Matthews said Gore developed a "psychological problem" after 2000 election defeat -- "grew that beard and got weird"
On MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Chris Matthews stated that former Vice President Al Gore developed "a psychological problem" after his defeat in the 2000 presidential election. Rather than "stay[ing] in the action" politically after the election loss, Matthews said, Gore "went off and grew that beard and got weird" and "act[ed] like a man who'd been marooned, or cast away, or banished."
On the May 4 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball, stated that former Vice President Al Gore developed "a psychological problem" after his defeat in the 2000 presidential election. Rather than "stay[ing] in the action" politically after the election loss, Matthews said, Gore "went off and grew that beard and got weird" and "act[ed] like a man who'd been marooned, or cast away, or banished."
Matthews made his comments during a discussion with host Joe Scarborough of a possible 2008 Democratic presidential primary match-up between Gore and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY).
Numerous right-wing pundits have previously "diagnosed" Gore as mentally unstable or "insane," as Media Matters for America noted. Scarborough himself has described Gore as having had a "thermonuclear meltdown." *
From the May 4 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
SCARBOROUGH: And Al Gore actually started attacking George W. Bush before most of the Democratic Party establishment did, right?
MATTHEWS: Well, freedom is just another word for nothing else to lose, right?
[laughter]
MATTHEWS: You know it's true. I think the problem with Al Gore is, for whatever psychological reason, he took that loss as a personal rejection. Even though he defeated George Bush in the popular vote, he took it as some real failure, and he went off and grew that beard and got weird, and I think that really hurt him in his chance of coming back in 2004. I think if he had stayed in the action, given speeches, toured the country as a guy that did really well, who got more votes than George W. Bush, and acted like the most popular kid on campus, which he was, instead of acting like a man who'd been marooned, or cast away, or banished. I think that was a psychological problem he had. I wish he had some brothers or friends who would have gone up to him and said, "Al Gore, you just got more votes than anybody else ever got for president. You got more votes than the next president. Act like you're proud. Be a good American. Smile, and you can come back again someday."
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
'Be a good American,,,and you can come back again someday' Uuumm... ok..and what medical school did YOU attend, Matthews, to say Gore had a psychological problem?
I think if he had stayed in the action...and acted like the most popular kid on campus.... I wish he had some brothers or friends who would have gone up to him and said, "Al Gore... Act like you're proud. Be a good American. Smile, and you can come back again someday."
He uses right wing talking points unabashedly now. This is has been floating in the wing nut circles. What about the two nutcases in the White House? Now there are two interesting cases for a psychiatrist to unravel. Furthermore, if I were Chris Matthews I wouldn’t talk about anybody else’s weirdness.
And, Mathews? He seemed to grow a GOP ass around his head. I guess that's not "weird"?
Newsflash: Growing a beard is a sign of psychological problems.
Well, at least we now know what the deal is with David Horowitz, Joe Klein, and Wolf Blitzer.
Does Matthews count himself a follower of the ultimate case of a man who was railroaded and rejected, and who upset the powers-that-be of his time for acting weird?
Bill O'R constantly says the left wing "smears." What about this assessment, it's nothing but a smear. Matthews is smearing and denigrating a former vice president of the United State, the greatest gosh-darn country even made.
Chris Matthews, traitor.
Gore would have been a great President. I hope he gets another shot. Matthews is just part of the MSM that has worked to make him look wierd from the start.
Gore is a visionary. He has been ahead of the curve on most of the major issues of our day. If people just looked at what Gore has been right about, the right-wing wouldn't have a chance.
Go back and read Earth in the Balance and tell me that if we would have followed his recommendations, we would still be in this mess as deep as we are.
Look at how Gore was at the forefront of public internet legislation.
Gore was way ahead on corporate accountability as well.
Gore has good judgement and when he doesn't know something, he finds out as much as he can about it, so he can make better decisions.
If you contrast Gore's voracious inquisitive mind with the lazy, delegating, disinterested current President, I think you can see how any psychological problems (assuming Matthews is uncharacteristically correct here) Gore might have at any level would be completely justified.
I think Gore would have made a fine president. He's articulate and very smart. I still think he a fine president but I guess now if he ran the right wing talking heads would spend the campaign season talking about that. As a previous poster said this is smear. Unfounded assertions.
A teenager could come up with this kind of analysis. What is this idiot doing on national television?
Matthews has an advantage over Al Gore. He has always been weird. He is also a cameleon. He will sway which ever way the wind blows or the opposite of wherever he senses the heat may be coming from. Essentially, unlike Al, little hissy Chrissy is a coward.
Matthews nails Gore for his beard. Why does he have Joe Klein on all the time? Is it the shaving cream he uses?
He's also after Hillary constantly.
Joey the Scab nailed Kerry with many Swiftboater lies.
Whose job will it be at NBC in 2008 to mess with the Democratic candidate of that time?
Its a good laugh what Matthews says. I like the last part though that I could have acted the smart kid of campus that he was. I think compared with the smear it cancel each other out.
Gore did a great job, is smart and is doing a fine job now, but after smears in the 2000 campaign that he was boring and no man, he grew a beard! So what? And as for Gore having mental problems: seems like Matthews was an intern with Frist when he diagnosed Gerry Schiavo as 'very much alive and concious of her surrounding'.
It's a filthy argument technique. Of course, any one who disagrees with me should go see a psychologist... :-)
does that count?
LOL!
but don't pull the plug!
Gore said Matthews developed a "psychological problem" after 2000 selection of GWB as President -- "grew that nose and got weird"
Can you imagine 4 years of "Al Gore, the man who thinks he's the president..."? Because that is just the tip of the iceberg of what the media would have been saying. In fact, the few times he did make any large public statements during w's first term that is what they said. And Matthews would have been among those saying "Can't this man just accept the fact that he lost and go home?".
of my wife's works at Current, Gore's upstart network and has met him on multiple occasions - she says she was really sorry she didn't vote for him in 2000 because he's about the greatest guy she's ever met. She bought into the press B.S. and to be perfectly honest, Gore's campaign people and advisors did a horrible job. They all feel the need to "play it safe" when in truth, bold moves win elections. As far as all the bashing Gore took about the "inventing the internet" comment - well, first of all, those were NOT his words - and second of all, from a legislative standpoint, the intiatives he introduced IN THE 1980s!!! were instrumental in making the internet what it is today. I voted for Gore in 2000, I live in TX, and I know what the Chimp really is - a money whore. He bankrupted Texas, and he's now bankrupting the U.S. If Gore were President today, we would be in much better shape economically, and we most likely would be in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. As far as having psychological problems? How much of a beating for no reason did Gore take in the press? How much of that type of abuse when you have done absolutely nothing wrong does it take before you feel just beaten? And to top it off, the man had the election STOLEN from him - every recount scenario had Gore winning Florida. Let's see how tweety would handle that much crap - he sure can dish it out, can't he?
But if Gore had been elected, we might not be in Iraq or Afghanistan. A Gore Administration may have been able to connect all of the dots and he also would have read the Presidential Daily Briefing on August 6, 2001. Maybe the attacks could have been prevented like the Millennium Attack was prevented by the Clinton Administration.
I think Gore would have been a FAR more competent president than the Chimp. I just get so sick of people voting for who they think would be most fun at a backyard BBQ. And, I'm sorry, if you prefer someone who likes to make snide little jokes and comments (The Chimp) over someone who can actually hold an interesting, thought provoking conversation who you actually might learn something from (Gore) you're a dimwit. Honestly at this point I'm not surprised that Bush's approval ratings are so LOW, I'm amazed at 32% that they're that HIGH! It just amazes me with all that this man has done, that you can find even 10% of the population that support him. Every time I see a car go by with a Bush sticker on the back, they invariably have either a Jesus fish or some religious school sticker on the window as well - and it's always a Tahoe, Suburban, or one of the other resource guzzlers - and all I can think is - what about your children's future? Don't you care about what kind of world you leave them? I guess they all figure they'll be saved by the rapture or something - I just think they're idiots, and I find myself muttering the same thought under my breath every time I see one. I'm almost disappointed in myself for allowing my feelings to get to that point because I do believe that hatred is counterproductive - but I guarantee you every one of them says worse than that about liberals and democrats.
Franky every time I see those stinking fish they morph into swastikas for me. I just love the one eating the Evolve fish. You might as well have a bumper sticker that screams "I'm an Ignorant Flat Earther!'
Sorry, those fish send me off every time.
And so when he was out with me and I pointed with approval to a Darwin fish, I had to explain the Christian symbology of the fish sign. He then said "Oh. I thought it was a just a sign for 'bad driver." :-)
Putting the fish on your car is like putting the "Support our Troops" sticker on your car. It allows you to proclaim the beliefs you allegedly have without ever having to, you know, act according to them.
I am of a mind that chrome fish does not a Christian make.
My car sports no fish. I want people to judge me by my actions and attitude, not the cheap decorations I (or my car) wear.
Who knows, maybe Gore is reinventing himself like Nixon did in the 60s and is coming back for another shot. He would probably win this time under the current climate. Face it, Clinton screwed him with his personal problems even though Gore had nothing to do with that.
BTW, your comment about Florida and the recount is not true. Krugman had to eat his words about that a few years ago. You really shouldn't spread liberal misinformation around like that.
the entire mess in Florida - by all accounts I have seen - in the MSM and otherwise - Gore won Florida if a FULL recount of ALL ballots were conducted with standards applied as to what constitutes a vote whether it was an incomplete optical mark, a "dimpled" or "hanging" chad, etc, not a "limited recount" with selected ballots. In addition Florida State law requires a recount in the event that the election is within .5% on vote count. With something as important as a Presidential election, I would have EXPECTED that for the integrity of the election, a full recount would have been conducted as required under state law.
His comment regarding the 2000 Florida recount is MOSTLY true. Most recount scenarios were found to favor Gore. It was stolen through the Supreme Court who had no business being involved in a state matter.
Yes the original comment was EVERY scenario and now Left of Center has modified his comment so we are in agreement on that. I'm sure we won't agree on your "stolen election" comment so I won't get into it.
That included all valid votes ( what other kind makes any sense?) Gore wins, no matter what the counting criteria
After the election, USA Today, The Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder commissioned accounting firm BDO Seidman to count undervotes, that is, ballots which did not register any vote when counted by machine. BDO Seidman's results, reported in USA Today [9], show that under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes. Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used.
A larger consortium of news organizations, including the USA Today, the Miami Herald, Knight Ridder, the Tampa Tribune, and five other newspapers next conducted a full recount of all ballots, including both undervotes and overvotes. According to their results, under stricter standards for vote counting, Bush won, and under looser standards, Gore won. However, a Gore win was impossible without a recount of overvotes, which he did not request.
It appears that the brilliant algore screwed himself.
When all votes undervotes and overvotes were counted Gore won by ANY counting standard:
[link to www.alternet.org]
As The Associated Press noted, "Under any standard that tabulated all disputed ballots statewide, however, Gore erased Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes." The Washington Post was even more blunt, stating that, "If there had been some way last fall to recount every vote -- undervotes and overvotes alike, in all 67 Florida counties -- former vice president Al Gore would be the White House."
[link to www.newsthinking.com]
Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Gore erased Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.
[link to www.consortiumnews.com]
In their Nov. 12 recount articles, all the leading news organizations downplayed the key fact of the unofficial recount: that a full counting of all legally cast ballots in Florida showed that Al Gore won the state, regardless of what standards were used in judging the chads, whether dimpled, hanging or fully punched through. Gore also won the national popular vote by about 537,000 votes, a number that exceeded the victory margins of John Kennedy in 1960 and Richard Nixon in 1968.
- Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide. - NORC study
Gore at first followed the LAW in the state of Florida, the law written by the legislature. The law allowed for challenges ONLY in selected counties in dispute, not to exceed four counties.
Following the LAW, the Gore team named four counties. In the meantime, discrepencies and problems were developing all over the state. The Florida Supreme Court intervened, AS IS ALSO SPECIFIED BY FLORIDA STATE LAW WRITTEN BY THE LEGISLATURE, to resolve conflicts.
One conflict was the challenge that every Florida voter be treated equally, and this included those excluded because of overvotes or undervotes. Statewide. So the Florida Supreme Court resolved this problem by ordering a statewide recount.
It was the statewide recount -- which the consortium report showed would have made GORE the winner -- which the U.S. Supreme Court halted.
What is the intent of ALL voting law, at root? It is for the clear intent of the voters to be honored. For every valid vote to count.
The ONLY WAY Bush could be made to appear the winner in Florida in 2000 is if large blocs of valid votes were ignored and not counted. Only by crabbing the vote count and disinfranchising voters could Bush's "lead" hold. The U.S. Supreme Court KNEW this, and they also knew at the time they halted the vote counting that both houses of congress had passed to GOP Majority Rule. The Republicans on the Supreme Court wanted monopoly one-party rule in this nation, and so they overruled the American voters, who across America, and in Florida, voted for Al Gore.
Discussions about the "four county recount" completely ignores the actual situation, ignores the validity of counting all votes, and is an admission that the election was, in fact, STOLEN.
Hint to the "four county" rationalizers: The recount of four counties was no longer in effect, had been passed by as a bad idea, and the STATEWIDE recount was underway, by order of the Florida Supreme Court, who were given the power to do so by the Florida Legislature. The USSC had no business intervening, as there was no valid Constitutional question to resolve.
Accordingly, Bush v. Gore resolved NOTHING. It was a "unique" ruling, which did not set any precedent, and only placed Bush in office over the clear will of the American People. The election was stolen.
The ruling was 7-2 that the FSC ruling was unconstitutional...not just a bunch of republicans...it included Ginsburg and Stevens.
The SC stated that it is appropriate to attempt to count all votes. The problem with the FSC ruling was they had not established a consistent manner to perform the recount...which would be an 'equal rights' violation.
The SC reversed the willy nilly decision by the FSC and ensured that they would follow federal election laws...just as the Florida legislature had agreed to do. Nothing stolen here.
You say that the SC knew that Bush could only win if valid votes were withheld, which makes no sense since the recount hadn't been completed yet when they made their ruling.
Bruce,
You are right. Good catch. Gore would have won if there was a statewide recount. Bush would have won outright if he had allowed the four county recount to continue.
source: Washington Post Article
Many people have repeated that the limited recount was Gore's desire, not Bush's. This article dismisses this BS. Bottom line: if FLA had recounted statewide, as required under their OWN LAWS, Gore wins. But in steps the SCOTUS to tell the world that this is a 10th Amendment issue thus freeing FLA to break it's own election law.
And Thomas Jefferson's ghost wept.
Gore did request only the 4 county recount. His request would not have given him the victory, though he couldn't have known that at the time.
County by county recounts are the norm. When THAT was attacked he asked for a statewide recount saying that was the fairest way. I saw him do so myself on Hardball
Bleary eyed, I misread. It say this was Gore's first angle whereas the Bush camp wanted no part of the recount talks till the 1st SCOTUS decision said that a limited recount was a violation of the equal protection clause.
Then it appears the Republicans were the ones hesitant to see a statewide recount come to full fruition, and with good reason: Bush loses. But then SCOTUS rushed in to save the day with a 10th Amendment application so stretched it left me wondering if the High Court hookahs were on all-night after burn. How does the 10th Amendment apply to a NATION WIDE election for PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES?? We're not talking governor of Florida but President of the WHOLE nation. All 50 states. This fact obviously escaped the drug-addled SCOTUS justices. If the Constitution and its various Amendments aren't somewhat driven my common sense, they are at the very least driven by fairness. And that judgment reeked of injustice for all.
He actually did win in 2000 both the popular vote and the elctorial college - The Bushies and their buds arranged for GW to get his job, they cheated.
I linked to the NORC site more than once to make this point. IF ALL VALID VOTES are counted Gore won by ANY counting scenario. That is a FACT. ONLY by excluding overvotes does ANY counting scenario which favors Bush happen. All valid votes counted, Gore wins PERIOD
I googled Florida Recount and read the Wikepedia account and there are different winners under a variety of scenarios. Maybe if there were universal agreement on what constituted a valid vote you are correct, but I don't know that there was ever agreement on that. Weren't different counties using different standards at the beginning of the recount process?
They put the votes into categories. What constitutes a valid vote is NOT relevant for this argument since NORC showed that Gore won by ANY counting scenario from the most consertative to the most restrictive concerning hanging or pregnant chads. The ONLY way for Bush to win is if you discount the OVERVOTES that were valid votes. Florida law says IF the intent of the voter is clear it IS a valid vote
- "In my opinion, it's too close to call," said Kirk Wolter, senior vice president of NORC. "If we take it as given that two major candidates were separated by perhaps a few hundred or fewer ballots, it may be that we'll never know the exact vote total." -
Now there is a voice of reason...unlike the screeching speeches of algore after his failed presidential bid.
the fact is a statewide recount would have probably given the state to gore. not to mention the butterfly ballot cost him about 6000 votes according to the palm beach post. nice to know you never left, tommy.
That's utter nonsense. The person cited is a senior vp of the organization that conducted the research...not just an individual.
The report also found that they could not consistently replicate results...proving the research was not definitive. Wolter stated what everyone knows...the election was very close and there were flaws in the voting system...but the election was not 'stolen'.
Pres. Bush won the election...the recounts...and the legal battle in the highest court in the land.
In the words of one of the liberal's favorite sons, Walter Cronkite, "that's the way it is."
The highest court in the land has been corrupted for years by ridiculous Republican appointees, particularly Bush appointees. Bush I put the supremely unqualified Clarence Uncle Tom Thomas on board for life solely (1) because of his slavish loyalty to the Bush crime family and (2) because Bush the First enjoyed sticking it to black people by replacing an African American champion of freedom with a neo-slave. (Thomas is the sick Con ideal of a "good black person")
The Cons defended their slave down to the last pubic hair on his can of Coke and boy did he pay off when it came time to steal the election.
Following the strategy of Bush I, when Bush II attempted to put his good friend Harriet Myers on the Court because she excelled as former head of the Texas Lotto, even the neocon morons finally had to choke on the vomit of their own stupidity.
Plato thought aristocracy (rule of the best) was the ideal form of government. Apparently Cons believe idiocracy is the way to go. Intelligence cannot be trusted. Will America survive?
the recount should have been allowed to go forward.
The election was indeed stolen. Who cares? Conservatives generally believe they deserve everything they steal so I don't think anyone here can disabuse you of your belief.
Democrats need to get over it as well. You can't win the next election by endlessly fighting the last ones.
You say different counties had different standards to count votes in Florida, and that no unified standard was proposed.
Let's take this as FACT.
The USSC ruled that elections in which different standards are applied are UNCONSTITUTIONAL based on equal treatment considerations.
With me so far?
If what you say is true, then Bush's "election" was done unconstitutionally, since there was never any unified standard that produced his "winning margin".
The entire election, not just in Florida, but nationwide, was Unconstitutional by this standard, since vote casting and counting standards differ across the map.
Did the USSC do anything to this problem, which was a severe enough problem that they had to overrule the State Supreme Court? Nope. They did NOTHING to correct the problem. They did not claim that differing standards were unconstitutional (to this day, states and precincts set their own laws and rules, and they differ widely, as well as the used of voting machines that are PROVEN to have predictably differing "margins of error").
So, Bruce, even if you are correct, you are telling us Bush gained office by UnConstitutional means. I agree.
I really hope Gore gets the nod in '08. He is perfect for the job. The biggest obstacle will be the media. The media was instrumental in spreading the right-wing smears of Gore last time.
I hope that Gore takes to gloves off next time around and takes on every allegation with facts to dispute them. We all know what the right-wing strategy/tactic will be. It is the only effective weapon they have left...ridicule.
Sure Al Gore is "weird" for a politician: he thinks, he can deal with more than two dimensions of an issue, he's willing to look at many facets of complex issues, and he understands that long-term consequences make almost everything more complicated.
I've never understood how any rational voter could look at the relative qualifications and personalities of Gore and Bush and choose the latter. (Of course, the Florida Republicans almost certainly realized that and took action to circumvent it.)
Nobody who heard Gore in the '96 VP debate could accuse him of being a wimp, but as the poster above noted, his presidential campaign failed to present his strengths, making it easier for the waxy-eared part of the electorate to buy into the picture the opposition was painting.
Heru,
The best politicians don't get emotional when they are attacked. They calmly and politely demonstrate the errors of their opponents. Gore should be aggressive on this by responding to these lies and pointing out who is behind it and what they are trying to accomplish. It is fair to connect this smear attack to the opponent at every opportunity. There are ways to be aggressive and still maintain the high ground without becoming uncivil as you prefer.
When I call for civility and politeness in political figures, I am not at all equating that with being docile.
The worst politicians in my view are ones who get extremely emotional and make fools of themselves by making unsubstantiated accusations in the heat of debate.
The most devastating attack can be delivered with an even tone and without raising your voice. Look at Edward R. Murrow vs. Joseph McCarthy. If Murrow was screaming at McCarthy, do you think he would have had the impact he did?
In order to win elections, the Democrats have to change some people's minds about them. Your tactics only vent your anger and frustration with the current government. In order for Democrats to succeed, they have to reasonably demonstrate why they will be better than the Republicans. People aren't going to listen to your uncivility, name-calling and shouting. They will shut it out.
Gore had "nothing else to lose" other than the election in an extremely close race.
If after the 2000 election Gore had done what Matthews suggests, Matthews probably would have criticized Gore for not accepting the loss and going away.
Does Matthews think that Wolf Blitzer is permanently weird?
Does Chris dream about being Ann Coulter's love slave?
More in-depth analysis from Dr Chris and Dr Joe. Maybe they should get a consult from Dr Frist, by video of course, to nail down the diagnosis.
If Gore had a "psychological problem", what's the diagnosis of the guy that won the election? Megalomaniac? Narcisstic personality disorder? Schizophrenia? (not too many people admit being talked to by god). He's a freaking smorgasbord of pathology. Lock him up! He's a danger to society (and the world!).
That's right... you can learn to make medical diagnostics from the Bill Frist School of Video Medical Assesment. After just two hours of instruction (via video), you will be licensed to make any medical diagnostics after watching a few hours of someone on a video tape. What's so great about this is that you don't even have to have any background in any medical field. Taught by those who attended this very seminar, attendees will learn how tell if someone is breathing, and learn to make pinpoint diagnostics of someone's condition. You won't be bored with details about treatments. That's for bleeding-heart liberals, who actually say they care.
....
Seriously, does Matthews wish that Gore would run again, or is he just annoyed that Gore's approval ratings would actually rank higher than Dubya's right now?
Or Matthews is just sad because Gore actually has some sort of a plan how to move this country into the 21st Century, instead of being concerned how to bomb everyone back to the Stone Age.
Apologies for the rant..
When he had former General Electric CEO Jack Welch on his show, it was strictly Soft Ball; no serious challenging questions for his corporate masters. Tweety may be the darling of the college circuit, but he's just a shill for his GE corporate masters.
So how does Chris Matthews know Gore is suffering from sort of "psychological disorder?" Is he a clinical psychologist? He sure isn't a journalist.
If anything Gore has been a gracious "loser" in the 2000 presidential race. I say "loser" in quotes because he didn't lose. Bush was chosen. Maybe Gore grew a beard to help him keep a straight face when watching all the Bush b******t.
I recall seeing Republicans on message boards posting pictures of GW getting ready to throw a football pass. "LOOK AT HIM! HE LOOKS SO COOL! WHAT A HERO!" Easily impressed lemmings, I'm afraid.
The fact that he "talks like one of us" is proof that he's not a "Washington insider". He's a "straight shooter".
Uhhhhhhhhhh......
Perhaps he talks like the rest of the shortbus crowd, but the way he tortures the English language should be a crime
... about the guy who said this, "You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore. Because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference."
Nixon said this in 1962 after losing the race for Governor of California.
And Matthews, the historian and author, is quite right. After turning "wierd", we hardly heard from Nixon again.
I think Mark Twain would say to Matthews, "Your reports of Gore's political death are slightly exaggerated."
I would say to Matthews, yours is the wishful thinking of all Rightwingers ... and most of them, like you, have their own shows.
I began watching Chris Matthews several years ago, and was impressed by his apparant intelligence and political savy. He claimed to be a Democrat, but seemed to be the "fair and Balanced" journalist one hopes to find amongst our Media Corp. I continued to watch "Hardball" as I witnessed his slow devolution into a right wing water boy for the Republican Party. No doubt he had recieved his marching orders from higher up in the NBC heirarchy and chose to do his duty in order to keep his job and reap the benefits of furthering the Bush cartel and its agenda. Today I can barely tolerate his incidious defamation of anyone Democratic or progressive. He is a media whore and self deluded purveyor of right wing garbage and to be reviled as one of the destroyers of our society. Hardball, indeed! Lowball s..tball is more like it.
I can't help liking Chris but find myself put off for some of his off the cuff stupid, self-serving remarks which diminish any possibility that he could ever grow up and really be a man of real stature in the "talk" industry. Off the cuff depreciations with little or any background facts leaves the view wondering, "Where did he get that?" Chris likes to entertain, to be seen as the brightest little boy on the block. He ain't really grown up yet. Actually, he could be good if he just confined his remarks to facts, rather than speculation.
[link to progressivesforgore.blogspot.com]
My response.