The Nation's Hayes on Matthews: "[H]e's ascended to the level of kind of icon of the frustration that people have with the media"
On National Public Radio's On the Media, co-host Brooke Gladstone discussed a post on the Columbia Journalism Review blog Campaign Desk that "suggests that the vote for [Hillary] Clinton in New Hampshire was in some way a vote against MSNBC's Chris Matthews, as the sort of breathing, saliva-spewing symbol of a general media dump on Hillary. When we talk about groupthink, is he the leader of the pack?" Christopher Hayes, Washington editor for The Nation, replied: "I think he's one of them. I mean, he's certainly the most voluble of the bunch." Hayes later said of Matthews: "I think that he's ascended to the level of kind of icon of the frustration that people have with the media, particularly the media's relationship with the Clintons."
On the January 8 edition of National Public Radio's On the Media, discussing the media's coverage of the New Hampshire primary, co-host Brooke Gladstone stated: "[T]here was an interesting piece of analysis on Campaign Desk, which offers continual coverage of the coverage on the CJR [Columbia Journalism Review] website, and it suggests that the vote for [Hillary] Clinton in New Hampshire was in some way a vote against MSNBC's Chris Matthews, as the sort of breathing, saliva-spewing symbol of a general media dump on Hillary. When we talk about groupthink, is he the leader of the pack?" Guest Christopher Hayes, Washington editor for The Nation, replied: "I think he's one of them. I mean, he's certainly the most voluble of the bunch." Hayes later said of Matthews: "I think that he's ascended to the level of kind of icon of the frustration that people have with the media, particularly the media's relationship with the Clintons."
The post on CJR's Campaign Desk to which Gladstone was apparently referring was authored by CJR writer Liz Cox Barrett and titled, "The Anti-Chris Matthews Vote: And how it sparked some media soul-searching (though not from Matthews)." In the post, Barrett documented several quotes from Matthews and asked: "So was there, in fact, what amounts to an anti-Chris Matthews vote that emerged in New Hampshire? And if so, why might Hillary Clinton have been the beneficiary?" Barrett added, "Here are a couple of thoughts on those questions," and linked to a Salon.com article by staff writer Rebecca Traister headlined "The Witch ain't dead and Chris Matthew is a ding-dong" and a blog post by Atlantic associate editor Matthew Yglesias that discussed Matthews.
Prior to the segment featuring Hayes and Gladstone, co-host Bob Garfield also discussed the media's coverage of Clinton: "Even the unsinkable Chris Matthews, MSNBC's towering monument to certainty, seemed a little shaken up, almost a new man. Here he was on Tuesday." Garfield then aired an audio clip of Matthews' statement during MSNBC's coverage of the January 8 New Hampshire primary that "I give her [Hillary Clinton] a lot of personal credit. I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again." Garfield then said, "Well, maybe not entirely new man. Here he was the next day." Garfield then aired Matthews' statement the following day that "the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around."
At the end of Garfield's segment, which also included audio clips of CNN host Lou Dobbs, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, and NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams discussing the media's coverage of the New Hampshire primary, Garfield asserted: "And that is a course on how the media screws up. In fact, it's not just one course; it's a whole meal -- from soup to nuts."
From the January 11 edition of National Public Radio's On the Media:
BOB GARFIELD (co-host): OK, last week we started the show with politics despite a pretty thin media angle because, come on, it was the Iowa caucuses. But this week, we're doing it again; only this time, I swear, with a much, much better media story. And by "better," I mean a pitiful, pathetic, New Hampshire primary pundit implosion -- a historic, Dewey-defeats-Truman pie in the face, the creamy remnants of which TV stars including CNN's Lou Dobbs, CBS' Katie Couric, and NBC's Brian Williams are still scraping off their kissers.
[begin audio clip]
DOBBS: The savants, the pundits, all of the political experts need to do a little, a little seeking of forgiveness because everyone was so wrong in this, and breathtakingly so.
COURIC: We'll be hearing more from those ubiquitous pundits and polls in the weeks ahead. But Iowa and now New Hampshire should remind us all: In the end, the only voice that really matters belongs to the voters.
WILLIAMS: Give us a few weeks. We'll promptly forget the lessons of this debacle in polling predictions and primary politics. We will all live to screw up another day, though our performance in New Hampshire will be hard to beat.
[end audio clip]
GARFIELD: That was NBC's Brian Williams stating the painfully obvious: They will live to screw up another day because campaign journalism, and especially political punditry, is all about prognostication -- a savory soup of polling data, history, and supposed expertise, which is all well and good, except that the electorate doesn't necessarily eat the soup. The experts are still sorting out the polls. Is the sampling unrepresentative? Did the sample lie? Did the human factor -- actual living, breathing voters deciding on living, breathing candidates -- rudely ignore the inevitability of a Clinton defeat? Even the unsinkable Chris Matthews, MSNBC's towering monument to certainty, seemed a little shaken up, almost a new man. Here he was on Tuesday:
MATTHEWS [audio clip]: And I give her a lot of personal credit. I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again.
GARFIELD: Well, maybe not entirely new man. Here he was the next day:
MATTHEWS [audio clip]: And I'll be brutal -- the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. ... That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit. She won because everybody felt, "My God, this woman stood up under humiliation."
GARFIELD: And that is a course on how the media screws up. In fact, it's not just one course; it's a whole meal -- from soup to nuts.
GLADSTONE: Christopher Hayes, Washington editor for The Nation, is fresh off the campaign trail. He joins us now, sleep deprived and we hope with his guard down. Chris, welcome back to the show.
HAYES: Thanks for having me back, Brooke.
GLADSTONE: So there was an interesting piece of analysis on Campaign Desk, which offers continual coverage of the coverage on the CJR website, and it suggests that the vote for Clinton in New Hampshire was in some way a vote against MSNBC's Chris Matthews, as the sort of breathing, saliva-spewing symbol of a general media dump on Hillary. When we talk about groupthink, is he the leader of the pack?
HAYES: I think he's one of them. I mean, he's certainly the most voluble of the bunch. And I think also the amazing thing about Chris Matthews is that when he gets something in his sights, he just won't let it go. And so, sometimes, instead of interviewing, whatever idea he just came up with, he just sort of throws it out and says, "Isn't that true? Right? But isn't that true?" And then if they try to deviate from the line, he cuts them off and steers them back.
GLADSTONE: You know, it does seem that he's gotten a lot of the press in the wake of New Hampshire. Is it simply that because his narratives seem to be so immovable once set, that he's just, as you say, an example of the extreme campaign reporter?
HAYES: Yeah, I think that's exactly it. I mean, I think that he's ascended to the level of kind of icon of the frustration that people have with the media, particularly the media's relationship with the Clintons. I actually think that going into Tuesday, before the actual primary had happened, my thought was that the biggest story that I was seeing was this crazy degree of schadenfreude on the part of the national press corps directed towards the Clintons. I mean, it was almost like they were gathered on the shores as the Titanic was sinking and kind of sadistically waving at the people scrambling for life rafts. And it was so palpable. It kind of brought people back to the late 1990s and Ken Starr and Monica Lewinsky. And that's a real raw emotional place for your average Democratic primary voter. And I've talked to a lot of people who are not Hillary Clinton supporters at all and they felt this desire to kind of defend the Clintons and to kind of tell the media to buzz off.
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
And... Republicans will demand a recount of all votes! Before the recounting is completed the Republican Supreme Court will appoint the Republican to be president.
It means that Chris Matthews is floating to the top. Like scum in a cesspool.....
And Chris Matthews is lower than whale poop.
You're actually citing The Nation, whose managing editor, Morticia Vanden Evil, didn't know who her congressional rep is..
..and the magazine that was critical of Bush's ownership of the Houston Astros...I kid you not..
Take your time, I realize this may take you a while.
and talk about corporate welfare! The Rangers built a stadium using taxpayer money, throwing people out of their houses using eminent domain to do it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush had a share of the Texas Rangers--not the Astros. But anyway...
After Mr. 33%'s reign as one of the most unpopular and disastrous presidents in history, Bush's future in baseball is all behind him. And rightly so.
And don't YOU forget that the brain-dead out there (such as yourself) who are complaining that the Democrats in Congress aren't doing anything are ignoring the fact that the Republicans are voting in lock-step to obstruct everything and protect their war criminal of a leader.
People are wising up to the fact that conservatism in general (and neo-con Republicans specifically) are bad for America. And they'll be voting Democratic in November, putting a Democrat in teh White House and sending more Republican Congresscritters packing.
I'm really not sure what you think you're arguing here.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_09/012097.php
Um, GJ, they have already filibustered more in one and a half years than any other term perhaps ever! So, they are blocking everything even on the floor, is that politics?
Thanks for bringing up Congress.
What America hasn't forgotten and will not forget is the miserable failure of a Republican-controlled, rubber-stamp Congress, who did such a fantastic job that voters rewarded them with minority status in both theHouse or Senate. Republicans are also destined to be big losers in all three branches of government in November. Congrats.
...heck...even Truman left office with a 22% rating...it's meaningless..
...all it is is a reflection of the lies and distortion of the MSM, which is nothing more than a puppet of the left..
I seem to remember the MSM burying the Downing Street Memos and cheerleading the buildup to the war. Surely if they were just a "puppet" of the left, they wouldn't have done either.
I seem to remember the MSM burying the Downing Street Memos
You seem to remember incorrectly. The memo was in the news for months.
It was just another fake scandal created by a left wing operative and propagated by the lap dogs in the MSM.
The people pushing this little bit of propaganda knew that their audience would not understand the subleties of British English. The phrase "the intelligence is fixed" obviously does not mean it was made up. The progagandists counted on the sheeples not understanding that.
You're full of it.
I read about the DSM for months before it got any coverage, and that coverage was far from page one news. It was only because of the pressure from bloggers to force newspapers to print it at all. If they were puppets of the left, they would have plastered it on page one immediately. Why not?
You're also being dishonest about the phrasing. It was that "the intelligence is being fixed around the policy", I believe, not the truncated version you forwarded. That's an important difference, and I don't know how else you can interpret that.
Every time I turn on the TV there's that constant ticker saying "Day 2314 since 9/11 - Bin Laden still at large on Bush's watch, Day 2315 since 9/11 - Bin Laden still at large on Bush's watch, Day 2316 since 9/11 - Bin Laden still at large on Bush's watch". DAY AFTER DAY! It's so infuriating! They're constantly badgering Bush because 6 & 1/2 years after 9/11 nothing has been done! We get it! Bush has done nothing to get Bin Laden! Why doesn't the media give it a rest already!?
And they're always harping on the business ties both George Sr & Jr have had with the Bin Laden family going back over 30 years! Enough already! So what if Osmama's brother, Salem Bin Laden, gave George W Bush millions of dollars to set up his first business venture 'Arbusto Oil'? The media just won't stop talking about that! And every day the networks play that quote Bush made just 5 months after 9/11 when he said he "doesn't think about" Bin Laden. So, he doesn't think about Bin Laden? We're at war in Iraq now!
Is it Bush's fault that Bin Laden is still at large and there has been zero progress in getting him?
People forget how easy the liberal media was on Clinton. I understand that he wasn't faithful to his wife in the 90's? Imagine if the media had dwelt on that relentlessly for years the way they have hounded George Bush about his failure to heed the warning 'Bin Laden Deteremined to Attack Inside the US' and 2-term failure to get Bin Laden?
(This has been another episode of rightwing wackjobs with no grasp of how far to the right the national media is)
Your Clinton example is an excellent example in the reverse. If the MSM was really controlled by the left, then why on earth did they spend so much time trying to embarrass Clinton?
Your Clinton example is an excellent example in the reverse. If the MSM was really controlled by the left, then why on earth did they spend so much time trying to embarrass Clinton?
By embarassing Clinton, do you mean reporting on his serial sexual assaults and his serial infidelity?
Actually, the MSM tried to cover it up. Remember Newsweek had the story. They had assigned Mike Isikoff to investigate in order to prove the rumors were wrong to write the story that way.
Well...it turned out everything that was rumored was actually true ...and more.
Newsweek refused to print the story because they were covering up for Bubba. It was leaked to Drudge who had the courage to print it knowing full well he was going to draw the wrath of the MSM...and boy did he.
The rest of the MSM picked it up because it was dynamite. They didn't want to be left behind the truth tellers like Fox and other new media.
Tomorrow is the 10 Year anniversary of Drudge getting the truth out. It marked the beginning of the end of the monolithic control old media and its lies, propaganda and distortions. The fight isn't quite over yet, however, because of new media sources like MMfA who are picking up the mantel of the old guard and its mission of misinformation.
Stranger,
To me, however the media got ahold of Clinton's scandal is irrelevant. Do you think the sexual forays of a President are as important as the media made them out to be? Do you think that the record deficit that this President has rung up should be as large a story as Clinton's infidelities?
For example, do you think more people know about Clinton's affairs or Bush's comment about not "spending much time on Bin Ladin?" Which do you think is more important?
You mentioned Kerry's military record on another thread. How many reports has the media done on Bush's White House ordering the SEC not to release the details into its investigation of Bush's insider trading case?
If the media is a tool of the left-wing, why has no one investigated the millions missing from governmental contracts in Iraq? Why is no media icon taking on the fact that Blackwater mercenaries are being paid more than the common U.S. soldier? Why has there been no follow-ups done on the Walter Reed issue? Why does the media not report that some of the biggest war hawks in Congress continually vote against providing more medical benefits to the troops?
If the media is left-wing, why no mainstream stories about Bush lying about his DUI to get out of jury duty? If the media is left-wing, why no stories about Bush's alleged affairs? If the media is left-wing, why doesn't it report that 96% of U.S. casualties have happened since "Mission Accomplished?"
If the media is the tool of the left-wing, why was there no reporting on the one-year anniversary of the troop surge about these points (all Bush quotes):
"To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November."
"To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html
Why has there been little to no mention of the GAO's September report that said that one of eight political benchmarks were met by September 2007 and another was only partially met? Why was this not mentioned on the anniversary of the surge?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071195.pdf (page 4, good chart on page 3)
Where was the investigative reporting as we prepared to invade Iraq about Bush's claims if the media is left-wing? If the media is left-wing, why don't they highlight Bush's promise to strong-arm the Saudis if oil prices got too high? If the media is left-wing, where are the reports of the platforms Bush ran on (tight spending no nation building) highlighted?
Stranger, these are but a few examples I can think of refuting your point. All of these stories are far more important than Lewinsky, would you agree?
To me, however the media got ahold of Clinton's scandal is irrelevant.
It is very relevant to everyone else. It proves the cover up
Do you think the sexual forays of a President are as important as the media made them out to be?
When they are germaine to the attempted rape of Paula Jones...yes.
Do you think that the record deficit that this President has rung up should be as large a story as Clinton's infidelities?
No..because it is much smaller as a percentage of GDP
For example, do you think more people know about Clinton's affairs or Bush's comment about not "spending much time on Bin Ladin?" Which do you think is more important?
An attempted rape is waaay more important than a throwaway line.
You mentioned Kerry's military record on another thread. How many reports has the media done on Bush's White House ordering the SEC not to release the details into its investigation of Bush's insider trading case?
The sale of the Harken Energy stock turned out to be another manufactured scandal (in other words, the left and MSM were caught lying again). It was investigated and found to be both legal and above-board.
If the media is a tool of the left-wing, why has no one investigated the millions missing from governmental contracts in Iraq?
It is being investigated and the reason it is not being reported is because the lying, corrupt MSM lied about the scope of the problem. i'm sure that's a big surprise to everyone.
Why is no media icon taking on the fact that Blackwater mercenaries are being paid more than the common U.S. soldier?
So? Why would they go for less?
Why has there been no follow-ups done on the Walter Reed issue?
It is being followed up on. Besides, it preceeded Bush. The problems were exacerbated because of Clinton's cuts.
Why does the media not report that some of the biggest war hawks in Congress continually vote against providing more medical benefits to the troops?
Bush and the Republican Congress increased the VA budget by 40%. The increased funding ($2b for psychiatric care was already budgeted for)that you are referring to was nothing but a political ploy by the anti-troop Democrats.
If the media is left-wing, why no mainstream stories about Bush lying about his DUI to get out of jury duty?
Well..you might wanna re-read about that one Skippy. He opted out of jury duty to where he may have been assigned a DUI case. Another fake scandal ...or better said ...lie
If the media is left-wing, why no stories about Bush's alleged affairs?
Alleged by whom? Anonymous, unsourced left wing propagandists maybe? It was very different with Clinton. There are many many witnesses who have come forth abouth sexual assaults not mentioned by the lying, corrupt MSM
If the media is left-wing, why doesn't it report that 96% of U.S. casualties have happened since "Mission Accomplished?"
You just lied here didn't you? That's a big surprise. Actually, as everyone else on the planet is aware of..that 96% includes Iraqi and coalition troops.
Liar
I see you have avoided any debate on my surge comments. The media certainly was cheering onto war when it started, wasn't it?
The 96% figure is from this site: http://icasualties.org/oif/Cumulative.aspx
What do you think of cover-ups including secret energy task forces, no biggie eh?
Bush's line about not caring about OBL has been more than a throwaway. His troop commitments reflect the statement.
Bush's insider trading is no manufactured scandal. If you think Kerry should release his full military record, you should expect Bush to have the SEC release his whole trading record, right? If its a manufactured scandal, Bush would have nothing to worry about, right?
Can you make sense of this comment: "The subsequent SEC investigation ended in 1992 with a memo stating "it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading," [1]but noted that the memo "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result" [2]. "
Show me the real scope of the contractor problem if the MSM is lying. Who are your sources?
YOu are really ok with Blackwater soldiers being paid more than our soldiers? I think that's kind of sick.
I brought up the affair because those allegations are about as based as the coke allegations you brought up. 5 women actually signed affidavits about his affairs.
The deficit size is newsworthy since he inherited a substantial surplus. Why no coverage about his flip-flops on nation building?
Obviously our troops need better care. Suicides rates are extremely high among vets, the budget might have been increased for the VA, but the amount of vets needing care is growing faster.
Stranger, I have never called you names. If you want to drag discussions to the gutter, that is your call, but argue on facts and keep the personal stuff out of it.
I see you have avoided any debate on my surge comments. The media certainly was cheering onto war when it started, wasn't it?
There is only so much time. i will go into further detail about benchmarks later, but suffice it to say for now that 11 of the 18 have been met and significant progress has been made in the rest...and that has been reported on so i don't undrstand why you put this in a discussion of media bias.
When did the media "cheer on " the war?
What do you think of cover-ups including secret energy task forces, no biggie eh?
Cover up? The administration asked for counsel from experts in the industry in order to formulate policy. It happens all the time. These people do not need to be bothered ny the media. Ask Hill...she did the same thing with her health care fiasco. See the hypocrisy? The MSM nnever badgered her about it. Other critics did and the MSM came to her defense.
Bush's line about not caring about OBL has been more than a throwaway. His troop commitments reflect the statement.
Bush's insider trading is no manufactured scandal. If you think Kerry should release his full military record, you should expect Bush to have the SEC release his whole trading record, right? If its a manufactured scandal, Bush would have nothing to worry about, right?
All the records pertaining to the transaction in question were available. Bush was exonerated. It was a fake scandal. Why should his records not pertaining to this be released?
With regard to Kerry, the records will answer directly the issues brought up. He continues to defame the Swift Boaters, but reuses to give the evidence he claims he has.
Can you make sense of this comment: "The subsequent SEC investigation ended in 1992 with a memo stating "it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading," [1]but noted that the memo "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result" [2]. "
No, I can't make sense of it since 1) I don't know the source, and 2) the investigation showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was all about nothing.
Show me the real scope of the contractor problem if the MSM is lying. Who are your sources?
This is a complex financial situation so the corrupt MSM knows full well they can easily fool and sway the general populace. The money actually comes from the oil for food program (which is the real scandal that the MSM is avoiding) and is in the hands of different governments and international bodies....and it is difficult to get consolidated accounting figures.
As far as individual contractors...give me an idea of what you're talking about.
YOu are really ok with Blackwater soldiers being paid more than our soldiers? I think that's kind of sick.
OK...you have your own opinion about this...so what? What does that have to do with anything? They're needed...they are very flexible and don't have to go through cumbersome military red tape to respond.
They're only getting paid while they're there. Soldiers will continue to receive pay when they get back to their home bases. Soldiers have other bennies on top of that: medical, BAH, education, etc.
I brought up the affair because those allegations are about as based as the coke allegations you brought up. 5 women actually signed affidavits about his affairs.
OK..I gotta see the cite on this one. The only thing I had ever read or heard about was some whack job dominatrix claiming she held a homosexual bondage session with Bush and another man
The deficit size is newsworthy since he inherited a substantial surplus. Why no coverage about his flip-flops on nation building?
There was no surplus. It was all smoke and mirrors. Actually bush inherited Clintons recession.
There was plenty of coverage about his change in positions regarding nation building. You are simply conflating positions you do not like with what you perceive as inadequate coverage.
Obviously our troops need better care. Suicides rates are extremely high among vets, the budget might have been increased for the VA, but the amount of vets needing care is growing faster.
Suicide rates are actually lower than the general population. OK ...let them evaluate new funding based on the increase in numbers of those needing care.
What does this have to do with the issue of media bias?
Stranger, I have never called you names. If you want to drag discussions to the gutter, that is your call, but argue on facts and keep the personal stuff out of it.
Fair enough
The SEC wrote that memo which was quoted in a Salon.com article. If you think he has nothing to hide, the White House should release the whole report. If he has nothing to hide, release it.
Here is the Bush site which is probably about as credible as your Clinton cocaine allegations:
"Furthermore, porn publisher Larry Flynt has alleged that one Bush affair led his then-girlfriend to have an abortion, and claims to have 5 affidavits from friends of the woman and others supporting the claim. Again the woman does not want to be named, which makes it hard to prove the claim, but you can't really blame a lady for not wanting to be known as the "Bush abortion girl." Flynt made this allegation on CNN. The host of the program actually said "Now we at CNN don't want to be accused of censoring anybody...", yet that is exactly what CNN did. They removed the show's transcript and links from their web site days after the broadcast. You can still get details on the incident at the Bush Watch web site. They have more details here. "
I guess we will have to agree to disagree with the GAO reporting of a surplus when Clinton left office.
Did you read the GAO report I linked?
Honestly, my biggest problem with those who support the Iraq war is that they are not making any personal sacrifices for our troops. I carpool every day now. I have reduced my gas consumption by about 60%. I have sent troops money for armor. What have you done?
I won't argue with you on the Swifties. I think there is more than ample evidence of their doublespeak while you will never acknowledge it. I won't ever acknowledge your points either so its moot. I do find it ironic that the party that made Clinton's military service an issue gives Bush a free pass. The same people who voted for Bush despite his lack of foreign policy experience now hammer Obama for the same. The people who are small-government advocates voted for Bush as well. These positions don't add up.
Here is the Bush site which is probably about as credible as your Clinton cocaine allegations:
"Furthermore, porn publisher Larry Flynt has alleged that one Bush affair led his then-girlfriend to have an abortion, and claims to have 5 affidavits from friends of the woman and others supporting the claim. Again the woman does not want to be named, which makes it hard to prove the claim, but you can't really blame a lady for not wanting to be known as the "Bush abortion girl."
....so Larry Flynt claims it, huh? Why would this woman file an affidavit if she didn't want to go forward....IT'S LARRY FLYNT for God's sake...please use a seriousn source
Did you read the GAO report I linked?
Nope...not yet...it's on my list though
Honestly, my biggest problem with those who support the Iraq war is that they are not making any personal sacrifices for our troops. I carpool every day now. I have reduced my gas consumption by about 60%. I have sent troops money for armor. What have you done?
What does gas consumption have to do with anything?
I never bring things up unless prompted and you seem sincere..
I currently have a nephew in Balad, one in Mosul, a niece in Baghdad and a godson in Kabul...and five other close relatives that have previously spent time in theater..
I am doing my taxes currently so I have been looking over my donation records and I gave nearly $3 thousand to various organizations that support the military and their families..
...independent of that I split the cost of the funeral with another anonymous donor for the child of a military woman. The funeral director was a friend of the family so he did it at cost
I won't argue with you on the Swifties. I think there is more than ample evidence of their doublespeak while you will never acknowledge it. I won't ever acknowledge your points either so its moot.
I'm sorry, but that's total BS
I do find it ironic that the party that made Clinton's military service an issue gives Bush a free pass.
There is hard copy documentation of Clinton's draft dodging. Bush has allowed release of all his military records....so a left wing operative working with the MSM had to create fake documents
The same people who voted for Bush despite his lack of foreign policy experience now hammer Obama for the same.
So? I'm not
Stranger,
As I said, we can agree to disagree on some things (Swifties, Bush's insider trading stuff, Bush's military service etc.). I put in the Larry Flynt thing to counter your cocaine things which seemed in the same ballpark. The interesting thing about Flynt was the revelations that he brought forth (or helped bring forth) about Livingston which resulted in his resignation. I think we can agree that the media has its faults. I would like to see the political reporters stay on politics (and I think you would agree with me) and disregard the "he said, she said" crap that is currently clouding the landscape. Thanks for the civil discussion and I hope your family members stay safe.
"The rest of the MSM picked it up because it was dynamite. They didn't want to be left behind the truth tellers like Fox and other new media."
Well, wait a minute. I thought the MSM were puppets of the left. But now they're going after the story because it's big. Which is it? See, if they're controlled by outside forces, then they can't do something just because they want to.
Nice job disproving yourself there.
Iraqis just can't get over how wonderfully transformed their lives are.
Stranger, how have his policies changed the Middle East? Iraq is chaos, Afghanistan is teetering, (if its not, why do we need to send more Marines in), in Saudi Arabia more people like OBL than George W., he is begging OPEC nations to expand their production, he has effectively obligated our military to a country where withdrawl 0f British troops has actually led to a downturn in violence (Basra (sp?)), by conservative estimates 150,000 Iraqis have died, he has threatened war with Iran at every turn (even though we don't have near enough troops to fight it), we have a necessity with a dictator with nukes whose government probably killed the only moderate voice in the country (Pakistan, if they are innocent, why not accept outside help to investigate what has happened?), and the Palestinians elected what Bush calls a "terrorist group" to run its leadership.
Bush invaded a sovereign nation without provocation and is constantly threatening another one. I guess you are right, he has transformed the Middle East.
How much are you willing to sacrifice for his policies, Stranger? Spending time on websites where you don't agree with the majority opinion is not battle.
"...heck...even Truman left office with a 22% rating...it's meaningless.." (I will agree with you here, approval ratings are meaningless).
"...all it is is a reflection of the lies and distortion of the MSM, which is nothing more than a puppet of the left.."-The Stranger
Name ONE major media outlet that voiced constant opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Name ONE major media outlet that has covered the war like the media covered Vietnam. Show me the media outlets who have consistently questioned why Bush placed our most valuable national resource in harm's way without exhausting all options. Name the media outlets who are calling the Bush administration officials out on their 6-week War predictions. Name the media outlets who have spoken up since Bush called major combat operations over on May 1, 2003. Did you know, Stranger, that 96% of the casualties in the battle/occupation have occured since that speech? Any media report that?
What were the goals of the surge as noted by the President a year ago? Have any of them happened? Did any of the media report on the failure of the diplomatic goals of the surge on its one year anniversary? Please show me. And if they did, they would be reporting the TRUTH and would not be puppets. I'll wait on your answers.
..ummm...Dave.......anything between the ears there, Dave...
...wow...what a dullard....of course it was the Rangers..
...that's the freaking point...
....but anyway
Of all the posts that attempt to discuss your points with you, you pick the Astros and Rangers one? Care to address the arguments made elsewhere?
...always do stick to the facts...you know that..
..it will take years to stabilize things in the ME...just as it did in Germany and Japan
Stranger,
Years is rather vague for an administration which promised the conflict would take about six weeks according to our Secretary of Defense. We have been involved in Iraq for almost 6 years with no end in sight. Bush's policies have destablized the region to this point. Iran has been emboldened, Saudi citizens have a higher regard for Bin Ladin as a whole than they do for Bush and Bush's policies What are you willing to do personally to make sure these policies work?
Honestly, nothing would make me happier than to someday know that I was wrong about this. However, as a responsible citizen of this country, it is my responsibility to stand up when my President is hurting the country through his policies. The worst part of his war, in my estimation (aside from the Iraqi dead which for some reason we are not counting), is the lack of quality care for our brave men and women. Republicans, according to veteran's organizations have voted consistently against expanding care. Sick.
Well garsh who'd a thought it. Ya mean when he sucked the Astro's fan base dry, and then went off to greener and more lucrative pastures?
You want to be surprising? Be on topic and rational.
It's good having Bin Laden's as friends though, you can screw up a business and they'll be there to bail you out!
Well garsh who'd a thought it. Ya mean when he sucked the Astro's fan base dry, and then went off to greener and more lucrative pastures?
*sigh*...Please, Lord...give me the strength
The media is the message. MSNBC is the message. Mathews is the message.
I think Tom Brokaw (from above Salon link) as quoted by Rebecca Traister sums it up well:----
"The people out there are going to begin to make some judgments about us if we don't begin to temper that temptation to constantly get ahead of what the voters are deciding," he told Matthews, who reflexively barked back about the commitment and quality of polling institutions. Polling "is a lot less important than letting this process go forward as it should," said Brokaw.
What concerns me is that, the way Tweety's brain cell works, it's all good. No such thing as bad PR. Controversy brings in the viewers, and all that. With his massive ego he is probably still thrilled that people somehow think he influenced the NH primary. This will reinforce the same bad behavior. So it is up to MSNBC to make it crystal clear to him that this is not acceptable.
If he'd made racist comments instead of sexist ones, the MSNBC sponsors would have chased him out the door as quickly as they did Imus.
Is the MOTHER of all MORONS and comes here because this is the only place where sane human beings will respond to his ignorance and dishonesty. Personally, I refuse to engage in debate with such a STRANGE and foolish moron.
But I'm delighted to be here to report these facts on this WebSite.
I'm also happy that this STRANGE MORON comes here to display the behavior and many of the reasons why REPUBLICANS are losing their grip on power in our great country.
Otherwise there is no other point to his factually challenged posts.
THE TRUTH...
Matthews has Descended to the lowest level of the Icon of Horrible, Hostile, Harmful, Hurtful Hillary Hating. I hereby name it the The Anti-Hillary 4H CLUB. And...
It's not a frustration with the media. It's a hatred of Democrats, Progressives, Liberals which includes but is not limited to the Clintons. Republicans are losing power, they know it and they are becoming hateful desperadoes.
*clink* *clink* Gimme a whiskey and tell Tex to saddle up old Blue. :-) Me an' the boys gotta catch the 3:10 to Michigan.
;-)
Is "old blue" a nickname you guys have for Jeff Gannon, or something? I do not wish to help you and "the boys" with whatever you are planning, which smacks of leather fetishism.
You are all, (first 37 posts) missing the point here. It must be a little disappointing to the MMFA researchers. It's not about Mathews or all the other topics visted thus far. Most of us agree about Mathews.
This misinformation is that the vote in NH was not for Hillary but against Mathews. The argument has become the conclusion. Journalists Gladstone and Hayes promulgate an allegation without any real supporting evidence.
Last week she won because she cried? At least one could argue that many voters saw that clip on various media. I don't believe as many voters could have been motivated by distaste for Mathews. It's an insult to the intelligence (if any) of the independent voters of NH. Gladstone and Hayes passed on this allegation because they believe we are that stupid.
Or maybe it's republicans projecting again.