Let's Play Hardball

[H2O Man]

In the 48 hours since I posted "Leaks in Perception," about the relationship between progressives/democrats and the media in regard to the Plame scandal, a couple significant events have taken place. The first was Karl Rove testifying for the 5th time in the on-going grand jury investigation; the second was today's decision by Judge Walton, rejecting the Team Libby motion to dismiss the charges against Scooter.

There has been a tremendous amount of discussion about the significance of Rove's situation. I've enjoyed watching the coverage on the tv, reading articles in the papers, and especially viewing discussions on the internet. I've participated in a few of the discussions on one of the progressive forums, including some where there has been heated disagreement on a report by TruthOut's Jason Leopold on the possibility that Rove and his attorney Robert Luskin had received a "target letter" from Patrick Fitzgerald.

The majority of those discussions were focused on interpreting what facts were known, and what may have been speculation. A few were unfortunately negative, and concentrated on personal attacks.I was reminded of some of the experiences of people in the Civil Rights movement, as well as in Native American sovereignty work.

A lot of the conflicts in those areas was the result of people who infiltrated the various groups, with the goal of disrupting. But many more conflicts were rooted in petty personality-based disputes. This is human nature.

I worked in human services for many years. I enjoyed that type of work, because I like people, and am fascinated by "human nature." But, to be honest, there were some people that I encountered over the decades that I did not like. (And some certainly did not like me.) If you have a co-worker you don't like, you have a couple choices. You can allow personality-based disputes to contaminate the quality of your work, or you can rise above that, and go on the principle that your work is more important than personality. Some of the best work I did was in cooperation with people that I was not friends with.

Likewise, in doing work as a "community activist," I have had plenty of experience working with individuals that I didn't particularly like. There were also agencies that I believed were incompetent. But as Vine Deloria Jr. noted, the incompetence of individuals and agencies is not often a mortal sin.

I am hoping that we could look at one individual who a number of people on the progressive internet sites I read seem to dislike. Chris Matthews, from MSNBC's Hardball, who is unpopularly knows as "Tweety" on the Democratic Underground, is a case in point. For fun, let's look at Mr. Matthews in terms of his work on the Plame scandal.

Ambassador Joseph Wilson starts the first page of his book "The Politics of Truth" with his conversation where Matthews told him about Karl Rove telling him "Wilson's wife is fair game." Wilson noted that before "abruptly hanging up, Matthews added: 'I will confirm that if asked'."

Later in the book, Wilson recounts telling Tim Russert on Meet the Press that a "respectable reporter" had told him about Rove's "retailing the Novak article." This was before Wilson had publicly identified Matthews as his source. (page 373)

It is interesting to compare what Wilson says about Matthews, to what some seemingly intelligent bloggers attribute to Wilson. On a January 11, 2006 essay on the Huffington Post, David Fiderer expresses his personal dislike of Mathews' personality, knocks his ability as a journalist, and then projects his emotions onto Wilson with statements like, "According to Joe Wilson, Chris Matthews is a guy who can't keep a secret or a promise," and "Matthews has every reason to resent Wilson." Again, the conflict does not exist between Wilson and Matthews; it is located between Mr. Fiderer's ears.

A rationale look at Matthews' work was found on Arianna Huffington's "Chris Matthews and the Power of Repetition." She did not concentrate on Mr. Matthews' alleged tendency to interrupt guests on his show. Instead, she discussed his "acting as a village explainer, using the dramatic example of Sept. 8, 2002," to illustrate how the administration used the media to sell the war in Iraq. On that Sunday, Judith Miller had a front-page report in the New York Times based on misinformation provided to her from Scooter Libby. That morning, high-ranking administration officials including VP Cheney, Powell, and Rice went on the morning talk shows, and used Miller's article as a reference in spreading the Libby lies.

Matthews appreciates that power of repetition. His reporting on the Plame scandal has used that same tactic by showing, over and over, that the administration's lies about WMD were used to convince the country to support the invasion of Iraq; that Joseph Wilson had evidence that the administration had information that indicated Iraq did not have the WMD programs; that the OVP conducted an underhanded attack on Wilson; that VP Cheney talked with Libby about {a} Wilson's wife working for the Agency, and {b} tactics to use in attacking Wilson in the press, including leaking the NIE.

Hardball has featured the high-quality reporting of David Shuster, as well as a variety of guests who have knowledge of the Plame scandal. Matthews has been hammering VP Cheney more than any other corporate media journalist. Consider the following examples, from his October 27, 2005 show:

Matthews: "How does this not go back directly to the vice president? If the vice president got her identity, gave it to his chief of staff, the chief of staff gave it to Judy Miller, isn't the chain of custody complete?"

"You know, when you go back and look at the record, it isn't just about a leak, this story; it's about the war in Iraq and how the case was made and roles played and the method of operations of people like the vice president's chief of staff. And you realize that he was leaking to the New York Times for weekend use so the stories would run on Sunday, so that the vice president, who was already scheduled to appear, would go on Sunday television and say, 'Did you see that New York Times piece this morning?' to Tim Russert."

Last week, Matthews had a gentleman named Michael Smerconish on. Mr. Smerconish said thaty no one outside of the "beltway" was interested in the Plame scandal, and that it was "too esoteric" for common folk to understand. Rev. Al Sharpton responded that people understand that people like Rove and Libby will "lie when the truth will hurt them." And Matthews told Smerconish that his show's ratings rose whenever he was covering current events in the Plame scandal. He made clear that a growing number of Americans are very interested in the case.

Chris Matthews may be an individual that some people simply do not like. Hardball does not do as well on other issues as it does on the Plame scandal. In that sense, it might be fair to view him as the head of an agency that is frequently incompetent. But that is not a mortal sin. And at a time when progressives/democrats should want more Americans to hear reports on the administration's participation in the Plame scandal, we should take close note that Hardball's ratings go up when he covers the story. The management at MSNBC surely does.

[Catherine Vincent]

1. Excellent, as usual, Mr. H2O Man!

I don't like Clinton-hating Chris Matthews, but if he can holler and spit all day and night about the CIA Lake case, I'm all for it. :)

[kpete]

2. Just for you

I will watch...

"it isn't just about a leak, this story; it's about the war in Iraq"

I believe

[mod mom]

3. I think Tweety is courting Smerconish because his brother is running for

office in PA and wants to ride the righ wing tails of the obnoxious Smerconish.

On a positive note, David Gregory has been filling in for Matthews this week, so it's worth tuning in before KO.

[mod mom]

9. Here is a Media Matters story on Matthews and Smerconish:

Why is Chris Matthews -- whose brother is running for Pa. lt. gov. -- touting "all" his family's love for Philly radio host Smerconish?

Summary: On MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews praised conservative Philadelphia-based radio host Michael Smerconish, despite Smerconish's history of controversial statements. But as Smerconish has made several recent appearances on Hardball, neither he nor Matthews has mentioned that Matthews's brother Jim, who is the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Pennsylvania, appeared at a political event in Pennsylvania that Smerconish moderated.

On the March 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews praised conservative Philadelphia-based radio host Michael Smerconish, declaring: "You talk to a huge audience on the East Coast, Michael. I've listened to you, all my family listens to you." Despite Smerconish's controversial statements, he has appeared on Hardball four times in recent weeks. Smerconish has returned the favor, allowing Matthews air time on the March 3 broadcast of The Michael Smerconish Morning Show, during which Matthews criticized the "one-sided, to some extent liberal propaganda" of the film Good Night, and Good Luck, which Matthews suggested presented a "revisionist history" of McCarthyism. But as Smerconish has continued to appear on Hardball, neither he nor Matthews has mentioned that Matthews's brother Jim, who is the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Pennsylvania, appeared at a political event in Pennsylvania that Smerconish moderated.

According to a letter by the Young America political action committee (PAC):

The Young America PAC is proud to be a co-sponsor of the Philadelphia Young Republican's event featuring the 2006 Republican Candidates for Pennsylvania Governor, on Tuesday January 17th.

<snip>
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603090013

[emulatorloo]

26. Last time I saw Smerconish on Hardball, Matthews decimated him. . .

FIrm harsh and strong. . .see descriptions below.

[yodermon]

4. kick and request for 5th vote

:toast: to waterman

[shraby]

5. Excellent analysis as always Waterman.

Good going.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. I think the ratings skyrocket when David Gregory fills in for Tweety!!!

;)

[jean]

12. Yes. Thanks to H20 Man for the analysis, but we just cannot stand

to tune in when Matthews hosts.

David Gregory generates spirited and civil discussion.

[UTUSN]

7. Tweety's ratings go up? From microscopic to miniscule?

I believe that the overwhelming majority of Tweety's total viewership consists of us. Me, not so much in the past few years. But most of the time he is catering to rich-retired-wingnuts-with-cable, instead of to us. I don't know why MSRNC and CNN bother to try to out-Faux Faux. Whatever ratings they get are from us. If his ratings go up when doing PLAME, it's because we stop the clicking around and stay put. We. Us. This ain't the vast majority of the American people. But then if the vast majority of the American people would bother to VOTE, there wouldn't be a Repuke in any office anywhere.

[dchill]

8. Begrudgingly...

OK. I think David Schuster is a huge strength behind Hardball, but I don't have a lot of respect for Matthews - too much generic criticism of "the left" and "liberals." But at least, he is covering some of the breaking scandals.

[AuntiBush]

31. dchill speaks for me on "Tweet", Mr. H2O Man...

Though I readily admit he did some excellent, attention-getting coverage of the Plame case.

Tell him to lay-off of left/liberal criticism; give Dems equal-time and respect "and" start talking more about Brewster-Jennings and maybe I'll stop calling him Tweety and tune-in more often.

[dave29]

10. Given Mathews obvious endearment towards idealistic strong men

I like to call it his affinity with sublime masculinity,

he must think Fitzgerald is the absolute coolest kid of them all.

At least I hope so.

[tishaLA]

23. I like that..."affinity with sublime masculinity"

I think that is Tweets to a T, but I am somehow unable to square that with his hatred for Pres. Clinton, whose masculinty was at least as sublime as the Chimp's. Maybe it's more "affinity with the cloaked phallus."

[stop the bleeding]

11. We are all on the same team

I often listen to Tweety and find nuggets in his reporting. I also listen to NPR 2X a day for approx. 40 minutes each time. I hear time and time again people bashing NPR, Tweety and others who do not say what the "Librul" people want them to say. I listen to these sources because I feel like they are more down the middle in the scheme of things.

Maybe I am wrong about my views as to where these people/organizations stand, but I would like to believe that I am correct on this.

I am gonna go ahead and put on my flame retardant suit in preparation for fire that is about to ensue for my comments.

For the record I also listen to Countdown, Free Speech TV, Link TV, Democracy Now these sources are on the liberal side of things - oh yeah I also throw in a helping of RS and Truthout for fun.

Thanks H2O Man

We are all on the same team.

[Mandate My Ass]

13. Smerconish is a RW shill

His radio show is a slightly upscale, more subtle Rush Limbaugh show. He also has a column here in Philly which he uses to promote RW talking points. And now he has a book out "Muzzled" as if anybody could muzzle these loudmouths. It's funny how they're constantly all over the airwaves complaining about how they have no voice. O'Really sings the praises of his book. Nuff said.

As an attorney he has the ability to say the most outrageous things with a straight face and with a sense of conviction, but I don't believe he believes anything he says. IOW, there no analysis, no substance.

[Singular73]

14. Last time Smerconish was on Tweety's show

Tweety totally opened up on him.

Hardball is my favorite nightly punditry show. I don't need to hear what I already know from Olbermann, and Tweety does piss me off sometimes, but in general, he has good guests, and hammers on issues constantly.

From what I can tell, Rhodes watches Hardball religiously.

[ourbluenation]

15. Last week I caught Smerconish on Hardball and Tweety was not kind

Smerconish was laughing at the Plame issue and said the American people don't care. Tweety took him to task, for what it's worth...asked him a couple times why it was so funny, being such a serious matter and all.

[Mandate My Ass]

19. glad to hear it

thanks, Singular, ourbluenation for the update. I rarely tune in to any of the shows anymore because my frustration threshold won't allow it. :mad:

But it's good to know somebody put him in his place for laughing about something so serious. Imagine, a tort attorney laughing about the ruination of someone's career merely to spite her husband for speaking out.

Thanks to H2O man too!

[emulatorloo]

24. Tweety figuratively ripped Smerconish's head off

It was a sight to see - told Smerconish in no uncertain terms why this story was important and why Smerconish miniminizing of it was dishonest and a diservice to the American people.

[ourbluenation]

29. Tweety is a trip. Just when I cannot abide him another second

he starts to redeem himself ever so slightly. He also said on the same show something about Bucannon being on the right side of most issues with Chris. Chros then said in a whispered tone, "I'm gunna get in trouble for that." Did you catch that? They were outside with an audience.

[malaise]

16. They're discussing on Hardball now n/t

[Neecy]

17. Sorry, can't go there

All I need to see is what I've witnessed twice on Hardball - Matthews showing his incomplete grasp of history and political science by spitting the following at one of his guests: "So, is Hillary a socialist? IS HILLARY A SOCIALIST?"

His ridiculous hatred of Hillary Clinton (and I'm no fan of hers; it just gets old) makes him almost unwatchable.

[UTUSN]

18. Wonderful David SHUSTER sez ROVE is "more worried, not LESS"

Wingnut Nora O'DONNELL is sitting in for the Tweezer. SCHUSTER, who left Faux and speaks openly about what a wingut hack racket it is, says that ROVER stayed longer than expected, 3+ hours and and was surprised at the questions asked, including about his previous testimony. SHUSTER says again and again that "Official A" is always prime for later indictment and that in ALL of Fitz's previous cases ALL "Officials A" have gone on to be indicted. O'DONNELL asked the guest, "The grand jury is meeting again tomorrow. Does that mean ROVE will be indicted tomorrow?" The guest said, COULD BE! Now she's leading the guest by HER saying it's unlikely to turn around the lengthy testimony into an indictment SO FAST by tomorrow. The guest continues to say it COULD HAPPEN.

Oh, also, another surprise for ROVER was that he had gone there to testify about ONE thing, then was splattered with SEVERAL topics.

[UTUSN]

20. The guest is U.S. Atty Sol WEISENBERG

O'DONNELL keeps trying to get him to say there's nothing to worry about. He says that anybody who has been identified as a SUBJECT and has been to testify FIVE times with the lastest time being THREE AND A HALF HOURS--------"you have PLENTY to worry about." O'DONNELL spun herself silly, saying that HER source says ROVE was at a party last night and was VERY UPBEAT, that he told others that the grilling was BAD but that he feels good about his testimony. WEISENBERG didn't rist to that bait EITHER, saying, "Well, what do you expect him to say?" Give WEISENBERG the "hardball" show.

[BrklynLiberal]

21. Of course it is difficult to forget Tweety's fawning all over W when he

did the big "Mission Accomplished" fake aircraft landing in the big-boy's pilot suit. :puke:

MATTHEWS: What do you make of the actual visual that people will see on TV and probably, as you know, as well as I, will remember a lot longer than words spoken tonight? And that's the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously. What does that image mean to the American people, a guy who can actually get into a supersonic plane and actually fly in an unpressurized cabin like an actual jet pilot?

<...>

MATTHEWS: Do you think this role, and I want to talk politically <...>, the president deserves everything he's doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. Do you think he is defining the office of the presidency, at least for this time, as basically that of commander in chief? That <...> if you're going to run against him, you'd better be ready to take away from him.

<...>

more..

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270005

[gordianot]

22. Mathews the Provocateur

To me he sees his role as a provocateur for the sake of creating discord. His biggest problem is that he does have an agenda as an actor journalist, but always he reverts to spreading discord by taking either ridicule, innuendo, or broad sweeping generalizations. In the end he returns to his agenda. More often than not Mathews confuses people by variously taking two sides of an issue one day he is adamantly against something the next day he takes a different stance. Public opinion is volatile but the approach Matthews (Tweety) validates this type of indecision which poses as conventional wisdom, (he does watch polls). Matthews is the poster child of media journalism that ignores facts and focuses on conflict. His job is conflict and he is not beyond changing sides if that allows him to win. If you want to play Hardball concentrate on the facts (which he does on rare occasions).

Sorry on this one I just cannot stand Tweety who I believe defines the term Media Whore.

[emulatorloo]

25. Kick and Nominated

Too many at DU want to equate Matthews with the hacks at Fox News. While Matthews angers me sometimes, his coverage of this story (and others) has been top notch.

[capi888]

27. Terrific insight H20

It is to our advantage to watch and listen to ALL discussions, particularly on Iraq, Security, and all issues that effect the American People. Only listening to those you agree with, doesn't give any prespective on what the other side is thinking and planning to do.
Taking the personality and the political spew out of the discussion, gives insight to where the discussion is heading on both sides of the isle.
I know its uncomfortable (sometimes unbearable) but, knowing what the other side is doing, allows us to counter their argument, intelligently. Isn't that what they do in trials, show both sides! Let the jury determine what is the right way. We are the jury, but need to hear both sides.
I like the old saying "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"!!! Works in all situations!
Thats what playing "Hardball" is.
Thanks H20..

[Catrina]

28. I used to watch Hardball, but became increasingly frustrated by the

obvious rightwing slant of the program even when facts were obviously not in favor of Republicans. Occasionally he would do a good show, such as the time he caught one of the Swift Boat Veterans in a lie. He had video of John O'Neill with Nixon which showed Nixon asking him about Cambodia. J. O'Neill told Nixon they had crossed the border to Cambodia. This was significant bacause the SBVs had been accusing Kerry of lying about that.

Another bright moment was when he had Michelle Malkin on and totally demolished her. He so completely destroyed her, she looked like the ridiculous figure she is. Fox News and the entire rightwing propaganda machine went after him for that.

But overall, he has consistently ignored the crimes of this administration and fawned over Bush to the point of being ridiculous, such as claiming Bush won the debates, eg. I finally stopped watching him altogether.

However, I do agree with you that he has done some of the best coverage of the Plame affair, and David Schuster's reports are the best ~

One thing though, as you pointed out in your OP. He does focus on Cheney, which I understand, especially back in October. I got the impression that he was desperately trying to, once again, protect Bush. It was his focus on Cheney that caused me to wonder if the WH had split into two camps, Bush/Rove and Cheney/Libby eg and that the plan was to let Cheney take the blame while preserving Bush's presidencey.

I'm not sure about that anymore ~ because of the recent revelations from the court documents showing that Libby has pointed a finger at both Bush and Cheney. I realize now that anyone who thought they could dumpt Cheney would be in a for a surprise. It's doubtful Cheney would go alone, knowing he was being thrown overboard. He most likely would do what Libby did and place the blame on the only other person he could. I wonder if Chris Matthews ever considered this, or does he really still believe that Bush has a 'sunny nobility'?

I guess overall, I'm not sure about Chris Matthews. He must know at least as much as we know, and probably a lot more. I question his morals.

His little off-the-record chat with Tom Delay proved he has little concern about morals or the harm that people like Tom Delay have done to this country, Abramoff also, with whom CM was apparently friendly.

My conclusion about him is that he has been around DC way too long and has a laissez faire attitude towards morality. He does sometimes do a good show, but I think that happens only when it suits his own purposes. Maybe he likes Joe Wilson, and dislikes Cheney. But I doubt his coverage, beneficial thought it is, has much to do with protecting this country from the crimes of the current administration. That's just my opinion though ~

[annabanana]

30. I think that a lot of DUers dislike for Matthews

is due to his apparent, striking inconsistency. I'll admit that I haven't done a really close reading on an issue by issue basis, but he really does seem to be on some sort of dexedrine fueled tilt-a-whirl.

[AuntiBush]

32. As Always...

Thank you, H20 Man.

[lala_rawraw]

33. As usual, a breath of fresh air !

[Stinky The Clown]

34. I understand what you're saying. and you make good points .... but .....

(you knew there was a 'but' coming :) )

Everything you say about Matthews is true. Everything you say about his Plame reporting is also true. I'm in circuimstances where I am able to watch his show every day, pretty much, so I'm quite familiar with not only his reporting on this story, but on others as well.

Here's my 'but':

In the specific case of a supposed news person who is doing a form of investigative reporting (some would call it political gossip), you either trust that person.

Or you don't.

He's shown himself time and time again to not only have a bias, but to report, comment, interrogate his guests, allow his guests to speak, or not, or interrupt guests with a purpose.

In other words, he has not only a bias, but one that is often far too obvious.

And that bias causes me, at least, to distrust what he says. Or at least filter it.

I guess I watch him in much the same way I read a certain man's magazine back in the 70's ...... for the guests. Except this time, my claim is true.

[SoCalDem]

35. MY beef with Matthews is that for a guy with so much experience,

he sure came off as clueless for a LONG time.

Ordinary people saw through the fabrications and downright lies that led us into war. When he (and others) had a chance to make a difference, they went along for the ride. and AFTER it's been exposed, they are trying to pretend that "they didn't know" or were "duped"..

They KNEW it was all a crock, but they wanted it BOTH ways. It's a "story" to them..both sides.. They got to play all the war music, wear the lapel flags, show the war graphics and interview all the generals.. It filled time.. and when the fog lifted and people started to see the bodies and the screwups, there they were , Mathhews & his pals , ready to act all indignant about being lied to...The other side of the same story.

I give them no passes on bad intentions. ANY "newsperson" with as much experience as matthews has (especially having worked ON the hill) should have seen the lies when it would have mattered.. they were as obvious as an overflowing garbage truck in the living room

[spanone]

36. Great Post. Kick & R

[H2O Man]

37. Thank you for responding.

I am grateful that people read and responded, and that certainly includes those who disagree with me on this issue. A couple thoughts:

{1} I know who Michael Smerconish is; I may not have been as clear as I should have been. I'm reminded of one of John Lennon's interviews, where he said there were certain people you can't stand in grade school, or later in high school, and you still can't stand them as adults. (I'm aware the British schools have different names, too.) Michael S. is someone I find repulsive, and the type of guy who at my class reunions, I absolutely avoid. He reminds me of a rat. In the wild, rats do not bother me. But when they attempt to inhabit my space, I feel differently. He is a rat that threatens to spread the neoconservative disease.

{2} I appreciate that people have numerous, valid reasons to believe that Chris Matthews has been a poor excuse for a journalist on issues other than the Plame scandal. I would suggest that people e-mail a link to this thread to him at Hardball. I think he should hear what people are saying here, and recognize that these are insightful positions being taken. People on the democratic left feel just as strongly about their country as any other group.

Again, thank you. This is what I like about DU.

[Catherine Vincent]

41. Good idea!

But will he read it? :shrug:

[H2O Man]

43. Yes.

MSNBC recently made a significant investment in Matthews and Hardball. They want the ratings to go up. I think they are aware that Keith O & Countdown have a growing core group of fans that they would like to have tuning in to Hardball. This is a good time to contact the show, and particularly to ask for an increase in Plame scandal coverage.

[Catherine Vincent]

46. And while I'm at it,

I'll remind Chris to cool it on all his Clinton/Democrat hating.

[TacticalPeek]

38. You're so right. It's basic IFF - Identify Friend or Foe, issue by issue.

I am sometimes disturbed by remarks from apparent progressives about not wanting to hear criticism. And more disturbed by evidence that some are simply not paying attention at all. These are important matters - war, peace, life, death - and a citizen really should be alert. Matthews has been way, way ahead of all other corporate journalists on the Plame wars, and was/is the foremost corporate journalist against the war in Iraq, consistently since '02. On Plame, remember that one of Libby's criminal charges exists because Matthews was banging on the VP's office so hard in July 03 that Libby called up Matthews' boss, Russert, to whine and bitch, and then lied to Fitzgerald about it. I think the following makes my point:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020906.shtml

http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=atrios&comment=113945169811412101#7319447

"I know there is more perceptive ability here than is being shown. The universe, reality, is multiplicitous. A person may have various opinions and values about several different things. Some I may agree with, some I may abhor, some I may wonder about, some I may misunderstand.

1. I'm talking about the war in Eyerack only

2. Matthews has ALWAYS opposed the war in Eyerack, his opposition has been consistent and endures to this day

3. Although I may disagree with and oppose him on a myriad of *other* issues, that does not make him a flip flopper or inconsistent at all

4. He is a host/moderator of Hardball and not a full time advocate for the anti-Eyerack-war position. When the guest(s) and topic(s) logically permit discussion of the war as such, his 'anti' opinion is obvious and is reflected in his questions and discussions with the guests. Be aware that it is entirely appropriate that he frequently asks challenging questions of his anti-Eyerack-war guests and doing so does not make him a flipflipper or mean that he has weak beliefs about that war.

5. His position against that war is almost unique in the corporate media world, particularly among 'principals', and after observing his performance on *this topic* since 2002 I can say without fear of rebuttal that, looking at the total time frame, Matthews has been 'more anti-Iraq-war' than Murtha and way more than Kerry, Edwards, etc.

6. One can agree with 1 - 5 and still hate Tweety for many other things, still find innumerable flaws with which I will heartily agree, and conclude that, all things considered, he is a worthless dog. This does not refute his admirable opposition to this unnecessary and unwise war, and failing to recognize this does not do one credit.

What's more, on the very related issue of Plame, IIRC Tweety was the *first* one to name Scooter Libby as a miscreant of interest, July 03, and turned the heat up so high that Libby went running to Timmeh for help. Matthews announced to the world, after informing Joe Wilson, that Karl Rove had called him and said that Wilson's wife was "fair game".

The only way I can see that Matthews could have handled *this* issue better would be if there were better Dems and other war opponents to send to his show to help make the case. By better I mean having the political and rhetorical skills to do a takedown job on the admin flacks - people like George Mitchell, Wesley Clark, Bill Clinton. And I would blame that lack more on the Dems and on his producers than on him. /sermon"
-
QuentinCompson Killing Rats | Homepage | 02.08.06 - 10:19 pm | #


/sermon :patriot:

[KoKo]

39. I "hate to say it" but I share your view that "Tweety" can be in some

respects bw an advocate for a certain part of news that he may or may not really believe in. But, he CAN BE EFFECTIVE...when he's targeted on a certain point of view that he finds acceptable to what he's known in his life experience.

And... I, who really cannot stand him...(feeling he's "run" by his own ambition and "powers unknown" to me in my limited view..not being a DC Beltwayite) might realize that at times he does try to express a voice for the "common average American" in a "kinda populist way" do watch him more than I would really want to, understand that sometimes he does try to give a fair view within his limitations.

I understand what you say..more than you might think from this post...and appreciate your saying it, though.

:toast:

[ms liberty]

40. Tweety is a real twit sometimes, but I watch about every day...

I REALLY hate the way he interrupts everyone - it is the ultimate in rude, discourteous behavior. But, as much as he annoys the absolute bejeezus out of me, I watch. It's always good to hear what's being said on his show, because you do more or less hear the unvarnished RW spin. The reward is the days he takes my side; karma is the days he doesn't! He is a valuable resource, and I'll always be thankful to him for calling Joseph Wilson and telling him about KKKarl - that's a redeemer for me, that he did have the guts to do that. I'm not sure this would have had the legs it did without Joe Wilson behind it, speaking truth to power and demanding accountability. And while there's plenty of scandals that could bring these criminals down this one is the real driver, on both its own merit and because of the distracting influence on the administration, IMHO.

That's the long way of saying that I agree with you!

Looking at the headlines here today, and watching MSNBC (yea, I'm watching Hardball now!)I have to say that it looks to me like that snowball is about to become an avalanche in the near future.

What's your thoughts on that? Am I daring to hope too soon, or is there finally a reason for optimism?

[H2O Man]

42. I think that

we are witnessing a significant period in the Plame scandal. The first two weeks in May will be a good time for progressive democrats, and a rough time for that shrinking number of people who support this administration.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

44. Thanks for your take on Mr. Matthews

I've always found him a cut above most of the RW news-models when I've bothered to watch the show.

I don't watch cable news because I no longer have cable. I just don't watch much TV anymore, except for the videos posted on the web.

Whatever else Matthews has done, his integrity regarding Valerie and Joe Wilson makes up for a lot.

[robertpaulsen]

45. It's so hard.

What I thought originally was nitpicking over the Leopold target letter story seems upon further inspection to be a lot of grievances being aired over old wounds being opened. I've tried to stay out of the fray. I can get pretty angry when I feel attacks are unwarranted, but I'm trying to work harder at maintaining emotional distance while at the same time speaking my mind.

With those thoughts, I thought you might appreciate these words that came to mind:

You gotta live
You gotta love
You gotta be somebody
You gotta shove
But it's so hard, it's really hard
Sometimes I feel like going down


But hey, Rove is going through "hell"! It's time to come together!

[kohodog]

48. As the Plame case drags on it gives a weird solace to the guilty.

Sort of like beating a dead horse, Rove has inoculated himself to some degree from indictment. It will almost be old news and that will soften the blow. Like Libbey, the case will take months to evolve and he will try to spin it further. When he is indicted (and personally I think that will happen), many people will think it is no big deal because it took so long and he was demoted anyway. The Dem's need to be out front of these situations so a Rove indictment doesn't cause yawns rather than outrage as it should.

We must demand Rove remove himself from all political work when he is indicted.

[bleever]

47. Dear Sir:

I agree.

I have had many moments of frustration with the coverage of Chris Matthews, and what I saw as his nonfeasance in the examination of the pre-war sales job, but instances such as his response to Smerconish's assertion that no one cares about Plame outside the beltway was another instance of his insisting on focusing on the critical issue of whether or not we were mislead into war, and for that he certainly deserves to be seen outside of the black-and-white "for us or against us" filter that is too often applied.

We can't afford to treat everyone who doesn't agree with us all the time as an enemy. You and I know that the world doesn't work that way.


Thanks for this post.

[UTUSN]

49. No quarter to Tweety! Eternal vigilance on him!

No, he "wasn't against the Iraq attack because he has draft age sons." No, he has NOT been FOR us on any number of issues. He bashed GORE 5 days a week during the whole 11 months of Campaign 2000. No, he canNOT be brought-along by sweet e-mails. No. No. No. Despite all the good work he has done for them, wingnuts don't trust him--only soft (hearted?) Libs would be so gullible as to trust him. He has SAID that he voted for Shrub AND "I'm not so much a Dem as I used to be." No. No. No.

[TacticalPeek]

51. "No, he wasn't against the Iraq attack" - perhaps I misunderstand you.

Matthews has opposed the war in Iraq consistently since 2002. This is from an interview with him in February 2003.



SALON: Well, Ted Kennedy wants the president to come back to Congress for approval before we invade.

MATTHEWS: But they voted for the resolution before the election. And I can't explain that -- I can't explain Dianne Feinstein's vote. I can't explain John Kerry's vote. I can't explain Chuck Schumer's vote. This was a blank check for war


SALON: Though some of them tried to spin it differently.

MATTHEWS: This was worse than the Gulf of Tonkin. It was, "Whenever you get around to it, here's your hall pass, Mr. President." The Democrats just don't have a foreign policy that they're willing to defend, that they're willing to use to take down the president's. We're dealing with the power of suggestion here. Once it was suggested that Saddam Hussein might give his weaponry to terrorists, or might use weapons himself in the region, then it became hard for the Democrats to say, "Well, that can't happen." They were unable to stand up and say: "Here's our policy. It's 'Unite the world against terrorism.'"

Unity is the most important thing on the road to stamping out terror. You need global rules of law and order, and they have to be enforced. Start with that principle. Certain arms agreements have to be enforced. There has to be respect for multilateral action. Then you use all that force to stop certain things from happening.

You don't say, like the Bush crowd, "I got this guy over here and I don't like him and I'm gonna get him, whether you back me or not." That's like what's-his-name, the guy who shot the kids in the subway


SALON: Bernard Goetz?

MATTHEWS: Yeah, that's what it reminds me of. It's that kind of foreign policy. We just go after the guys we don't like.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/02/14/chrismatthews/index.html




I think that is a position that I see expressed very often here by a great many DUers, including the ragging on the Dems' war stance, which term I use loosely. You may have a different view or not, but the only view of Matthews' opinion of the war that is attached to reality is that he is a clear opponent.

Bernard Goetz foreign policy, I like that.

[UTUSN]

52. Yes, you DO misunderstand me

It is well known that back when Tweezer wrote columns, he would save some more Lib provocations for the column while irritating the Hades out of us with his wingnut-tool provocations on cable.

My point was NOT about the Iraq Attack, his being for or against, but rather for the Tweezer apologists who pop up from time to time, with "human" reasons for supporting him. The one I named was a certain soft-hearted/headed contingent who claim that the REASON he was against the war was that he has draft age sons. Tweezer has never let soft-hearted reasons get in the way of his provocations.

Basically, he loves to think of himself as "smart," likes to zig and zag to keep EVERYBODY, especially US, off balance about him----as though he is ALL THAT!

While he cherry picks isolated issues that resonate with us----the Iraq Attack, PLAME---with regards to the Iraq Attack, he went on to drumbeat for the Attack when it started, has called Shrub CHURCHILL and a-war-president, and he publically executed DONAHUE and KUCHINICH on the air in their faces.

Basically-number-TWO-o, people who make apologies for Tweezer usually know him back from his Tip O'NEILL and CARTER days and the book/Hardball, when he was a true Dem flack. RAYGUN changed him, because flacks get their own power and prestige from the success of their bosses, and RAYGUN whipped Tweezer's bosses, and flacks worship SUCCESS. He STOPPED being a Dem post RAYGUN, when he started doing long, walking interviews with Ann Francis ROBBINS, a.k.a. Nancy Davis RAYGUN. I repeat, wingnuts are willing for him to be a TOOL, but they don't trust him. And anybody HERE who trusts him is a FOOL, plain and simple.

[Time for change]

50. You make some good points about Matthews

But I think that the dislike that many DUers (including me) have for Matthews goes way beyond simply being irritated by his personality. Although he may occasionally do good things, as you point out, he has also done many very bad things IMO, and I do believe that his constant unprofessional and ridiculous harping on Al Gore during the 2000 election season cost Gore that election.

Rather than go into all the reasons why I feel this way, I'll just provide a link here to a post of mine where I talk in detail about some of my observations about Matthews as a journalist:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=899473