Chris Matthews: "Still hanging in there for a McCain-Giuliani ticket"
Chris Matthews said he is "still hanging in there for a McCain-Giuliani ticket" for the 2008 presidential election because "the country may be a little tired of the Bushes and the Clintons."
During a panel discussion on the May 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews said he is "still hanging in there for a McCain-Giuliani ticket" for the 2008 presidential election because "the country may be a little tired of the Bushes and the Clintons."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Matthews has frequently praised both Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. For example, after airing a brief clip from an interview with Giuliani on the May 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Matthews said that Giuliani "looks like president to me." During the same broadcast, Matthews added that a McCain-Giuliani ticket would give something for "Democrats ... to go home and worry about." Matthews has also repeatedly lauded McCain as a "maverick," as Media Matters has noted (see here and here).
From the May 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
ED ROGERS (Republican consultant): Hey, I love Senator [Trent] Lott [MS]. I am a Republican that underestimates Hillary Clinton. I think [Florida Gov.] Jeb Bush would beat her like a rented mule. She's not going to get elected president.
MATTHEWS: Rented mule.
ROGERS: I hope she is our ...
MATTHEWS: Where do you get these Southern metaphors?
ROGERS: From the South.
MATTHEWS: A rented mule?
ROGERS: You rent a mule, you don't take care of it.
MATTHEWS: OK, Bob Shrum, do you think Hillary's going to be beaten like a rented mule by Jeb Bush?
BOB SHRUM (Democratic strategist): I think that's a pretty tired metaphor, you know, and I agree with Trent Lott. He accidentally committed the truth. The name Bush is going to be poison in the presidential politics of 2008.
ROGERS: He's not running, he's not running.
SHRUM: Ed, let me finish. I let you finish. The last thing this country wants is another four or eight years of a Bush administration. The only way he'd have any chance at all is if John McCain did a deal with the president and picked the president's brother as his vice-presidential running mate.
ROGERS: Sounds like Bob is afraid of Jeb Bush to me.
MATTHEWS: OK, I'm still hanging in there for a McCain-Giuliani ticket. Anyway, you know what? I think the country may be a little tired of the Bushes and the Clintons, Bob Shrum.
Anyway, thank you, Bob Shrum and Ed Rogers. Up next, the former CIA boss in Europe talks about the president's nominee to run the agency. They call it the agency or the company, inside. Can one man make a difference? We're going inside the CIA in the next couple minutes and talk about what's going on there. Are they protecting us? You're watching Hardball on MSNBC.
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
So what?
Yeah Matthews is a joke, BUT he's entitled to voice his opinion. And IF he likes a McCain-Giuliani ticket WHY does this concern MMFA? Who cares if Matthews thinks that twosome would be a great one?
IF he were endorsing a Democratic ticket would it be a BIG deal? Or would everything be fine&dandy?
He seems to be mostly pointing out here that the country MIGHT be getting tired of the Bush's&Clinton's, and simply SUGGESTING what he thinks MIGHT be a formidable team... No big deal really.
Not everyone is going to champion a Democratic ticket...that doesn't mean they should be cited as WRONG. Geez...
It doesn't even come off to me like he's necessarily even saying he would support a McCain-Giuliani ticket, only that he'd like to see it for whatever reason. Maybe he thinks it would make for a good election. Maybe he thinks it would give him good material for his show. Maybe he's got a bet in the office pool. I'm not usually one to make a "why did MMFA post this?" comment, but I might have to make an exception here.
I also must say that as a Democrat I would welcome a McCain-Giuliani ticket as well, not because I would vote for them but because if they won I at least wouldn't want to tear my own head off like I would if some other Repubs won. *cough*frist*cough*
Rusty, I AGREE with everything you wrote. And it wouldn't SURPRISE me at all IF down the road Matthews gets all excited over a "possible" Democratic ticket. The guy is a political animal/junkie...he lives for this kind of stuff...a Presidential Election is his Super Bowl.
I'd love to see a STRONG Democratic ticket...and I'd be more than happy to see an Evan Bayh or someone Lynn has talked about here--Mark Warner get a place on the Democratic ticket. IF Hillary heads it up--fine with me.
I'm one of THOSE Conservatives that liked Bill Clinton, and I've got no problem seeing a Democrat in the White House--IF they don't lean too far to the Left.
BTW don't even WORRY about Frist...he's going nowhere--and certainly NOT to the Oval Office (thank God!)
to the investigation of Bill Frist for insider trading of HCA stock?
BUT he's entitled to voice his opinion
yes he is entitled but in the end he is (like all Neo-con propgandists) presenting his opinion as if it was actual reporting of facts. You would never see people like Huntley, Mike Wallace, Walter Croncite and Harry Reasoner attribute their opinions as factual reporting.
... Chris Mathews is an egregious GOP asskisser in my opinion... the fawning that goes on is pitiful. And, he's gotten much worse over the past 12 mos. I seriously doubt he will get 'excited' about any dem ticket.
IF Matthews, who I believe USED to be a Democrat (well he worked for Tip O'Neill), was going all ga-ga over Hillary Clinton and whomever as a possible ticket, would YOU have a problem with him? Or would you think he was a great guy? Intelligent, fair? Just curious...not being a wiseass :-)
I don't have a problem hearing commentators/pundits pushing a Democratic ticket. I listen, process, separate the B.S from the facts, then draw MY own conclusions.
In THIS particular Matthews segment I don't think he's necessarily ENDORSING McCain-Giuliani, just EXCITED about a possible ticket that he THINKS would be formidable in a run for the 2008 Presidential campaign. He states quite CLEARLY he thinks folks MIGHT be tiring of the Bush/Clinton hold on the office. So he's NOT just dissing Hillary, BUT Jeb Bush as well.
As I wrote earlier, Matthews is a political animal/junkie and he loves the drama that constitutes a Presidential run. I personally feel he WILL get excited over a Democratic ticket IF they can produce an interesting one. For starters, THAT would mean-- NO John Kerry, IMO.
BTW I don't AGREE with him about Hillary...I think she would make it a VERY exciting campaign!!
Personally, I'm not a huge Hillary fan...so, it wouldn't make much of a difference to me. I see your point...and I agree that this particular comment was not over the top.
However, if Mathews' track record were a little better .... I would have no problem (ie. if I felt that the guy were truly non-partisan and just excited by the proceedings). I agree, and I think Mathews was a bit more middle-of-the-road at one point... but, we've seen his pendulum swing very far to the right over the past year or so...to the point of some sickening displays of giddy cheerleading. This is the beef I have with Mathews these days...
This may not come across in my posts, but my political leanings (I believe) are not SO left wing...more middle of the road... This current regime, however, has pushed me more into the lefty realm -- mainly just searching for some sort of balance to all this madness. But, I do long for the days when you (one) truly felt that there was an even voice in the 'news'... Part of my dismay with Mathews is that I did actually consider him a reasonable 'pundit' at one point...
much more middle of the road than a lot of the other names being floated by both sides (currently). Will be interesting to see what comes down over the next 18 months or so.
You're probably right. Definitions of 'moderate'... I really won't argue.
But, I firmly believe... Democrats must either win back a majority in the House (or senate, or both). Or, Democrats must win the presidency. If not -- as Dan Grady says -- our 'democracy' is over.
Checks and balances is a myth at this point. Gov't, we, man...whatever... cannot be trusted to 'self-police'. Plain and simple. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Actually I did figure you for being more of a "moderate" Democrat...just like I'm a pretty "moderate" Republican/Conservative. I get the feeling (from having read your posts at MMFA) that you and I probably only disagree on a FEW issues here&there.
I ALSO agree that Matthews does seem to love THIS administration, and gushes (embarrassingly) over George Bush. Pretty sickening really.
As I've mentioned here before, I was a McCain supporter and was VERY disappointed when he lost out on the nomination to Bush. BUT as a Republican (and NOT a fan of Gore's) I voted for Bush. I thought the guy would probably be a ONE TERM Prez (like his Dad) and preside over a fairly uneventful 4 years.
Of course 9/11 changed ALL that. I thought Bush handled himself pretty well in the aftermath, and I was behind going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. HOWEVER, when Bush invaded Iraq, it was the beginning of my discontent with THIS administration.
I remain a Conservative...AND a Republican...BUT like you and MANY others here I'll be happy when George W. Bush LEAVES the White House.
Jeter let us enjoy our red meat. (smile) Seriously though it's just a reiteration-reminder that CM's show is essentially a showcase to champion conservative and with CM specifically Republican policy and candidates. I think MMFA's highlight of this is quite appropriate. He (CM) has a bias, and if you tune into his show it's going to be presented in such a manner that demonstrates his bias. I've stopped watching his show to. I prefer my poltically neutral C-Span, 360 with Anderson Cooper, and for a little left leaning bent I watch the Countdown and Bill Maher.
Lynn, I know Matthews isn't one of your favorites...to me he's just a lightweight without much influence. IF 3 or 4 viewers of the 30 or so people that ACTUALLY tune into Hardball are persuaded by HIS opinions I don't think there's too much to worry about ;-)
Matthews does SEEM to be leaning more&more to the Right...BUT like I wrote to Rusty (see above post), it wouldn't surprise me if Matthews gets excited about a Democratic ticket down the line. The guy eats, sleeps and breathes politics. He's just an excitable guy.
Readers of this item who are new to the Chris Matthews show should take note: be aware the next time Matthews interviews a Democrat-or pairs one with a Republican-this guy is backing a Republican, McCain ticket. He thinks we (and presumably he) are all "tired" of the Clintons (as in Hillary '08). Then judge for yourself if Matthews is going to do a fair interview.
Evidence here, and elsewhere on this site, proves otherwise.
maybe you forget that matthews is a political commentator, not an unbaised newreader. it is a little naive to think they don't or shouldn't have an opinion or a bias toward one or another, of course they do. some hide it or are more diligent in doing so than others, but so what? then you automatically jump to the conclusion that he cannot conduct a fair interview because he has a certain leaning. that's absurd and unfounded. wouldn't you rather know where their support lies, therefore you can judge their interviews through that prism - rather than have no idea. you are at the disadvantage then. all this blather about commentators and their opinions is ridiculous. they have opinions and if they make them known, all the more illuminating and informative for us all.
That would be and is fine when political commentators make their political location known. Nobody goes to the Red State blog and expects anything but raving unchecked Con opinion. One goes there and imbibes the spew at his own risk. MMFA openly states its political location and mission. No problem.
Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly pretend to be politically neutral and objective in order to appeal to the broadest audience possible when in fact they are raving Cons. This is a trick and I fully expect MMFA to expose the trick time after time until Cons are sick of it.
--"wouldn't you rather know where their support lies, therefore you can judge their interviews through that prism"--
Your unnecessary quip about "blather" aside:
I'd rather that a news program host fair to both sides. Ask questions. Challenge. Raise facts. Or at least make an attempt to do so.
Matthews takes sides but makes a pretense of throwing equally hard balls to both sides. He doesn't.
Matthews here states a clear desire for McCain over Clinton. My point was for viewers to be aware of Matthews' bias, and to judge Matthews' future interviews and comments upon that.
The problem is that the Democratic Party is not Left enough. The "center" has been manipulated so far right that Nixon would be considered a radical liberal today. I don't care if you're a four star general or a war hero, if you speak common sense like Rep. Murtaugh, you're a wild-eyed liberal. They're even accusing the CIA of being aligned with the Jihad for God sake.
Forget trying to be lukewarm Cons, the Democrats have lost with this failed strategy enough. The public wants real opposition to the Armageddon party.
They are specifically portraying the CIA analysts as Liberal intellectuals, they do this with the state department personnel as well. I think that's why the CIA is in the state it is today, I hear they are running off the experienced personnel; but after the outing of Valerie Plame who can blame them for running. Bush is in process of FEMATIZING the CIA.
I knew things were ludicrous, but when we have reached the point that the CIA is considered a liberal organization democracy is dead. There is no question that we have been taken over by a vast right wing conspiracy for which 'lunatic' is an understatement.
This Administration really thinks Americans are stupid. Thats why neocons like Gibson rally for a first strike on Iran with cartoonish phrases like by golly sooper dooper bunker busting nuclear bombs.
Unbelievable. Get ready to inherit the Earth.
I agree with quite a few of the posters here. If, as stated, MMFA is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" this item clearly does not fall under that mission statement. Tweety is certainly entitled to his opinion, just as much as Keith Olberman or Jack Cafferty. Having watched him enough, it's already pretty clear where Tweety's loyalties lie, and I think items like this cheapen MMFA's usually stellar efforts. Just my two cents.
---"Having watched him enough, it's already pretty clear where Tweety's loyalties lie"---
Interesting you say "watched him enough". The casual viewer of Hardball expects a hard news analysis program *as advertised* from Matthews. They might think they're getting one. They're not. If it takes multiple viewings for viewers to figure that out, then Media Matters provides useful information with items like this one, even though Matthews' right-wing fans would just as soon we looked the other way.
Matthews is hanging in there for a chance to get down on his knees and start pleasing dubya.
Sorry...I couldn't resist.
When the term "liberal Intellectual" has become viable for use as an epithet in our political discourse.
(i'm not saying that's how you're using it, Lynn, but the various Bush apologists seem to be doing so if not in such direct terms than by implication)
Of course this is what happens when superstition invades even this facet of our lives.
Because seriously, how different is the mantra of "criticism of the president encourages the terrorists" from the old saying of "if you step on a crack you'll break your momma's back" ??
It's not like either is based on anything resembing logic.
And, hey... in case Chris Matthews is ever exposed to the things we say here, at 31% only the real whack-jobs still support this joke of a president
What better way to get Republicans to stay home on election day than to package two people that they consider RINOs and put them on the ticket. McCain-Giuliani in 08!!!!
for every Repub who stays away from a McCain-Giuliani ticket because it's "Republican Lite," it'll attract the pearl-clutching DLC-DINO-types who still think that sucking up to right-wingers is a good "civil" idea.
And where Giuliani may not be totally in with the wingnuts yet, McCain is going out of his way lately to cozy up to America's equivalent of the Taliban in order to cement his "conservative" bona-fides (Liberty University, anyone???)