Echoing GOP again, Matthews suggested Democrats will try "to lynch the president" if they gain control of Congress
SUMMARY: On MSNBC's Hardball, Chris Matthews once again suggested Democrats would abuse the congressional subpoena authority if they regain control of one or both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections. In a conversation with former Rep. Vin Weber (R-MN), Matthews asserted that in 2006, Republicans will likely campaign on the claim that if elected, Democrats "are going to try to lynch the president."
On the April 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews once again suggested Democrats would abuse the congressional subpoena authority if they regain control of one or both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections. In a conversation with former Rep. Vin Weber (R-MN), Matthews asserted that in 2006, Republicans will likely campaign on the claim that if elected, Democrats "are going to try to lynch the president."
The notion that Democrats will pursue partisan investigations of President Bush if they gain control of one or both houses was first advanced by Republicans and then picked up by Matthews. For example -- as Media Matters for America previously noted -- on the March 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) alleged that "you can expect two years of all-out investigations, attacks, anything they can bring to bear" if the Democrats regain control of the House or Senate in the 2006 midterm elections. Additionally, the Associated Press reported March 23 that in a fundraising letter, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman claimed "[t]he Democrats' plan for 2006" is to "[t]ake the House and Senate, and impeach the president," adding, "With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want?"
Matthews himself echoed these claims on the March 23 edition of Hardball, asking Democratic strategist Bob Shrum "[w]hat happens" if President Bush, campaigning on behalf of Republicans in 2006 "go[es] from state to state blasting away at the Democrats saying, 'Hey, if you guys [Democrats] get in power, all you guys want to do is censure me or waste our time with some other partisan activity. And, you know, we're going from the frying pan into the fire with your crowd.' " As Media Matters noted, Matthews returned to this theme on the April 4 edition of Hardball, asking Shrum if he could "promise" that, if the Democrats regain control of the House in 2006, "they will not use the subpoena power to go after the president." Additionally, Matthews asked former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) "what would happen" if Democrats regained the House, and Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) "got the subpoena power." Matthews asked: "Would they go after the president?"
On the April 5 edition of Hardball, Matthews again repeated the Republican suggestion that Democratic victories in 2006 would lead to Democratic abuse of congressional investigative authority, censure, and even impeachment. During a conversation with Weber, Matthews suggested that in their 2006 campaign advertisements, Republicans could claim that Democrats -- including Conyers -- "are going to try to lynch the president. They are going to try to censure him, but ideally they are going to try to impeach him. They are going to use the subpoena power to go crazy." Later, Matthews asked Weber whether his advice to the Republican leadership during the 2006 campaign "would ... be to warn the public of the liberals coming to impeach, or to censure, or to go after the president."
During a subsequent interview with Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, Matthews twice played clips from the April 4 edition of Hardball, in which Delay alleged that Democrats -- specifically Conyers -- would move to impeach or censure Bush if they gained control of one or both houses of Congress in 2006. Matthews asked Dean if he had "anything to say about the possibility, the probability, or even the chance that if the Democrats get control of the House of Representatives and the subpoena power, they'll use it to investigate, impeach, or censure President Bush." Despite Dean's response that this line of reasoning was not "the real election issue" and that Democrats "don't think impeachment is as trivial as the Republicans seemed to think it was when they tried to impeach President Clinton," Matthews later asked Dean if the Republican argument that Democrats would impeach or censure Bush -- and the accompanying "fear factor" -- "will hurt your party in the fall." Matthews subsequently asked Dean if Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) proposal to censure Bush over his authorization of a potentially illegal warrantless domestic spying program was "something Democrats should be considering doing once you get the subpoena power that comes with the majority status in the Congress."
From the March 23, 5 p.m. ET, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: What happens if he spends the last month of this campaign after the summer is over, and when people are beginning to pay attention, regular people who are nonpolitical, and all of a sudden they watch the president going from state to state blasting away at the Democrats saying, "Hey, if you guys get in power, all you guys want to do is censure me or waste our time with some other partisan activity. And, you know, we're going from the frying pan into the fire with your crowd." What happens if the topic becomes the Democrats?
SHRUM: Well, first of all, I think Democrats are going to go out there and make it clear that we don't want to impeach or censure the president.
MATTHEWS: They haven't done it so far, Bob.
From the April 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: OK. Now a comparison ad usually means you show something nice about your guy, but then you nail the other side with how bad it could be if they took over. I've been thinking now for a couple of days now at least that what the Democrats are going to face this fall, what the Republicans are probably going to throw at them is, "You think we're bad, we got a guy named Safavian you never heard of and we got this guy DeLay. He's gone now. And we're no day at the beach, but look what they've got. They've got a bunch of crazy guys who are going to try to lynch the president. They are going to try to censure him, but ideally they are going to try to impeach him. They are going to use the subpoena power to go crazy. Don't let John Conyers of Michigan" --
WEBER: And they're going to punch out the Capitol police.
MATTHEWS: See? You're doing it. See what you're doing here, you're turning the Democrats into a cartoon of vengeance and evil, and apparently in this case, assault on a police officer.
WEBER: I wouldn't characterize the whole Democratic Party in that way, just one member.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this strategic question: If you were asked advice by the Republican leadership right now how to win the House, keep it this fall, hold at least 15 seats, would it be to warn the public of the liberals coming to impeach, or to censure, or to go after the president or would you try to push what you've accomplished or a more positive agenda?
WEBER: I think they've got to push an agenda. I think it's true that the Democrats will try to impeach or censure the president.
MATTHEWS: You believe that.
WEBER: I believe that. Or at a minimum, investigate him to paralysis. And I think that's a legitimate issue, but I don't think that's going to move the country. The country's not going to buy that necessarily. What'll motivate people is the same agenda. Smaller government, lower taxes, strong national security, traditional values. Those are the things that motivate conservative voters.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Governor Dean, I want you to look at a tape from last night's interview we had with Tom DeLay. It was an exchange about the impeaching of the president.
[begin video clip]
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that the Republicans, if they lose the house, will turn over the subpoena power to people who will try to impeach the president?
DELAY: Absolutely. John Conyers, not too long ago, held a mock meeting of all the left and talked about impeaching the president, and he's called for impeaching the president. Do you think when he gets the gavel on the -- as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he won't try to impeach the president? Of course he will.
[end video clip]
MATTHEWS: Governor Dean, as chairman of the national committee of the Democratic Party, do you have anything to say about the possibility, the probability, or even the chance that if the Democrats get control of the House of Representatives and the subpoena power, they'll use it to investigate, impeach, or censure President Bush?
DEAN: You know, it's interesting, I think the real election issue in this election is do you want more of the same or do you want something different. We're different. We're not like the Republicans. We don't jump to conclusions, we don't think impeachment is as trivial as the Republicans seemed to think it was when they tried to impeach President Clinton.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Let take a look at this. It's more of Tom DeLay last night. It's along the same lines I just talked about it. I just talked about prosecuting this president once they get in power in the House.
[begin video clip]
MATTHEWS: Do you think, more modestly, they might push for censure along the lines of Russ Feingold in the Senate. Which one do you think they're going for, his head or a big wound.
DELAY: I think they'll try to go for his head. I think some of the more reasonable thinking Democrats will try to pull him down and away from walking off that cliff, but you've got to know these people. John Conyers is left of the left.
[begin video clip]
MATTHEWS: Do you think that kind of campaign argument will hurt your party in the fall, the fear factor?
DEAN: No, I think these guys are out of credibility. As you were talking about with Pat Buchanan and [former San Francisco Mayor] Willie Brown, think of what these -- what George Bush has brought to Washington: his own procurement officer, arrested and indicted; the chief of staff of the vice president, arrested and indicted; the Republican leader of the United States Senate, Republican Bill Frist, under investigation for insider trading; Tom DeLay, resigned. On and on and on it goes. That is the Republicans. We're going to do this differently.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Governor, let me ask you about Russ Feingold. He is making noises about running for president. And he's out there, the Democratic senator from Wisconsin, saying that he would like to have the president censured for the National Security Agency's electronic spying. Now, do you think that's something Democrats should be considering doing once you get the subpoena power that comes with the majority status in the Congress?
DEAN: Again, Chris, we can certainly look into all that stuff, and we would like to know what the president knew and when he knew it. But there is a lot to do in America, and revenge against the president is not the first thing on the Democratic Party agenda.
Americans want accountability. I will be disappointed if the Democrats don't do some major investigating.
As long as the Democrats don't appear as overzealous and rabid as the Republicans did when they were chasing Clinton, the public good will be served well by it.
This administration is probably one of the most corrupt we have ever had. I am not talking about just the Abramoff or Haliburton stuff or even the election(s). Forget all of that. This administration has shown the least regard to the Constitution than any before it that comes to mind. Prisoner abuse, the suspension of habeas corpus in some instances, the wiretap scandal are all direct attacks on the Constitution. Not to mention the near cult-like devotion to absolute secrecy and blind loyalty that has aided and abetted this possible criminal behavior.
It appears that the over-riding mantra of this administration is either might makes right or the ends justify the means.
If the Democrats cannot bring themselves to investigate this administration's scandals, I will not vote for them and neither should anyone. What is the use of divided government anyway?
I forgot to mention the biggest possible crime of this administration. Its use of intelligence in the lead up to war. That may be one of the hardest to investigate because the trail is getting colder by the day along with all of the other potential crimes that need to be investigated.
There's an old Arabic or Turkish proverb [both claim it] that says :
"The dogs bark but the caravan moves on"
I do hope the Democrats will make a SERIOUS effort to seek some accountability from this administration, HOWEVER I fear they may only make a lot of noise and NOTHING more. And Bush&Co. will slip through unscathed.
As far as Matthews goes--the guy (who I honestly believe was once a Democrat) has OBVIOUSLY changed horses.
I'm disappointed/disgusted with the Republican leadership on just about everything...BUT I've seen little reason YET to change my mind about the Democrats.
If Bush isn't impeached for his high crimes, then there can never be another impeachment of a president. With every passing day that the Republican Congress does not proceed with impeachment of THIS president, they make the proceedings against Clinton look more and more ridiculous.
I'm still waiting for Olberman to award Matthews the Worst Person prize. I'm also waiting for MMFA to post Matthews off camera suck up to Delay.
First, he does not believe this President should be investigated, for ANYTHING.
Second, he is terrified that he eventually WILL be investigated.
Why is Matthews so very scared?
Good point. Didn't the Plame-gate investigation get a little too close to Matthews?
He does seem to protest a bit too much. It is really odd that he so adamantly doesn't want investigations. I hope the Democrats mention this as a campaign issue. I think it is a winner issue for them.
Everyone except for Matthews wants accountability from their government.
Very good point. He is completely against investigating Bush. it is almost like his crusade. I wonder if he felt that way about Clinton lying about an affair? Did he think it would be "crazy" to impeach Clinton? Wouldn't that be a "lynching" by the GOP?
"And we're no day at the beach, but look what they've got. They've got a bunch of crazy guys who are going to try to lynch the president. They are going to try to censure him, but ideally they are going to try to impeach him. They are going to use the subpoena power to go crazy. Don't let John Conyers of Michigan---"
So in Chris Matthews's world there is no possible reason they have for censuring the president except they are "crazy", there would be no legal basis for anything done because again they are "crazy", just out of their mind democrats with no purpose but to "lynch" the president.
I swear it makes one almost projectile vomit just reading this crap.
Democrats should avoid any mention of the word "impeachment". Run the investigations first. Gather evidence and make a solid case or even exhonerate the President on charges, but Dems should be very shy to mention impeachment.
The Republicans came off as crazy and too gung-ho when they went after Clinton on some really lame stuff. The people saw right through it and that is why Clinton is still very popular today.
That is why they seem to use the word accountability quite a bit. It seems to work very well. People understand what that means.
The Republicans came off as crazy and too gung-ho when they went after Clinton on some really lame stuff. The people saw right through it . . .
Two points. One, the grounds for impeaching Clinton were indeed lame. The grounds for impeaching Bush are much less so, and Democrats need to make that case.
Two, if the impeachment did the Republicans serious electoral damage, I can't see it. They lost just one seat in the House (retaining the majority) and four in the Senate (retaining the majority on account of the Republican VP), and they more than made up these losses by 2004.
without the Impeachment of Clinton, Gore would have been President.
There are certain parallels to Clinton but not as much as one might think. Clinton got caught stealing kisses. The only people who died from what he did laughed themselves to death. Iraq is no laughing matter. It's one thing to prance around the military as the commander in chief and something else to send them into a non winnable situation based on lies. Sooner or later someone in the military above the rank of private has to ask why. Why was the Bush gang so gung ho to attack Iraq? All the stated reason are now proved lies. Were they sent to Iraq to suffer, fight and die for Haliburton? That's the only plausible explanation at this time. Maybe it would help if Bush came clean. I understand that confession is good for the soul. So let me ask him. What gives George? The ANG put you into a real fighting spirit or something?
The public is that gullible...at least 36% of them are. They are gullible to the point of being downright stupid.
SHRUM: Well, first of all, I think Democrats are going to go out there and make it clear that we don't want to impeach or censure the president.
No. First of all, Democrats have to go out there and make it clear that they don't want Shrum as their strategist. If the President has violated the Constitution, and I think there's good evidence that he has, then censure is the minimum strategy the Dems should pursue. And any Republican who still has a conscience should be right there with them.
Shut this Shrum guy up immediately and kick him to the curb- that guy is exactly the WRONG guy to be deciding ANYTHING about anything.
Chris, per Merriam-Webster OnLine, "lynch" is defined as "to put to death by mob action without legal sanction."
Now Chris, I know you have trouble not parroting RNC talking points, but hopefully, Bush and others will be given an opportunity to learn something they either don't know or don't care about: upholding our constitution and obeying our laws.
As for you Chris, well... uhh... would you prefer hemp, sisal, cotton or nylon?
when racism is somewhat coming to the surface, the GOP and their talking heads start using words generally reserved (because of a historical context) for the designation of an oppressed group.
Bush will be lynched? As if he is part of a traditionally oppressed group that has been historically victimized (by lynching). Good grief, the Neo-cons will steal any and all language to corner the market on their alleged victim hood.
Bush or Matthews have no clue about lynching. The very use of the word for their benefit is heresy.
From the Republican's point of view, any investigation with teeth in it will look like a lynching.
And you better believe that the Democrats are going to have real investigations once they regain either House or Senate.
The thing is about investigations in this case, is we already KNOW what we will find. We KNOW what is there. It just remains to be proved.
I don't think Bush will be impeached. He will resign first, just like DeLay.
Dick will make Puddinhead George resign before he gets impeached, but not before he pardons himself and the whole criminal administration.
Nerzog,you make good points. Cheney-Bush must be held accountable and the democrats must hold them so.
He can't even bring himself to admit even ONE mistake.
Did you see his reaction to the man who criticized him today? While the man scolded him, Bush's face went though so many contortions he looked like one of those cartoon characters who is about to blow his top.
Bush may not be able to admit a mistake, but then again DeLay hasn't yet either. When it comes time to step down, he will be pushed by members of his own party, just like Nixon.
Quote: Additionally, the Associated Press reported March 23 that in a fundraising letter, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman claimed "[t]he Democrats' plan for 2006" is to "[t]ake the House and Senate, and impeach the president," adding, "With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want?" ***
Umm, YES. Mr. Mehlman, tool of the religious zealotry, you are exactly right.
The Democrats' plan is to fix what your party has broken while in power. First step in doing so is to dethrone King George II and his criminal court. Second step is to start taxing everyone fairly, not giving lopsided credence to the rich. Then, someday during my lifetime, we will have a balanced budget and not beholden to China.
While we're at it, what exactly is this war you and the right refer to? We have troops in harms' way in Iraq, not doing much of anything other than trying to stay alive. But I'm not aware of any 'war'. Congress has declared war on no one. Iraq is a police action if anything, but it is not a war by any stretch. Who is the enemy? How do we win? King George declared victory three years ago. Why are we still there?
"While we're at it, what exactly is this war you and the right refer to?"
There are two possible answers, neither of which work. A neocon may respond "the war in Iraq". Obviously the problem with that argument is that then any president can start a war with any country and be immune from criticism. If Hillary were to win, by this precedent, she could invade Mexico based on "faulty intelligence", and even if there is evidence that she knew of conflicting or discrediting information, it would be wrong to hold her accountable during "a time of war". You get a circular conversation of "She started the war based on lies and should be impeached" - "But you can't impeach her during a war, you traitor" - "but she started the war, and needs to be investigated" - "that would make us look weak during a time of war, and that's giving aid and comfort to the enemy". Obviously when the whole issue is the legality of the actions to start a war, it's absurd to use the war itself as a defense. Of course, that hasn't stopped any wingnuts from doing so thus far.
The second possible response is the "war on terror". You may recall the name of that was briefly changed to "global struggle against extremism" or some such before being switched back. Wonder why? Because they need this "time of war" excuse for Bush's actions, and citing Iraq fails horribly for the reasons stated above. Of course the problem here is that this is not technically a "war" in any traditional sense, and even Bush admitted conventional means would not win it. Terrorism is a tactic, not a nation, and so there is no possibility of militarily vanquishing an opposing country or capturing its capital and troops, etc. Like with the war on drugs, the idea is never to completely eliminate the problem, since that is almost unthinkable, but instead to minimize it. Therefore the "war" is over when they say it is. When will that be? 20 years? 40? 100? Who knows? In the meantime will every president get a blank check to do whatever they feel is necessary, since it's in a time of "war"? Even if someone declares it over, can't someone else just claim that intelligence indicates more attacks are coming whenever they get in political trouble, and so the war is back on? That is equally absurd as the Iraq rationale, but they'll say it anyway because they have not an ounce of shame or intellectual honesty between the whole lot of them, it seems.
I mean come one, if the democrats could show balls enough to lynch the president I for one would think that was the greatest event in politics of the last 10 years.
why are you giddy about the suffering in France? There would be no America without France. With their support, we defeated the British. Why, they even gave us our greatest symbol: Lady Liberty.
As far as the economy, it's a house of cards. Countries are dumping dollars. Our national debt and our individual debt make us susceptible to the slightest breeze.
Amy, necons are the party of borrow and spend. And invade and occupy.
Should we lynch the prez? We should do whatever can be done to minimize his future impact. He's already wounded America, as has every person that voted for him.
You just proved my point. Liberals "hate" goods news about the economy.
Is everything perfect? no .. never is. But, the economy is booming, and has been for the past 30 months.
The DJIA was just over 7,000 about 3 years ago ... and now where is it? around 11,200
[link to money.cnn.com]
Go check out Monster or CareerBuilder and see how many jobs are posted for recruiters or employment agencies. There are thousands of them ... employment agencies and recruiters only hire when they have jobs to fill for other companies.
This isn't rocket science, it's very basic economics.
it can seem "very basic economics" and that's your reasoning downfall. You're letting jobs be the sole indicator of our economy's health and numberwise, I've got bigger numbers.
Consider that some folks estimate 20,000,000 unemployed Americans that aren't counted by the feds because they've been unemployed for more than 6 months.
Then there's Bush's curse to you, your children, your grandchildren, and your great-grandchildren of $2,000,000,000 of additional debt.
Then there's his burden, which he's admitted he won't bear, of bringing the troops home. In the meantime, further hundreds of billions of dollars are borrowed from the Chinese.
Meanwhile, the dollars we earn are being corroded by this debt. The Saudis dumped dollars. Iran is thinking of doing the same. The Chinese are assuming less of our debt, which drives up interest rates, which drives down new housing starts. And so on.
And individually, credit card debt and buying homes that many people can't afford has produced the first negative savings rate since the Depression.
You need to stop thinking of economics in very basic terms. What the neocons have done to the economy is complex and monstrous and terrifying.
Suffering is coming and already, with 7-9 million Americans added to the poor, suffering is here.
Holly:
Amy's "ROSY SCENARIO" that will have American Voters wanting MORE and MORE of the same GOP policies ... has some problems, some of which you have noted.
Several other notes:
The stock market is a gamble. Few Americans depend on dividends for living, speculation is a rich man's game.
For most Americans, their modest stock investments are through mutual funds or 401Ks, and an "UP" market does them no good unless they cash in (while the market is UP). That said, it's better to have an UP market than a DOWN one, but it tells us little about American's real economic condition.
Real wages and real median household incomes have declined steadily since Bush took office. A lower percentage of the population is working than before Bush took office; unemployment numbers have been "adjusted" to eliminate categories of people who are out of work, for example those for whom unemployment benefits have run out.
Savings has entered NEGATIVE figures for the first time since the Great Depression, and a much larger slice of income goes towards servicing debt. Heating oil, gasoline, local taxes, and health care cut greatly into "disposable income", leaving workers with less and less at the end of each paycheck.
Wages have stagnated, while benefits are being eliminated. Tens of thousands have lost pension funds forever due to corporate corruption. Well paying manufacturing jobs have been lost by the millions, replaced with jobs that pay an average of 23% LESS.
In every category, POVERTY figures are UP; more children fall below poverty level every year Bush is in office.Loss of environmental and workplace safety regulations have led to record numbers claiming disability payments ... until they run out. All those dead miners ...
These are just a few of the factors faced by REAL PEOPLE, who don't know (or care) who Dow Jones is. They DO know about national debt, filling their gas tank, outsourcing, what happened to the factory in town, what's happened to their wages, how WalMart has affected local small businesses, and how much tuition has gone up for their kids.
Want Ads for Grads may well be up ... but up from WHAT? Nothing? And for what wages? Wages adjusted to "compete" with Indian "guest workers"? First, Bush lost 3 million jobs. He's gained back about 6 million (worse) jobs, but population increase demands a million NEW jobs a year (Bush is at 6) just to stay EVEN; so far, Bush is still behind in just staying even, and has "created" a NET of NO new jobs.
GDP gains are offset by borrowing; a wash.
Bush's economic performance, for the vast majority of Americans, has been dismal at best. Still, supporters can usually pull out a statistic from here or there and try to paint a ROSY SCENARIO. You can try to explain to Quasimodo that he's a good looking guy, but when he's looking in a mirror at the time, your "happy talk" falls on deaf ears and harsh reality.
Amy in Ohio,
It's nice to argue with another woman. This is mostly manland.
Hugs and kisses,
Holly
Or is that "uh-oh?"
"Liberals" don't hate good news about the economy. They do, however, hate deception, including the deceptions about the economy.
First, let's make clear that the economy isn't "booming" except by the same brutalizing of logic and good sense that turned 51.5% into a "mandate." We've known booms. Booms have been friends of ours. And this is is no "boom."
And it's unintentionally revealing to point to the Dow-Jones as proof. The Dow does not rise and fall with the economy so much as it rises and falls with the expectation of corporate profits - and such profits have, indeed, been rising even as working people slip further behind.
Slip further behind? Yes, indeed. Real median income, that is, the income of average families after allowing for inflation - it is, at bottom, a measure of how much stuff that average family can afford - has fallen five years in a row. The average non-elderly household is 4.8% poorer than it was in 2000.
So is the economy doing well? For corporations, corporate executives, and others among the economic "haves," it certainly is. For the economic "have-nots" at the bottom and the economic "have-somes" in the middle, who together make up the bulk of us, no, it is not.
It's not that those on the left hate good news - it's that those on the right hate facts.
But you know it must be lovely to live in the pretend world of the righties sometimes. It sounds like a lovely place. A utopia where there is always pleanty for everyone, there is no racism or inequality and they have this noble king and the king's court to keep them safe fromt the nasty old Liberals who want to destroy the kindom and the terrorist trolls that can also assume the shape of wolves that lurk just beyond the forrest.
Have you ever applied for any of those "jobs" on Monster or Careerbuilder?
As someone with a bit of experience in jobhunting, seeing as i have taken a PAYCUT at my present job (praised be the glorious bush economy!), let me tell you the employers hardly ever return any responses to inquiries about the positions they offer. I'm an IT professional with over 10 years of experience also.
So so much for those examples. Maybe others have fared better, but don't judge the job market by "so-called" positions posted on those websites...
Monster and the other job sites always have tons of jobs. When I was downsized (you've got to love that term), I used Monster.com as well as every other site I could find. I got ZERO, that's "0" responses to my professionally prepared resume. You see my resumé made it very obvious to prospective employers in my field that I had too much experience. If I had worked for the employers listed on my resumé, they assumed that I had earned too much money at my previous job, and they also assumed that since I had made the big bucks, I'd never be happy working for them.
They were not looking for someone with ability, experience and maturity. They were looking for someone young, hungry and willing to work for less.
We had the dow over 11,000 when Clinton was president. Y'all are just getting back to where it was, and you want to claim success? Great, you put my 401K on hold for 6 years and you claim victory. yahoo. big whoops.
The stock market went to 11,000 during the 90's because of the dot-com boom, which we now see was over inflated because it busted.
But if Bush wouldn't have cut taxes the stock market wouldn't have increased 4,000 points in less that 3 years.
Note that Matthews has chosen a set of OPPOSITE notions. He says the Dems "will try to LYNCH the President."
A Lynching, by definition, is a finding of guilt with NO investigation. There is no DUE PROCESS in a lynching, it is a MOB RULE knee-jerk reaction to rage and fear.
So, why does Matthews use LYNCH and INVESTIGATION as being one in the same idea? If there is an investigation, if there is DUE PROCESS, then it will NOT be a lynching. Yet, Matthews conflates ANY investigation to a lynching.
The obvious image is that, no matter what investigation is held, or what evidence it produces, it will be a lawless act of revenge against this president.
Having defined INVESTIGATION as a LYNCHING, then it can be deplored, along WITH due process, the duty and obligation of our representatives to enforce oversight, the LAW, and our Constitution.
Matthews thus places his partisan support for this president above the LAW, above our Constitution, above the NATION. Why does this man, GW Bush, deserve protection so thorough it protects him from any law and any scrutiny? Is Matthews so sure that the investigation will lead to charges, indictment, a finding of GUILT, and perhaps the gallows? And that THIS would be a "lynching"?
The salient point is that the person lynched is a VICTIM, is unjustly persecuted, and is set upon unfairly by those uninterested in the TRUTH. THIS is how Matthews, with a preemptive strike, wishes to FRAME any scrutiny of this President. If ANY digging is done into TRUTH, Matthews knows, this President is a goner.
I've shared at MM that I'm a fulltime writer. I'm also Ivy-educated, so I've hung with a lotta smart folks. I'm sharing this so you'll appreciation this assertion: your analyses astonish me. They are fresh and brave and frequently disturbing, all the more to your credit. I love what you wrote about lynching: lynching does presuppose innocence. The data of this administration suggest otherwise.
Lynching is also hyperbole. Lynching is reserved for those with monstrous privilege, ala the royalty, and those with no privilege, such as black folks in 1937. Bush is neither royalty nor has he suffered deprivation and discrimination. He doesn't deserve a lynching, but he does deserve a trip to the woodshed.
Then he needs to say, "The buck stops here."
And resign. Resignation would be his first act of patriotism.
Thank you for the kind words, and it comes as no surprise that you are an educated and talented professional. It shows in your writing, which I admire greatly.
May we be successful in our quest for a return to sanity in this, our beloved nation. The forces of evil are great, hold your sheild of faith high!
read all the comments first. I attempted to express this very thing on the first page.
Lynching. Matthews should be shot for uttering the very word.
But you said it far more eloquently than I could have. I always appreciate your posts. Thanks.
I'm noting this more and more: The neocons are broadly, deeply drama queens. Hoover, on the outside, was a hang-them-homos-high kinda guy. But behind closed doors, he had his longtime companion and his closet looked like he shared it with his mommy, which he didn't. He talked tough, but he liked lace. These neocon pundits and pols also talk tough, but they're as soft (avoiding military service again and again) and passive aggressive (sending others off to fight again and again) as high school drama queens. They're bruised ever so easily and they wanna nuke those that nudged them.
As Tex noted, Matthews has no right to a word such as "lynching." It is an embarrassment. More and more neocons have slipped into various notions of victimhood (the War on Christmas, the war on Christians) and this is another.
Lynching's primary association is black Americans lynched over a couple hundred years by terrorists: white Americans who lynched them to perpetuate fear and prolong control. But ideologically, neocons are the descendents of those that lynched. Neocons believe in a world of inequity, where special rights are ceded to whites. So, when Matthews, one of their shills, uses such a word, it reminds me of the time that a camel at a zoo opened its mouth and I saw its cud. I stagger back from Matthew's repugnant, vomity assertion, albeit figuratively.
Gingrich: "you can expect two years of all-out investigations, attacks, anything they can bring to bear"
Right. After all, that what Newt did when he ran the House. The big difference being that Newt persecuted Clinton for trivial matters while Bush should be investigated.
It is expected to ask a question about what the Democrats will do if they get into power; it is not expected, if you are being "fair and balanced" for you to take that question and present it in a way that would give the GOP talking points to use against the Democratic Party. Mathews has lost his purpose and can no longer, as if he once did, "tell it like it is." When you can no longer use the "they are both the same" defense because the Republicans, on a daily basis, continue to present themselves as crooks who cover a wide range of illegal activity -- the latest being a pedophile on the internet. To add to this real time perception of Republican corruption, their leader and President is being exposed as one of the biggest Presidential liars this country have ever seated. It is a shame when the media has to take the political attack lead because the Republicans has lost creditability. Now will be the time for the right wing distortions about the media basis to show it true colors and I am sure that color is red.
Joseph
If there were balance, if the Democrats even controlled one of the two houses, there'd be some checks and balances. So what Matthews is objecting to is re-establishment of checks and balances. How unAmerican!
If the Dems didn't do the right thing and hold those accountable for abuses of authority and violation of ethics and laws, I for one would be outraged. I can't wait to see how CM will conduct himself when the seat of power changes. Will he start kissing Dem butt?
You know at the time when CM became a Democrat, the Dems were still the party in control. They controlled the US congress, the executive office, governorships and state legislatures. Is CM simply attracted to the powerful ? If he does a reverse when the Dems assume prominence and begins bashing Republicans for being obstructionists, nutty, phony we'll know that's exactly what it is and we'll know to ignore this spineless power chaser.
If he continues to bash Dems should they become the dominant force in politics again; then we can assume that his transformation into a partisan Republican hack was at least a sincere one but I'll still ignore him.
Wanting the administration to be held accountable for their actions is "lynching". Oh how the worms turn when it's a Rethugnican in the crosshairs.
Matthews, you're a waste of space and resources.
This is one of Chris' "owe you one" to Tom. Making up for the weakened congress (all DeLay's fault) by attacking those who may benefit from it.
Chris owed Tom a couple. This is one. Chris owes Tom one more.
Good job, Chris.
Considering the level of corruption and failure of this administration, maybe the Democrats should run on a 'Lynch Bush' platform. They shouldn't literally call it that of course, but they absolutely should capitalize on the dissapointment and anger over the administration. The GOP with the help of the right wing media managed to impeach Clinton for purely political purposes. Now we have an outright criminal in office and we're supposed to wring our hands and worry that our response might seem too strident? Enough of this already. Sometimes anger is the correct response. People are dying every day because of the crimes of this administration. The Democrats should take control of Congress with a clear mandate to take down the GOP machine. We can't leave the lesson unlearned that this nearly fascist form of government cannot fly in the United States.
What this administration has proven it can do very, very well is play rhetorical games. What Americans have proven is their gullibility and their susceptibility to this tactic.
After 9/11, I started to pay close attention to the way the administration frames its actions. (I even thought I'd write a paper on their rhetorical machinations - ugh - couldn't do it.) They have successfully managed to dictate the terms of debate on virtually every issue facing our country, and the MSM have been their willing accomplices. The opposition has been effectively silenced, and the downward spiral continues.
Our only hope to salvage what's left of our republic is to get the Democrats to call "bull@#$%" when they see it. President Bush is not a victim; he is the perpetrator of some of the worst crimes against our country in its history. The American people need to be reminded of that over and over again. We have to reframe the terms of debate.
yes, this is true... in the last few days we've had more pre-war planning revelations about Bush, and we've learned that Bush OKed White House leaks... his own party is playing see-no-evil/hear-no-evil, so someone has to oust the crook!
Gotta love Chris... a good utility player, no star, but hey... I have sent emails, even polite ones, to Chris before. He doesn't respond... But I have done so again and will share it with you... Email to Hardball...
Sir,
You have again shown your true colors… You aren’t a journalist…You aren’t even very clever.
So Tom DeLay is your “buddy”, and “you owe him one…”. Now that’s objectivity!
And the Democrats are obsessed with revenge against the “President”, all they want is his head…
I guess it never occurred to you that our Nation is in crisis, a crisis wrought entirely from the gross mismanagement and incompetence of this Administration and the Republican leadership in Congress.
Stick to the issues! Look at both sides, report, enlighten…don’t incessantly chant the latest talking points from the RNC… When the worm turns I don’t know if you will be able to scramble fast enough to avoid being tossed off, once you become identified as a Republican commentator, your job opportunities will somewhat restricted, we will already have a slew of ‘em, and won’t need but one or two, for balance…like at your network, all you need is one Demo to bounce off of, eh? Why actually let them present ideas, when it is much more fun to accuse them of something outrageous and watch ‘em think on their feet… Howard doesn’t let you roll him like you do Bob Shrum…does he? Harder to put words in his mouth, eh? Bet you think the Demos made a big mistake choosing him to run the DNC…NOT!
Don’t think for a minute that the voters do not understand the stakes in this election; they will make the choice in November and will turn the Republicans out, both Houses. You watch…and all the propaganda and misinformation you can dish out on behalf of your dark masters will not blind them from the truth. It is my humble opinion that the Impeachment of both Officers of the Executive Branch should be the first order of business. The choice of a moderate Republican as a consensus candidate for Speaker of the House, if a moderate Republican can be found…say a Chris Shays or another Republican willing to face reality, will lend the process the legitimacy it requires. Not that the opposition has ever been concerned with legitimacy…just results and the acquisition of unfettered power. After the swearing in of the new President, Ms. Pelosi will take the Chair and become the first Madame Speaker and the Senate will work to confirm the new Vice President, as appointed by the new President. And we will bring the boys home…and restore the honor and respect to our Nation squandered by these criminals.
Tom Delay is not an honorable man, he was running a protection racket out of his office, in fact that is what the Republican majority has done to the Federal Government, bring it all down to the dollars, “Pay to Play”, blatant extortion… The crimes of the Executive Officers are almost without number, to litigate them all would take years… to ignore them would be fatal to Democracy and our Republic.
So get out the Windex, some 90% recycled paper towels and clean off the mirror. You already are famous, you must have a goodly chunk of change by now, you are still relatively young and it sounds as though you have a good relationship with your wife… so get a good look at yourself and decide…Edward R. Murrow or Katie Couric…who do you really wanna be when you grow up and become a journalist?
R. G. Johnson San Jose CA