Matthews trumpeted comparatively small Abramoff client donations to Sen. C

[NVMojo]

Summary: On Hardball, host Chris Matthews repeatedly mentioned Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) decision to donate to charity $2,000 in campaign contributions received from American Indian tribes represented by lobbyist and felon Jack Abramoff, yet virtually ignored the $6,000 and $69,000 in campaign contributions received from Abramoff and his clients by President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), respectively -- contributions both have also pledged to donate to charity.

On the January 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews mentioned during three separate segments Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) decision to donate to charity $2,000 in campaign contributions received from American Indian tribes represented by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who on January 3 pleaded guilty to felony charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax evasion and on January 4 pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraud charges in a separate case. Despite repeatedly noting Clinton's receipt of the donations from Abramoff's clients, Matthews virtually ignored the $6,000 and $69,000 in campaign contributions received from Abramoff and his clients by President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), respectively -- contributions both have also pledged to donate to charity. Moreover, no mention was made of the more than $100,000 Abramoff reportedly raised on behalf of Bush's re-election campaign that the president has refused to relinquish. Matthews did not inform viewers that Bush had received money from Abramoff and his clients at all and gave only passing mention to the contributions Hastert received, and only in response to remarks by MSNBC host and former Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL), a guest on the program.

more...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601070003

[NanceGreggs]

1. Re Bush and Hastert ...

"... and the contributions both have also pledged to donate to charity."

Is this anything like Cheney's profits from Halliburton, which we hear he has 'earmarked' for charity -- every year for the past five years now, but which NEVER seem to actualy find their way to any 'charity'?

Just wonderin' ...

[depakid]

2. And he's going to keep doing it

if he wants to keep his job.

So will every other TV "journalist."

[Straight Shooter]

3. Why are these politicians donating the money to charity?

Why don't they return the money to the tribes? Am I missing something here? IOW, what would be wrong with returning the money to the source from whence it came?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. They think that's going to somehow make taking bribes okay.

[Straight Shooter]

6. Well, yes, I guess it could be considered a bribe.

Such a nasty word, but "lobbyist" is even nastier. Even if it can be classified a bribe, which I have to admit the so-called contributions were de facto bribes, then the money should still go back to the tribes. Let them donate it to their favorite charity, if they consider it tainted. Better yet, let it go to helping their people rather than relying on white politicians to do anything for them.

[EST]

10. What you say makes some sense to me.

But then I remember that this whole money thing with the tribes was simply to facilitate their own preying on the weak willed, often helpless, victims. Then even more money to try to kick some other tribe out of the catbird seat in stealing from (I may get some argument, here) those victims. All of this backed up by a group of people who, right or wrong, have had some experience with the awful price that is paid by some on the altar of drinking and gambling and who thought they were doing some good in the world--of course, by meddling in other peoples' business.
I have no sympathy for any of the actors in this sorry spectacle.

[Straight Shooter]

19. So many sides to this issue.

Maybe they should give it back to the tribes and let the tribes set up a charity for their people, earmark the money so it actually does some good.

I don't have sympathy for any of the players, either. I do have sympathy for those who could be helped with the money but will never see a cent of it because those in power intend to remain in power, at any cost.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. Matthews is caught up in the Abramoff mess. That's why he's trying.....

...to create a smokescreen over anything that has to do with Abramoff's activities.

[salin]

17. BINGO - he cohosted a fundraiser for Abramoff's "charity"

that then funnelled money to GOP interests.

[aquart]

7. Denny! I knew he wouldn't pass on the filthy lucre.

That's a very tidy amount considering the unwritten rule about not campaigning against Congressional leaders (which the Republicans dishonored by attacking Daschle in another short-sighted act of spite).

What did Denny need it for?

[EST]

8. As angry as we get at this clumsy misreporting,

it is well to remember that Matthews' show is nothing more and nothing less than a long, sometimes titillating, and often boring op-ed. It does not (contrary to what they'd have you believe) necessarily have to have any basis in truth, honesty, facts, or accuracy, what so ever. He calls it hardball (hairball?) but, when I first saw it (2001) I recognized immediately that the more accurate name would be "Rudeball." The only claim to fame that I can see is his willingness to interrupt others, who may actually have something of substance to say, to interject his own third class mental ramblings.
Once in a great while, apparently back on his meds, he shuts up and can actually have a fairly good show. The rest of the time, he is simply not worth wasting an hour of my limited number of hours on this earth.

[wookie294]

9. Wiffle Ball only has about 400,000 viewers

Tweety Matthews is small potatoes, but I watch him because I find his "I'm not a liberal" circus act to be entertaining.

[EST]

12. Along with his brother's running for office

as another republican crook.

[EST]

14. You're a braver one than I am (or of stronger stomach!)

[No Exit]

11. Yes--my main beef with him has always been that he interviews himself

Over and over. He interviews himself daily. Sometimes more than once per show.

The guests almost never even get to finish a sentence.

I wonder why he bothers to have them on.

I understand why you don't watch him. I, on the other hand, have been watching him regularly lately, b/c I am waiting for more coverage of the CIA leak scandal. Lately, on EVERY show, he has asked the trite, stupid, question, "Soyou'resayingpowercorruptsandabsolutepowercorruptsabsolutely?" He has said this over and over, as though it were some sort of great insight. It's absolutely maddening... I am likely to drop his show soon.

[EST]

13. I'm with you.

They always neglect the fact that the dems were in control, sometimes of all three branches simultaneously, for forty years without getting this bad.

[No Exit]

20. Yeah--the democrats didn't delve this low in 40 years of

congressional power. The repukes have exceeded democrat corruption in a mere 10 years.

That makes the repukes 4 times more corrupt than the democrats. That should be on the package, for every repuke candidate: "4 Times More Corrupt Than A Democrat!!" Would be a good ad for them, too (and they could also say, "And he can be yours for only 19-99! That's a mere $19,099!"

[Judi Lynn]

15. Chris is simply dishonest. It's hard shaking the disbelief you feel

once you see someone like him, seemingly bright enough, refuse to let the facts through. You keep waiting for him to have a change of heart, and clean up his act, and those tiny moments of honesty only come once in a blue moon.

He's chronically bent. He's not going to get better. He's such a wild disappointment. He's just plain dirty, because he knowingly keeps the truth buried.

I'll never know how someone becomes a "rogue" human.

[UTUSN]

16. Good that Media Matters is on his sorry ass n/t

[HuffleClaw]

18. this is really pissing me off

you DO see what they are doing right? they are ADDING a 'degree of seperation' to this scandal. and why? so they can CLAIM that DEMOCRATS are just as involved as republicans. its complete horseshit of course, but its what they do.

[eve_was_framed]

24. yep, I so agree!! If they repeat it over and over then it makes the lie

into reality in their world. The trouble is sheeple are too lazy or stupid to ferret out the truth through simple research!!! Utter horse shit!

[CBHagman]

21. E-mail [e-mail]

Don't forget to e-mail the show at [e-mail]

Here's the letter I sent:

"I was watching the final segments of Hardball on Thursday, January 5th, and was appalled that Chris Matthews did not bother to distinguish between donations received from Jack Abramoff, those raised through his efforts, and those given by his clients. This is a complete failure to inform the public correctly -- indeed, it suggests an attempt to tarnish the reputations of people who have been accused of nothing -- and it suggests that Matthews either didn't bother to do the groundwork for reporting or that he has a politicized agenda. I demand that this story be updated and corrected.

"To her credit, Norah O'Donnell, who was one of the commentators in the segments, did bring up the fact that some of the donations in question came from, for example, Native American tribes who were Abramoff's clients. I believe she also briefly discussed Abramoff's role as a "Pioneer," a $100,000-plus fundraiser for the Bush-Cheney campaign. However, these clarifications came after a commercial break, not in Matthews's set-up to the segment. Thus viewers had possibly been misled by that point.

"Unfortunately, Matthews was too busy making what I suppose he thought were clever remarks (e.g., the reference to knowing Doris Day before she was a version). Frankly, I would prefer an actual reporter to host Hardball. A David Gregory, for example, would provide professionalism and intellectual heft that Chris Matthews most certainly does not possess."

By the way, the breaking news is that DeLay has stepped down. THANK YOU, JESUS.

[CBHagman]

22. Oh, no, MSNBC has been linking Dems to Abramoff.

Just after 12:30 EST on MSNBC, the anchor (some brunette I didn't recognize) specifically cited Hillary Rodham Clinton as giving back Abramoff cash, again, not bothering to specify where the cash came from and whether it was from Abramoff clients.

Geez, this is becoming the media's litany, especially at MSNBC, with some notable exceptions.

Does anyone know who the GOP tart (sorry) was that was anchor during this segment? I want to e-mail a response, and the channel never identified her.

[Al-CIAda]

23. "It's not going to be part of a larger story of Washington this year"

Check this one out as well. Very interesting...

Matthews on Abramoff scandal: "It's not going to be part of a larger story of Washington this year, I think"
Summary: MSNBC host Chris Matthews minimized the Jack Abramoff scandal, saying: "It's not going to be part of a larger story of Washington this year, I think."
Discussing Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff's January 3 plea bargain with federal prosecutors, which, according to The Washington Post, "could become one of the largest corruption scandals in recent memory, involving as many as a half dozen lawmakers, a former top official at the Department of Interior and former and current congressional aides," MNSBC Hardball host Chris Matthews predicted that the scandal is "not going to be part of a larger story of Washington this year, I think."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601030006
=======

What MediaMatters neglected to mention is that Mattews ALSO calls Cunningham a 'lone wolf' and will not effect others. My guess is if Cunningham did indeed wear a wire, it may tell a different story.

[salin]

25. here is Chris's direct tie in to the story:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/hardballs-chris-matthews-foxs-tony.html

[AtomicKitten]

26. I get the impression Tweety finds this amusing.

He probably doesn't believe the Republicans will actually go down for this. His efforts to tie in Democrats is really pathetic.

[CBHagman]

27. I think it was Contessa Brewer who did the segment I saw.

Also on MSNBC, there was this anchor who cited Hillary Clinton (and Hillary Clinton alone) when referring to the Abramoff money scandal. It was in a segment after 12:30 p.m. EST today.

I've already e-mailed the channel to complain.