Kennedy said we would put a man on the moon and bring him safely back to Earth. He threw down the gauntlet and let the details take care of themselves. That is what a President is supposed to do. He is NOT supposed to tell the American people we will change our energy policy …. I don’t know how but it is going to happen. What do you mean, you don’t know how? You don’t need to say that. That is not what we want to hear from you. Then, to add insult to injury the ghosts of George W and Sarah Palin appeared as Obama told us that with God’s help everything would work out. Is God a new cabinet appointee? Is prayer a substitute for good domestic policy? Is the Holy Father going to clean up MMS?
From day 1, Obama could kiss conservative support goodbye. His only hope of political survival is a loyal base. This base is looking for boldness. We didn’t see it tonight. Obama truly could have skipped tonight’s address and he’d be no worse off.
Memo to the President: You know you are in trouble when conservatives eagerly tune to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow to see you get eviscerated.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
Prediction: Sarah Palin Will Run in 2012
I would love to say that I stumbled upon a great insight here but the fact is I simply watched an episode of “Hardball” on MSNBC and heard what I felt was a compelling argument for why we will see Sarah Palin in the Republican Presidential primary race in 2012. What follows are Chris Matthews’ views with some elaboration on my part:
After losing a presidential bid in 1960 and a subsequent California gubernatorial bid, Richard Nixon told the press they wouldn’t have “Nixon to kick around anymore”. But he really didn’t just pick up his toys and go home. Instead he spent 1966 on the stump for mid-term Republican candidates. It got his name in the news and it made him relevant again. It was the perfect set up for a 1968 run for the Presidency.
Sarah Palin’s track record for involvement in mid-term races is perhaps slightly higher than 50% wins but win or lose, it keeps her name in the headlines. As her track record for supporting winners improves, it enhances her perceived credibility. She can still talk like the mindless twit she is but imply great political chops by backing winners. The other effect that backing winners has for Palin is the old quid pro quo. Even if Sarah has absolutely no real influence, she can always call in implied IOU’s from the various winners that she backs. So when 2012 rolls around she’s got a bunch of politicians in her “debt” who must now stump for her.
Sarah can very well win Iowa appealing to the down-home religious crowd. She can possibly win New Hampshire, repeating Hillary Clinton’s feminist surge forward. Lots of folks in the South will probably love her, so South Carolina, an important primary state, may be hers as well. In primary debates, her male opponents will hesitate to eviscerate her. Unlike Hillary, she does not inspire a lot of animosity from within her own party. If her male opponents pile on, it will only make her look stronger.
Many say Sarah will not want the pay cut that winning the Presidency would entail. I say baloney. Sarah Palin is above all else an egomaniac. She is a first class attention whore. The idea of being the first female candidate for President from a major political party is something she just could not resist. On top of that, she plays by an entirely different set of rules, so if the Presidency doesn’t suit her, she’ll just up and quit. She is just that bat-dung crazy.
She says she will take her cue from God. Can you really imagine Sarah’s God telling her no?
Respectfully,
Rutherford
The Only Decent Solution to the Muslim Problem
When Nidal Malik Hasan, a military psychiatrist allegedly opened fire on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood last week, it opened another chapter in the ongoing saga of whether or not Islam is a threat to civilized society. One of the most compelling arguments against Islam has been the assertion that no Muslim ever publicly condemns religious based violence. So I was eager to find some condemnation in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre. First, I saw a headline in the Huffington Post that gave me hope:
Muslim, Arab Groups Condemn Fort Hood Shooting, Brace For Backlash
Alas, the article was more about Muslim groups preparing for backlash than it was about them delivering an unqualified condemnation. Then on MSNBC’s “Hardball” there was an interview with the national director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nihad Awad. The interview almost immediately descended into defensiveness and claims of victimhood with any condemnation of the violence being secondary. I was becoming frustrated. I was beginning to despair that the very vocal critics of Islam who frequent my blog were right and I was wrong.
Then on a subsequent edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball”, I hit pay dirt. Chris Matthews’ guest was Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. If you can ignore the host’s speechifying and focus on what Dr. Jasser has to say, this clip is well worth watching.
Here are some of the key statements from Jasser that resonated with me:
I will tell you, my parents came here. They taught me. And the reason I joined the military was, this country was able to give my family the protection, the freedom, the liberty to practice our faith like we could nowhere else in the world. …
However, that’s our Islam. There are other forms of Islam that are a threat. And we have to be careful that political correctness is driving us away from protecting ourselves from the enemy within and from the enemy abroad. And there is a political ideology that has masked itself within a theology that I love, but we can’t deny.
It’s time for Muslims to stop complaining and stop being victims, and say, you know, what we have to start within combating, no different than at the time of the American Revolution. They determined that there were Christians that were part of the Church of England, that were enemies of America, and there were Christians that believed in a country based on the Establishment Clause and based on freedom and liberty, that were about what the west was about.
… political Islam has made huge advances, while the West has been asleep against the spread of the, quote unquote, Islamic state movement. And I think clearly there are parts of the ideologies of hate of the West, of America, of conspiracy theories that this guy started to follow that were warning signs. via ‘Hardball with Chris Matthews’ for Monday, November 9 – Hardball with Chris Matthews- msnbc.com.
Without flinching, Dr. Jasser stated that there is a faction within Islam that is indeed dangerous. He confirmed my belief that the answer to our problem is for more Muslims who take messages of love and brotherhood from the Koran and discard the rest, to rise up and oppose the fanatical branch of the religion.
I am no authority on organized religion, nor a particular fan of it. However, history teaches us that reform within a religion is possible. Whether it is the Protestant reformation that strove to drive financial corruption out of the church, or the modern efforts of the Catholic church to wake up to an insidious pedophilia problem or the evolution of Mormonism to reject polygamy as a fundamental cultural phenomenon (albeit under pressure from the US government). There is no reason why Islam cannot be righted by peaceful, law-abiding and outspoken members of that faith.
There are those who want to deport Muslims from this country, stop immigration of Muslims, and essentially outlaw the practice of the religion within the US. Nothing could be more antithetical to the essence of what it is to be an American. The only decent solution to the problems that modern-day Islam presents us is to align ourselves with people like Dr. Jasser to ensure that the peaceful worship of Allah prevails and the barbaric violence of decadent Muslims comes to an end.
For more information on Dr. Jasser’s organization, visit the web site for the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
Two Tea Party Witnesses for the Prosecution
Of all the positions I’ve taken on this blog, probably none has attracted so much vitriol as my attitude toward the Tea Party participants. I have called a good number of them uninformed and ignorant and a small minority of them outright racist. In return I have been told I don’t respect the first amendment and that I am un-American because I don’t support the common man in his effort to redress perceived wrongs. Perhaps if I saw a Tea Party participant present himself convincingly, I might be persuaded that the Tea Party movement is something more than misdirected rage and amorphous social anxiety.
This week the Tea Party movement took a far right turn and started to eat its own at a town hall with Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham. Graham, one of the Senators most critical of President Obama, was called a traitor by folks in the crowd.
This odd turn of events demanded an explanation so once again, two “witnesses for the defense” of the Tea Party movement got paraded on national television and wound up simply winning the case for the prosecution. In fact, I challenge anyone to watch the following video and not cringe with discomfort:
Let’s start with some reasonable objections that Tea Party sympathizers might have with the above interview.
- Chris Matthews is a bully. That is why the show is called “Hardball”. Chris reserves the right to be tough and often rude to his guests in what he believes is a quest for the truth.
- The two men are relatively ordinary private citizens with no preparation for a TV interview, much less with a tough interviewer with Matthews’ experience.
- In a corollary to point 1, Chris does not play fair, asking questions far afield from the main topic of why the sudden turn on Lindsay Graham.
With those objections out of the way, let’s look at how our defenders of the Tea Party movement fared:
- Everett Wilkinson of Florida Tea Party Patriots starts off with the total foolishness that nearly 2 million marched on Washington on 9/12, when reliable estimates place the crowd at no more than 500,000 tops (more conservative estimates come in at about 75,000).
- Wilkinson could not answer the question that I have repeatedly asked in the comments section of this blog, namely why the sudden need for protest when all of our fiscal problems, e.g. out of control spending, started in the Bush administration?
- Next comes the old stuff about Iraq being responsible for 9/11 (and some odd comment about Iran thrown in there also).
- Wilkinson ends up looking like a good natured guy who spouts Republican talking points without much underlying knowledge. He supports my supposition that a lot of Tea Party members are vague, to be kind, about what is really bothering them. Wilkinson’s finest moment, and I say this sincerely, is when he reminds Matthews that he is basically off topic. Wilkinson looks like a pro compared to what comes next.
- Next up is Allen Olson, a self described South Carolina Tea Party organizer. His first “gripe” is that Lindsay Graham is willing to “meet the Democrats more than halfway” about social security. OK, good specific gripe there. What about this social security debate has Olson upset? “Well, I’m not exactly sure exactly what the issue was but Senator Graham said he was willing to talk to the Democrats on the issue of social security.” In impolite circles, this is known as not having the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. Matthews exercises incredibly empathetic restraint with this fellow who on the very first question makes it clear he has no business being interviewed about politics. Maybe about the Clemson Tigers, but not about politics.
- Matthews pours a bit of salt in the wound by suggesting Graham is a “Richard Russell conservative”, a reference to a Georgia Senator who led a conservative movement from the late 30′s to the early 60′s. I had to look Russell up to find out who he was. Olson, as he literally bobbed and weaved in his chair, was as clueless as I. Matthews has studied politics and Olson clearly has not. Unfair fight but again evidence that this representative of the “movement” is in way over his head.
- Chris then explores climate change and evolution in an attempt to make the guy look like a real neanderthal. Olson handles this pretty well actually, saying he doesn’t believe in climate change (lots of folks agree with him) and that he supports science and religion.
- While Olson distances himself from those calling Graham a traitor (Olson stops at RINO), he then caps off the interview by proposing a Sarah Palin/Jim DeMint President/VP ticket in 2012. We won’t discuss Sarah, whom I’ve opined on extensively but Jim DeMint? DeMint, the Senator whose only reason to block health care reform is to destroy Obama’s presidency? DeMint, who visited the foreign government of Honduras, not recognized by our government? The same DeMint who compared Obama’s administration to Nazi Germany? Yeah Olson sure does know how to pick ‘em.
- Like Wilkinson, Olson ended his part of the interview on a sympathetic note, comparing Palin’s bomb of an interview with Katie Couric, to his own nervousness talking to Chris Matthews. An ordinary guy defending an ordinary gal.
Bottom line, these two gentlemen are the best the Tea Party movement has to offer as public spokespeople. In their cringe-worthy testimony, they prove my supposition that the Tea Party waters are rough but don’t run very deep.
The prosecution rests its case.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
Silence is Golden
I’ve stated in the past that George W. Bush’s best post presidential strategy is to lay low and hope that sometime down the line events prove him to be a better President than the current polls suggest. Unfortunately, some of Bush’s former minions are not taking the same advice.
Tonight on MSNBC’s “Hardball”, former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleisher got into a heated debate with host Chris Matthews. The second half of the debate appears below:
Primarily because of Matthews’ abrasive style, one could go back and forth on who was scoring more points in the debate. Fleisher held his own for the most part and Chris unnecessarily hit a very raw nerve by reminding Ari that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. It’s only at the very end of the interview that Fleisher proves why he and every other save-the-Bush-legacy talking head need to shut the hell up. At the 7 minute mark in the video, in defending the invasion of Iraq, Fleisher says:
After September 11, having been hit once, how could we take a chance that Sadam might not strike again?
To my astonishment both Chris Matthews and later Keith Olberman let this comment go by unchallenged! Perhaps Chris was just too tired by that point in the interview to actually hear what Ari said. “How could we take a chance that Sadam might not strike again?”
Sadam did not strike us the first time! What does Fleisher mean by “again”?
With this one sentence, Ari blew his entire argument out of the window, perpetuating the myth, even after Bush is gone from the public scene, that somehow Sadam was responsible for 9/11. It gives further evidence of the constant state of delusion in which the Bush administration was mired. Fleisher says this foolishness with such conviction that I find it hard to believe it is a put on. The Bush White House really believes that Sadam was behind 9/11 and no evidence to the contrary will ever convince them otherwise.
My heart went out to George W. Bush when he left office. I was mortified when he received boos at Barack Obama’s inauguration. More recently, I’ve almost admired Bush’s restraint now that we know that Bush’s legal advisers essentially gave him carte blanche to run a dictatorship. So now I tell all those well meaning associates of the former President who want to ensure his positive place in history to do so by just shutting up. The only thing that will redeem the Bush presidency will be the eventual establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq, which can then be traced back to Bush’s efforts.
For now, to use a now infamous phrase, all the talk in the world will do nothing more than put lipstick on a pig.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
Appeasement and Impeachment
MSNBC had a field day when Chris Matthews on “Hardball” nailed conservative commentator Kevin James on whether or not he knew what the word appeasement meant. After some 24 attempts at getting an answer, Chris finally got Kevin to admit he didn’t know what he was talking about.
In full self congratulatory mode, on “Countdown with Keith Olberman”, Friday night guest host Rachel Maddow interviewed Chris about the confrontation and they shared their concern that words, especially hot button words, be used properly. Unfortunately, earlier in the same episode, Rachel noted a political anniversary by saying that back in 1868, “the Senate actually came close to impeaching a president”. For an analyst and a network so intent on the proper use of words, Rachel and MSNBC blew it big time. The president in question, Andrew Johnson, did not come “close” to being impeached. He was impeached. He was NOT convicted. What Rachel should have said was that the Senate came close to convicting and thereby forcing out of office a president. To make the mistatement all the more glaring, she identified the president as Andrew Jackson. Fortunately, after a commercial break, she corrected that whopper but neglected to correct her use of “came close to”.
If MSNBC is going to self righteously pound its chest over historical accuracy, they need to do some fact checking before opening their mouth.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
The Danger of Partisan Media
No, this is not another attack on Fox News. This time I have to take a minute calling out my beloved MSNBC which I’ve always claimed, despite its liberal bias has always taken the higher road compared to Fox.
Late this week Chris Matthews on “Hardball” devoted an entire segment to Texas Governor Rick Perry’s pay-to-play method of governing. Apparently there is a pretty conspicuous pattern of campaign donations being followed by legislative favors. Michele Bachmann got the conversation started during last Monday’s GOP debate when she accused Perry of letting campaign donations influence his decision to mandate administration of the HPV inoculation to young female Texans (with an opt-out available to their parents). Perry’s response, which has inspired chuckles ever since, was did Michele really think he could be bought for a lousy $5,000.00?
Unfortunately, as I watched Chris go on and on about Perry’s ethics, I could not get out of my mind a story that my readers called to my attention, namely the brewing Solyndra scandal. Up until my cadre of conservative opponents threw it in my face, I figured Solyndra was some sort of sugar substitute. Little did I know it was a solar panel manufacturer with a lousy business model which was loaned half a billion dollars of our money by an administration who had been warned things would go bad, but who also had been prodded by Solyndra investor George Kaiser to approve the deal. George by sheer coincidence was an Obama fund-raiser. Sure enough, as predicted by some, Solyndra went belly up this month firing all of its workers.
Now you might fault me for not knowing about this story but clearly Chris Matthews and his producers knew about it. So how could they possibly go on a rant about Perry’s crony capitalism when the White House has a discernible stench of it right now? To make matters worse, guess where I had to turn to get the full Solyndra story? Comedy Central. That’s right, once again a man who should be a pure comedian, Jon Stewart, was delivering news that the MSNBC prime time pundits didn’t want to touch.
I’ve always considered MSNBC’s advantage over Fox that they had bias without hypocrisy. Now I need to reconsider that assessment.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance
September 17, 2011 at 2:42 pm Rutherford 625 comments