Chris Matthews Refuses To Admit He Was Wrong To Ridicule Grayson

[spiritual_gunfighter]

Following the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) to the U.S. Senate last year, many health care advocates suggested that the House pass the Senate’s version of the health reform bill and then pass a reconciliation “fix” with a simple majority in the Senate to make the bill more progressive and acceptable to House members.

One member of Congress who advocated such a path was Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL). During an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball, Grayson promoted using reconciliation, which prompted host Chris Matthews to ridicule the congressman, telling him that he is “part of the outside world represented by the netroots” and that he doesn’t represent “the real world of Congress.”

Now that Grayson has been vindicated by Congress passing historic health care legislation (and the Senate is on the verge of doing so as well), Matthews nevertheless refuses to admit he was wrong for ridiculing Grayson. In an interview with James Rainey at The Los Angeles Times, Matthews says it’s actually Grayson who was wrong:

When I spoke to Matthews after his show Tuesday evening, he said that he intended to have Grayson back on “Hardball,” probably soon. But don’t set your DVR in anticipation of some Potomac-sized mea culpa.

Matthews told me that, smoldering YouTube clip notwithstanding, it was Grayson who got it wrong back in January. He said the congressman was obviously referring back then to the House passing a new piece of legislation, rather than signing on to the approved Senate health bill and then having differences reconciled.

“He denied the House had to pass the Senate bill and then have reconciliation,” Matthews said at one point. “I never got an answer from him, all I got was a posture. He wasn’t helping me explain it. He was just taking a position.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/25/matthews-grayson-reconciliation/

[dgibby]

1. Tweety's overblown ego will never permit him to admit a mistake. n/t

[Enthusiast]

14. And that's a fact.

I remember Tweety during the Clinton Administration years, he reinforced Gingrich/Limbaugh all the way.

[polichick]

2. I remember thinking back then that Chris was being an arrogant ass. nt

[WCGreen]

3. And what, pray tell, has changed....

From then to now...

[polichick]

5. Not much - he often overestimates what he knows and misses the point. nt

[patrice]

6. Indeed! I've been under-whelmed by him for a long time. I just don't see what others see in him.

He's a light weight intellect.

[WCGreen]

9. He's the dan Quayle of punditry...

[Enthusiast]

16. He worships Reagan and

considers himself a Reagan Democrat -- a Catholic Democrat Chickenhawk.

[patrice]

18. Absolutely no post-modern sensibilities whatsoever. Even if one doesn't identify with such

perspectives, someone in his position ought to at least understand what they are.

[dmosh42]

4. I watched that show, and Tweety is a fucking liar....

He said he worked for the budget groups in Congress, and no way they could pass any heath bill under the reconciliation rules. As usual he was full of shit and himself. What a jerkoff!

[Qutzupalotl]

7. Tweety must be lurking here

and unreccing this...
:rofl:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

8. There are some Tweety fans on here

not sure why.

[DCKit]

10. Apparently, every now and then, he gets something right.

I've personally never been able to watch him and the rest of 'em just make my teeth itch.

Wouldn't it be a far better world if we had dozens more like Rachel Maddow?

[activa8tr]

13. Even a stopped clock is right twice...

a day!

[activa8tr]

12. well, old habits die hard......Mac ca ca, and all.

[activa8tr]

11. Wouldn't it be nice if people as egotistical as Tweety actually

looked here for info, advice, and today's political opinions?

[coti]

15. And Howard Dean. nt

[DaveinJapan]

17. Not quite on topic, but a similar thing I noticed with Laurence O'Donnell a few weeks ago...

Pardon me for not being able to recollect the whole of what he said (I believe it was in a face to face interview with Keith Olbermann), but it was something along the lines of "reconciliation will NEVER work, they have procedure after procedure they have to get through requiring 60 votes anyway along the way".

I'm no procedure wonk, far from it, and assuming that he WAS one I was sincerely bummed and disheartened by his comments. Obviously he was very wrong. I think that sort of conjecture, when proven otherwise, deserves some sort of a retraction and I don't care WHICH side of the aisle the pundit comes from when they make such sweeping proclamations. If they are speaking as an "expert", they should admit when their expertise was inadequate. I suppose I made some assumptions as to his level of expertness based on the fact that he is so often billed as the chief of staff of the senate (house?) during the Clinton years and particularly as an insider when health care reform was attempted the last time.

Sorry for the off-topic comment, but it seems rather relevant to the point that commentators frequently talk out of their asses and are never accountable for it.

What's up with that?