Matthews suggested Democratic victory in midterm elections would be welcomed by "the enemies we have around the world"
On the September 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews suggested that "the enemies we have around the world" would welcome Democrats regaining control of the House of Representatives or Senate in November because they could portray it as "Bush hanging by a thread in his own government." As Media Matters for America has noted, Matthews previously claimed that "the stakes" in the 2006 elections would include "whether we want [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [CA] to be the first woman speaker of the House or not" and repeatedly suggested Democrats would abuse the congressional subpoena authority if they regain control of one or both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections.
From Matthews's discussion with MSNBC.com editor in chief Jennifer Sizemore and Chuck Todd, editor in chief of the National Journal's weblog the Hotline, during the September 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: So, when we come out of this thing -- I'm asking you to confirm what we did yesterday on the show, when we did politics all day.
SIZEMORE: I'll do my best.
MATTHEWS: That magic number 218, if the Democrats get that 218 [seats in the House], that number, that flashes around the world, right? "Bush loses his own Congress."
SIZEMORE: Sure.
MATTHEWS: Big story, right? No confidence vote.
TODD: That's a point, no, that's right, any -- look at the only time we pay attention to other country's midterm elections is when their leader's party --
MATTHEWS: Gets blown away.
TODD: -- blows -- gets blown out. So absolutely, 218 or 51 Senate seats for -- or 51 Senate seats for the Democrats, that's a big story. Now, if they come up short, that's not a big story.
MATTHEWS: Well, I could see where the left-wing press around the world and the enemies we have around the world could say something like, "Bush hanging by a thread in his own government," right? They're not going to be nice to Bush anywhere, are they?
SIZEMORE: Well, in some places, perhaps, but I think that --
MATTHEWS: Where? Denmark? Who do we have out there on our side anymore?
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
MATTHEWS: Well, I could see where the left-wing press around the world and the enemies we have around the world could say something like, "Bush hanging by a thread in his own government," right?
Tweety, if Bush loses his Congress ("his" Congress?) then ANY reasonable journalist or observer would say that he's hanging by a thread. Dumbazz.
The Bush administration and the rubberstampers in congress have done more to inflame radical Islam around the world than anybody else in recent history. If bin Laden had an absentee ballot he would almost certainly vote a straight Republican ticket.
This headline is very misleading. It leads one to initially believe that Matthews is suggesting that victories by Democrats would be welcomed by our enemies. When in fact if the entire context of his statement is revealed, he is actually saying that because of the way many would portray Bush losing his Republican Congress, as him hanging on by a thread.
A far different inference.
your're right. Matthew's comment is bad enough as it is, without making it worse. Should we really be casting votes based on what other countries and people, especially those countries and people who "hate our freedoms" might think? We shouldn't appease those swarthy furriners by voting for a republican. I say a vote for a republican is a vote for appeasment! You with me on this one Tommy?
I was with you right up until the end......this close.
Personally, I don't base my votes on what pleases or displeases anyone else. It goes to the candidate's competence, honesty, skills, intelligence, etc. Much the same reason you vote for who you like.
it was worth a try. :)
actually, the context of "hanging by a thread" was an analysis of the hypothetical situation that the Repubs BARELY hang on to congress. he's suggesting that out "far-left enemies" will put an anti-bush spin on even a narrow repub victory.
"Matthews suggested Democratic victory in midterm elections would be welcomed by "the enemies we have around the world" "
Your inference [sic] is skewed. There was no IMPLICATION other than the one above. No one else is responsible for your INFERENCE.
Fact is, Matthews made it sound as if the "Left wing" around the world is our enemy. His actual statement is far worse than the way it was presented by MMFA.
I find myself in agreement with Tommy! Context was everything in that blurb.
MM, I love you but to use the language "welcomed" is a real stretch. Where you get his opinion of "hanging by a thread" to welcomed is a gross projection. a bit sloppy if you ask me.
Apparently every other country hates us because of President Bush, so maybe we should keep electing Republican representatives, revoke the 22nd Ammendment and re-elect Bush a couple of more times just to keep them hating us.
That'll show 'em!
How do many Republicans and Conservatives reconcile the fact that we have (under the Bush Administration) succeeded in alienating almost the entire world? Is every other country just crazy, hateful or jealous? Would even a little introspection help us out a little here or is everything everyone else's fault?
Thank God Camaroon still has our back!
They live for all this negative attention. It gives them the lamest of reasons to kill people. They get off on being evil.
Of course our enemies around the world [read THAT basically Bush's enemies] would be THRILLED if the Democrats won big in November. And for EXACTLY the reason Matthews gave. It would be interpreted as a VOTE of NO confidence.
So what's the problem here? MOST of the world HATES Bush...so IF the guy falls flat on his face by having HIS party losing the majority in the House and/or Senate, they'd be happy.
Slow day here?
I agree with you, but don't you think that Matthews is apparently advocating voting for Republicans as a way to tweak "the enemies we have around the world"?
The trouble lies in the ambiguity of that phrasing. Matthews used "we" instead of the more appropriate "the Bush Administration [has]". He seems to conflate the two things. France and Germany are not my enemies, but they may not like the Bush Administration so much these days.
As Tonto once said, "What you mean we, Kemosabe?"
;^)
Hope that makes some sense. Friday is not so good for that. Too excited about football tomorrow to think. Anyway, have a great weekend.
"I agree with you, but don't you think that Matthews is apparently advocating voting for Republicans as a way to tweak "the enemies we have around the world"?...by open_mind
=====
Yeah you could be right about that, especially IF one takes Matthews well documented "cheerleading" for Bush and Republicans into consideration. It's easy to ALWAYS question this guy's motives.
In THIS instance though I didn't pick up on THAT from him. He actually sounds like he's suggesting that Bush's enemies would be thrilled IF the Democrats took over the majority in the legislative branch because Bush would take the hit for the Republican's defeat. IF he'd only said "we" or "U.S." then I'd be more skeptical. BUT he specifically MENTIONS Bush by name several times. Who knows for sure? I suppose Bush and "We" might be interchangeable to this guy...
I'm looking forward to Sunday...
Jets over the Titans by 3
You have a good weekend too O_P :-)
The punchline to the joke you have in mind is: "What do you mean WE, paleface?"
"Of course our enemies around the world [read THAT basically Bush's enemies] would be THRILLED if the Democrats won big in November. And for EXACTLY the reason Matthews gave. It would be interpreted as a VOTE of NO confidence. "
Jeter,
I guess that's why Osama worked to help Bush get a second term. [link to www.truthout.org]
It's probably safe to say al-Qaeda would be delighted if the Republicans kept both Houses.
Why?
The present Administration has given the terrorists everything they could possibly desire. Polarization. New, *really motivated* members. A demonstration that the U.S. military "might" can be pretty ineffectual. Maybe other things as well, but that's a pretty strong set.
The Democrats have been stunningly weak, and if they take one or both Houses they may not work to change the course of things. But the Republicans *certainly* won't change the course of the Administration...and bin-Laden is hardly a dummy. Why would he want things to change? (Maybe one reason there have been no further attacks on U.S. soil.)
Of course, this leads to the consideration that if bin-Laden sees things moving with certainty towards the election of a Democratic majority in at least one of the Houses, he might serve up a reminder that terror is still around.
Hmm, an interesting thought, no?
So would it be a safe BET to say this is one of those Damned if you do; Damned if you don't moments?
So are you saying---Keep the Status Quo, and embolden Bush--The Iraq Mistake continues --US hated--creation of new terrorists. Change the players and bin Laden takes another swipe at us for sure. Certainly could happen.
I'm NOT at all certain just which "enemies" Matthews is talking about here...is it ONLY Arab/Islamic enemies? OR could he be referring to "everybody else" as well? "Everybody else" includes of course ANY country that doesn't AGREE with us.
My head hurts...
Well I'll give this some more thought later... BUT for now I'm heading home.
Of course our enemies around the world [read THAT basically Bush's enemies] would be THRILLED if the Democrats won big in November.
------------------------------------
Hey Kemosabe,
Your enemies are not necessarily enemies of the rest of America. Stop pretending that this sorry excuse for an administration you installed speaks for all Americans.
The hatred is for the American Empire, for the invasion, occupation, foreign policies, support for Israel and native dictators.....these are policies pursued by BOTH parties in DC. They hate Democrats just as much.
in a time of war, democracy and dissent are a sign of weakness that are enemied will capitalize on. We should anoint George W. Bush as Fuhrer of Amerika so that he can do whatever is necessary to protect America from islam0-fascists, communists, godless atheists, and liberals. Only then will Amerika be pure and great again.
Terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. If we as Americans exercise our freedom to vote and give Democrats control over the House and/or Senate, we will be enrage the terrorists, so we shouldn't vote or be free, in order to safe, but isn't that appeasement?
Sometimes I feel a little sympathy for those at MMFA who have to log and decipher this guy's crap...
Not because of the substance of what is said, but for what seems to me the insufferable task of having to make sense of the euphemisms and clipped phrases this guy specializes in (all made worse by his rapid-fire style of cramming a dozen of the danged things into each minute talked)...
MATTHEWS: "...magic number..."
"...flashes around the world..."
"Bush loses his own Congress."
"Big story, right?"
"Gets blown away."
"...the left-wing press around the world and the enemies we have around the world..."
"Bush hanging by a thread in his own government..."
"They're not going to be nice to Bush anywhere, are they?"
"Denmark?"
"Who do we have out there on our side anymore?"
...is that stuff really the substance of a coherent discussion of national policy?
Or is it simply what this guy thinks "political wise guys" talk like?
Because that's how this guy reads to me... like he thinks he's in a movie, playing the part of some "political wise guy", on the City Deskmaybe, or in a bar where the followers of the City Council water themselves after-hours...
...all he needs is a cigar and a Corned Beef sandwich to complete the picture.
"the enemies we have around the world"
Funny how we have so many more new enemies over the past 6 years.
Same old enemies the American Empire has been making for the last thirty years.
I feel fairly confident in saying that a very large number of our country's friends in the world would be pretty happy to see Bush's administration hanging by a thread.
I'll also bet most of our enemies in the world don't really care that much about whether Bush is president or not.
Agreed. Our friends around the world want Bush out (who wants him in?). I believe these so called "enemies" want him out too because many of these countries are only enemies because Bush has made them enemies or calls them enemies.
The "War on Terror" is like a mythological video game, and the rest of the world is in a reality wondering how do we get to play.
The man must have had a "500 LSD trip Summer" in the sixties and with all the Republicans in charge must have had a deja vu trip all over again. How else could he say such things??
"His congress"
That is exactly the problem. It is not "his" congress.
Congress is supposed to be a co-equal branch.
"when the bough breaks, the craddle will fall..."
Yes, Chris, we need to keep as many enemies around the world as possible, so let's not let the Democrats win.
many of you cannot accept the fact that the Democratic Party's cut and run strategy is exactly what the Islamofacists want.
Think about it a minute. Will all the terrorists decide they've won and go home if the Democrats pull us out? It is a myth to think that Fighting terrorists is worse than appeasing them.
Unfortuantely it looks to me that the Democrats don't give a hoot that their position on Iraq is basically the same as our enemies. For you not to admit it shows me you have your heads in the sand.
Is that you?
When we redeploy out of Iraq, maintain a regional presence and retain air superiority we remove our soldiers as targets for the insurgency. There will be some of level of civil war no matter what we do and the likely result will be an Islamic government (possibly democratically elected). At that point, the extremely nationalistic Iraqis are not going to allow Al Qaeda Sunnis to assume any significant level of authority and will likely run them out of the country. The Iraqi Sunnis will maintain a low level insurgency long into the future.
I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Continued US troops on the ground will only lead to one additional outcome - more dead Americans.
That your lets get as many Americans killed as possible strategy just isnt turning many heads anymore. You wont admit that lying about the reasons to go to war and killing tens of thousands of innocent people that had NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM, isnt helping the situation. I do urge you to keep pushing your lets get as many Americans killed as possible for no good reason strategy, I think the American people will respond to you guys using their children for fodder for wars started with lies and misrepresentations. As long as people are getting killed you guys are happy, I am sure Americans will respond to that
This is what the bad guys want: more dead Americans, with no reasonable gains for America.
It's the current "stay-the-coursers" that are giving the bad guys what they want.
Why did the terrorism end in Kenya in the 1960's? The British left and went home. Why did the terrorism end in Ireland? The British left and went home. Why did the Viet Cong stop killing US soldiers? The Americans left and went home. No occupation = no terrorism. Very simple. Works EVERY time.
cut and run
Islamofascists
Democrats = terrorists
appeasers
You may have hit rock bottom with this goulash of talking points.You were pretty coherent a month ago, but have degenerated quickly.
This may be a good sign.Some need to descend into total darkness before they see the light.Godspeed.
Fascism is the act of combining big business and government. I do not believe that "Al Qaeda, Inc." is a big enough company to try to become a government, nor is any corporation in any Islamic country trying to force their views on any Islamic country.
Therefore, "Islamo-fascist" = yet another big GOP lie. The biggest fascists on the world stage right now is the Republican party. They just want to deflect the name.
If you want to know what the GOP is doing, just look at what they accuse Democrats of doing. Those acts are actually the GOP plan.
Our enemies love Bush, and they want to confuse the Muslim world into believing that Bush= all Americans (thus justifying the murder of american civilians).
Our former friends, especially in the Muslim world would love to see Bush discredited, that way they can tell their populations, see democracy works in America, Bush was bad and they voted his party out of power, we could do that here.
This country will not be safe until George W. Bush is in jail, it is the only way to counter the wave of anti-american propaganda spreading in Europe and around the world. Think about it, one guilty man's freedom for the safety of millions.
"Think about it a minute. Will all the terrorists decide they've won and go home if the Democrats pull us out?" - AnotherAmerican
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WTC has been attacked twice; the first time, in February 1993, and in September 2001 . . . there are some key differences in those two attacks - namely that those responsible for the '93 attacks have long since been caught - but one additional difference is that the person in the Oval Office at the time of the '93 attacks had a D behind his name, and the one in the O/O in '01 carried an R behind his . . .
This tells me that when terrorists have their minds set to carrying out an attack, they probably care less about whether the country's leader is a Dem or a Rep than simply carrying out their "mission" . . .
Pretty much puts a lie to the argument that "only Republicans are capable of keeping us safe."
So . . . I think a better question would be: " will the terrorists suddenly decide to stop carrying out attacks, would-be attacks, or insurgencies if the Republicans maintain control of Congress, when they haven't for the past 5-plus years?"
Unfortunately, AA, it looks to me that you don't understand that Democrats' position on Iraq - that fighting an illegal war, based on cooked intel, for WMD's that are nonexistent, or a 9/11 connection that never was - is NOT the way to combat terrorism against the USA. For you not to admit that shows me you have your head buried in the sand {or, more likely, buried somewhere else} . . .
...since Bush's ratings are in the commode.
"many of you cannot accept the fact that the Democratic Party's cut and run strategy is exactly what the Islamofacists want."
So give them what they want. And maybe there'll be more peace in the world. Occupying nations only breeds terrorism.
"Think about it a minute. Will all the terrorists decide they've won and go home if the Democrats pull us out?"
Maybe, maybe not, but it'll give them one less reason to hate us.
"It is a myth to think that Fighting terrorists is worse than appeasing them. "
If fighting terrorism is better than looking at our foreign policy, then why is it that terrorism has increased in the years Bush has been in office? There were 655 acts of terrorism worldwide last year. The previous record was 175 in 2003, another Bush year.
I voted against Bush twice, and think he is a total disgrace. But you're trying to paint Mathews in a very specific light, and I don't think its justified. Its biased media, which is what you are all about preventing, right?
Look, if Bush loses the house (and my vote and hopes are that he does), then he WILL be criticized by countries around the world, both allies and foes. And no, Denmark will not be on our side.
Be careful media matters - I love what you stand for, but you run the risk of turning into biased media yourselves.
Do you mean enemies like , oh, France?
Enemies like China?
Enemies like Malaysia?
or Enemies like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda?
There are plenty of our enemies out there who, if Bush goes, can breathe a sigh of relief, saying "Good! No we can stop being their enemy."
There are others who will be disappointed, because they'll have lost a great economic patsy.
There are other leaders who will sigh, because one could boost one's popularity so easily by attacking him.
And there will be others who'll be strongly concerned, because that will mean the American military won't be paralyzed any moreand it's just possible that the new folks will pursue a n effective terrorist policy rather than driving their truck wheel-well-deep into the mud..
I am not as smart as Hannity or Limbaugh or Matthew's, so bare with me. I cannot understand how, when another country or group of individuals have supposedly blind hatred toward us that they will just rejoice if our congress or senate changes parties. Blind hatred is just that, blind, they will hate regardless of who controls our government I mean really, are terrorist's sitting there thinking "Now that Democrats have control of Congress, time is now to implement our plan to destroy the infidels." If you hate someone you would try to destroy them no matter who is in charge, the arguement is just so stupid, but its the best that conservatives can muster after how well they have managed the government the last five years.
I try to be reasonable when posting on here but I have had it.
Someone needs to get Matthews to shut the f#$! up.
Now.
just a survey- I've had posts like yours(edited with asterisks, etc.) disappear over the last few weeks.
Have you (or anyone else) had posts flagged? I've had some disappear that weren't obscene or personal attacks, some of them were very reasonable rebuttals. Since I've never flagged anyone I don't know how difficult it is to pull something.
Anyone else experiencing this?
I think the answer might be that the original post that you commented to might have been off topic. I think when that happens the original off topic post is deleted along with any comments made about the post.
I've also seen posts disappear that have asterisks etc, but then I've seen posts stay that spell out the word.
In other words, who the hell knows why something gets deleted?
And will my saying hell get this one deleted.
Watching this man with an arrogant ugly smirk, perhaps indicative of some sort of messiah complex common to members of the GOP, one begins to understand what is wrong with the media. You have people like Mathews who are getting paid to dish out, night after night, all kinds of political garbage scripted by the rightwing. May be he has done is long enough that they no longer have to script it for him. And, he actually thinks, people cant tell what he is doing.
Chris Matthews used to say he was a Democrat. But it seems to me he is a bit like pornography, hard to define but you know it when you see it. Not to say he is an enigma...that would make this loudmouth sound too special.
And HBL, I responded "amen" to a person one day and my post was deleted. Just the one word. And a person on another thread said he wanted to F...Nora O'Donnell and was flagged and it never got taken off the thread. So go figure.