Who is going to call out Matthews on his relationship with Abramoff?

[xray s]

I'd love to see Howard Dean ask Tweety why he was on the bill of one of Abramoff's scam charity events.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__060105_chris_matthews_tied_.htm

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. Who, indeed.

[still_one]

2. well the media was sure tough on woodward

so I imagine they will do the same thing

[jbnow]

3. I don't really get it

My best friend often appears at charity events to sing. I don't think he checks all the credentials of the charities. If one turned out to be fraudulent I wouldn't think of him as being tied to a scandal or having done something wrong.

I am glad my friend was not at Abramoff's! But he often has no relationship with who is running the charity. Someone calls him or his agent and if it's a good cause and he is free he goes.

But I'm not sure how being on the bill of a charity event means something wrong was done.

I agree Matthews should bring up his involvement but I don't assume it means something more devious.

[KoKo]

4. Your friend doesn't have a Political Show on a Major Cable Channel

where he spews out "Hard Ball" Politics, though....does he.

I think that's the difference. Tweety NEVER disclosed he was part to the Plame Outing. He doesn't disclose his wife is a News Person on a DC TV Local Station. What the hell ELSE doesn't Tweety disclose?

That's the difference. Your friend is doing a job that he needs to work to live for. Tweety is already employed. How can he have credibility on "Hard Ball" which is not "Imus in the Morning" by MC'ing events for Lobbyists who EVERYONE in DC had to know was a CROOK???

It would seem to be a legitimate question of "Integrity." :shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

5. There are valid reasons to be against Chris Matthews, but

this is a flimsy one.

He may not have known Jack Abramoff was the director of the charity. He probably didn't know the charity was a sham.

If he knew that the sole directors of the charity were a Republican lobbyist and his wife, he should have said no.

But his coverage of the Abramoff scandal has been plentiful. Even if we dislike some of his statements about it, he's giving guests plenty of time to talk about it. Matthews called Abramoff "Satan." We may not like that because it makes his Republican allies sound like they were overpowered by Abramoff, but it's not a nice thing to say about someone.

It's a simple story to say: Chris Matthews is tied to Abramoff, and therefore he's covering for Abramoff. The reality is more complex.

On a personal note, I wrote about this for a blog, but decided not to publish it to the blog because I decided the story was too flimsy. And I've criticized Chris Matthews in the past there (www.speakspeak.org).

[H2O Man]

7. I agree.

This is weak.

[Catrina]

8. Chris Matthews is supposed to be non-partisan

in his reporting. I had a friend who was a newspaper food editor and she would refuse any offers, even a free cookie, from a restaurant she was supposed to rate, and she got plenty of offers, most probably were just being polite, but even the suggestion of being influenced was something she did not want to deal with.

This event was attended by Republicans. Did Chris Matthews ever attend Democratic events? We've also found out that people like Andrea Mitchel were at WH events where the guest lists were secret, even Patrick Fitzgerald had difficulty getting them.

Chris Matthews needs to tell his audience the truth about his cavorting with DC insiders. Reporters should not be hob-nobbing with the same people they are expected to report on, imo.

I never had much respect for him or Andrea Mitchel because I felt they were not impartial in their reporting. I remember on the night of the first Presidential debate, both of them sat there an tried to tell us that Bush had won that debate, even though their own poll had nearly a quarter of a million people telling them otherwise. I remember turning it off in disgust and going to the computer to find out what real reporters were saying.

The point is, now I feel that the suspicions I had about him, were on target. He tried to dismiss the Abramoff affairs as though it was 'politics as usual'. Maybe there's a reason for that, and if there isn't, then he needs to explain, or suffer the consequences, imo.

[Eric J in MN]

9. The charity event probably wasn't presented to him as a Republican

event.

I don't know what Matthews was told, but I doubt he was told, "A GOP lobbyist wants to raise money for his sham charity and lots of Republicans will be there. Want to come?"

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. IF it ever happens, Howard Dean will, but I don't think Tweety

will have the GUTS to have him on his show.

[KittyWampus]

10. Trying To Establish Guilt By Association Is Not Helpful Here

[Catrina]

11. I agree and I haven't seen anyone doing that, accusing CM of any

criminal activity. It is his role as a journalist that is in question.

However, since he has insisted on down-playing the notion that the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal, it certainly is helpful to me to find out that he not only attended, but apparently helped with the event that was to benefit Abramoff's 'charity'. This so-called charity has now been established as a fake. No money raised went to the purpose it was raised for, but rather went to Abramoff's pet projects.

Imo, if Chris Matthews was a real journalist, he would have been investigating these people and should certainly have had questions about Jack Abramoff, even bloggers did back then, along with Norquist, Reed et al, but instead, he's blinded by 'access' to their world, and if anything, has been trying his best to defend or diminish the impact of their criminal activity on the lives of the American people.

Even some Republicans have said they had 'concerns' about the neocons, Abramoff and others. Apparently crack journalist, Chris Matthews had none. He worked hard to get the Swifties airtime during the election also, and never had a good word to say about Kerry, as I recall. This man is compromised at the very least. I would have more respect for him if he simply admitted to his partisanship. I really do hate to be taken for a fool. The people deserve the truth.

Since it was generally known in DC that this was Abramoff's own charity, which he set up, and since Chris Matthews helped set up the event, I assume Chris Matthews did know that the event was being sponsored by Abramoff, a top, Republican lobbyist.

Here's a short list of who was there ~ all this does is confirm for me, that Chris is way more comfortable in the company of neocons and rightwingers than he ever was with Democrats. That's fine, except he has never stated his preference, although to most of us, try though he might to hide it, it has been obvious since before the election.

Then we go back to March 5, 2003 and find out that Chris Matthews helped put on an event benefiting the very same "Capital Athletic Foundation":

It's called the Interactive Spy Game Gala. Scheduled for March 26 at the International Spy Museum in Washington, the event's purpose is to raise about $300,000 for the Capital Athletic Foundation....

Fox News Channel's Tony Snow is master of ceremonies, and Fox's Brit Hume and MSNBC's Chris Matthews are aboard. Opera great Placido Domingo is an event committee member. But, this being Washington, the event will be mostly populated by powerful lawmakers, including Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas; Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.; and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/4/1137/26232