Matthews compared Giuliani to JFK, squelched Mitchell's attempt to question Giuliani's ability to withstand scrutiny
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews continued his practice of praising former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as a strong potential presidential candidate in 2008, comparing him to President John F. Kennedy. And when NBC News chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell attempted to bring up criticism Giuliani received for pushing President Bush to nominate former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik to the post of Homeland Security secretary, Matthews interrupted her and changed the subject.
On the July 16 broadcast of NBC's syndicated Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews continued his practice of praising former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) as a strong potential presidential candidate in 2008, comparing him to President John F. Kennedy. Matthews suggested that both Kennedy and Giuliani "prove[d] themselves in moments that matter" -- Giuliani in responding to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York, and "Kennedy before the Cuban missile crisis." However, as Media Matters for America noted, Giuliani's career as a political figure -- both before and after the 9-11 attacks -- has been marked by numerous controversies and incidents that, at the time they occurred, were considered politically damaging. When NBC News chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell attempted to bring up one such incident -- criticism Giuliani received for pushing President Bush to nominate former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik to the post of Homeland Security secretary -- Matthews interrupted her and changed the subject, calling on New York Times columnist David Brooks to explain whether there will be a "real long-term fight" for the Republican nomination.
Discussing Giuliani's strengths as a potential presidential candidate, Mitchell pointed out that during his brief Senate campaign against then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2000, Giuliani "got himself in trouble on a lot of issues." Matthews replied, "Yeah, but 9-11 changed a lot of that." Mitchell then asserted that Giuliani "might have some problem on the vetting" during a national campaign, despite his much-lauded handling of the 9-11 attacks, at which point Matthews compared Giuliani to Kennedy. Mitchell then pointed out that the Kerik nomination could still be problematic for Giuliani, adding: "I mean, it's a national campaign. It's a different process." As she said this, Matthews interrupted "David, you -- I'm sorry, David, you know the anthropology of the Republican Party pretty well," and proceeded to ask Brooks for his opinion on Giuliani's chances in a potentially crowded Republican primary race.
As Media Matters noted, on December 3, 2004, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Kerik to replace outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Giuliani, Kerik's long-time friend and business associate, reportedly urged Bush to nominate Kerik for the position. Kerik was once Giuliani's bodyguard, and Giuliani later appointed him commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction in 1998 and New York City Police Commissioner in 2000. Following his term as mayor, Giuliani employed Kerik at his consulting firm, Giuliani & Partners. On December 10, 2004 -- just one week after Bush's announcement -- Kerik sent a letter to Bush in which he wrote that "moving forward would not be in the best interests of your administration, the Department of Homeland Security or the American people." The White House announced the same day that the president had accepted Kerik's request to withdraw from consideration for the position. According to a December 11, 2004, New York Times article, Kerik's reason for withdrawing was "that a housekeeper and nanny he had once employed was not clearly a legal immigrant and that he had not properly paid taxes on her behalf." However, not long after Kerik submitted his letter, new information surfaced that shed light on his controversial past, and questions arose as to whether the so-called "nanny problem" was given as the reason for withdrawal in order to draw attention away from Kerik's record. Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk weblog (now known as CJR Daily) listed Kerik's alleged misdeeds, including various lawsuits, allegations of corruption, and potential conflicts of interest.
From the July 16 broadcast of NBC's syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
GIULIANI [video clip from August 30, 2004]: Seriously, neither party has a monopoly on virtue. We don't have all the right ideas. They don't have all the wrong ideas. But I do believe there are times in history when our ideas are more necessary and more important and critical. And this is one of those times, when we are facing war and danger.
MATTHEWS: What applause. Welcome back. That was Rudy Giuliani electrifying the Republican convention last time. This week, Bob Novak reported that Rudy has told people that as of now, he's decided to run for president in 2008. He was out this week in Illinois and key battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas. What do you think? Here's last month's Gallup poll of Republican voters: Rudy Giuliani, 29 percent; John McCain, Number 2 at 24 percent; Newt Gingrich at 8; [Massachusetts Gov. Mitt] Romney and [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [TN] both at 6; [Sen.] George Allen [VA] at 5. Dan Rather, was he really saying at that convention, "You Republicans, maybe I'm not right with you on abortion or on gay marriage, but I'm right with you on security."
RATHER: Exactly. Bull's-eye. And it was the right message at the right time. And it's one reason, I think, he rides at 29 percent in these polls. We all know that the polls go up and down. But Rudy Giuliani, if he's serious about running, I think would have to be taken seriously, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility he could wind up with the nomination. I know all the arguments about abortion and gun control and so forth and so on.
MATTHEWS: Right.
RATHER: But the Republicans -- they want to win, and there is the Hillary Clinton factor of saying, "Listen, she's strong, she's going to have a lot of money. We need a strong candidate, particularly one that can play well in the larger cities of the Northeast." And I wouldn't rule him out as a possibility at all.
MATTHEWS: So --
RATHER: And, the worst he may say to himself, "The worst I can do is be high up on the list for vice president, even if I don't become president."
MATTHEWS: Which is a great prize, if it's McCain.
MITCHELL: But you know --
MATTHEWS: You want to be on that ticket.
RATHER: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: Right.
MITCHELL: -- for about a couple of months in 2000, I covered Giuliani vs. Hillary in the Senate race in New York state. And tough, good candidate, but this was pre 9-11, and he really was not that great at the retail politics, strangely enough. He got himself in trouble on a lot of issues.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
RATHER: But 9-11 changed a lot of that.
MITCHELL: I think one of the problems - 9-11 did change things -- I think he might have some problem on the vetting. I think that early primary stage --
MATTHEWS: Yeah. But what about Kennedy before the Cuban missile crisis?
MITCHELL: Well, because -- because of Giuliani --
MATTHEWS: I mean, don't some people prove themselves in moments that matter?
MITCHELL: Yes. Plus the Giuliani partners -- remember Bernie Kerik, who he recommended to be homeland security chief, there were some contracts there -- they would have to really be gone through. I mean, it's a national campaign. It's a different process.
MATTHEWS: David, you -- I'm sorry, David, you know the anthropology of the Republican Party pretty well. And if they get out here in the field, and Rudy gives good speeches, and he's up against McCain, who stays healthy, and you've got a cultural conservative like Mitt Romney or somebody out there -- or George Allen, can that be a three-way split? Can that end up being a real long-term fight for a nomination?















didn't do anything that any red blooded American wouldn't have done. He assesed damages, gave pep speaches, and even helped clear some rubble. If I were Mayor, I would have done these things too, and so would almost any one else. That is not a moment of "greatness." That was expected by the public, and goes without saying.
If you want a real guage of what kind of President Giuliani would be, go back and look at his record. Find out what he did and didn't do in his everyday position. Then base your decision on this and what kind of moral fiber he has displayed.
We have already learned that anyone can grab a blowhorn, stand on a pile of rubble, and talk tough. Now show us some substance.
You are exactly right. Giuliani is famous for being the person who was Mayor on 9/11. That's it. What did he do on 9/11 that was so "courageous"? Is it Ok to point this out even though he was Mayor on 9/11? Ann coulter says she made it acceptable to crititcize the harpie widows form NJ so why can't we point out that Guilani happened to be the mayor during 9/11 and thats all. He didn't run into any buildings. He was lauded for not accepting Saudi donations for 9/11 victims. However, did he criticze Bush for not repsonding to the Kobar towers attack once we realized 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Did he criticxe Bush when he allowed the Bin Laden Family special permission to leave the counrty after 9/11 when all other filghts were grounded? Was he being brave when he blaemd the troops for not guarding the weopons dump at Al Quaqua? Was Guiliani so brave when he could have served in Vietnam but didn't? What did Giuliani Do that was so brave on 9/11?
That St. Rudy also let Bush and Christie Whitman perpetuate the lie that the air in Lower Manhattan was not polluted after the towers fell. The three of them are a disgrace to the city and the nation.
He wants to paint Guilani like a flawless hero, and he blatantly disregards Mitchell's assessment. He seems eager to portray Republican presidential primary speculations as a contest between saints.
also has praised bush to the skies. imagine praising the guy who ignored every warning pre 9-11 and then took a month long vacation during which he met with none of his advisors on terrorism. this during what the 9-11 commission said was the period when "the system was blinking red".
...do you have a discussion about Rudy Guiliani for president...
...AND bring up Hillary Clinton...
...and SPECIFICALLY talk about "vetting" him during the election...
...and NOT MENTION HIS MARITAL PROBLEMS!
Every one of those folks on that panel - Matthews, Rather, Mitchell, Brooks - every one of them tut-tutted at some point about the Lewinsky scandal.
How is it possible to talk about Guiliani the candidate - against Hillary, no less - and NOT draw a comparison?
Rudy has a spendid opportunity.
Since he "can't keep it zipped" any more than Clinton (or a host of others), he has a problem with the Republicans. They cannot tolerate married guys who "get some on the side" ... and so they IMPEACH.
So Rudy could beat them to the punch, BEFORE the nominating convention. He could impeach HIMSELF, and lay out all the facts, all the women he bopped while married, whether they gave him hummers, how that colon cancer thing affected his busy love life, and DARE the "prosecutors" to convict him.
Once he's found "NOT GUILTY" in his pre-election IMPEACHMENT, he will be cleared and free of that albatross that is such a sore point with the Rightwingers. Plus, it would be a MEDIA BONANZA, with all the details of his love life on the evening news, day after day. Might even pull STARR back into service, to write up all the particulars and nasty little details, like good pornographers do.
Yup, Rudy could out-Clinton Bill Clinton, if he wished to. And the Republicans would ultimately forgive him all ... after all, their guys NEVER are held to the same standards as the EVIL ENEMY, the Dems.
it's not just the unzipped trousers. He has to lie under oath while answering a question that shouldn't be asked of him in the first place, about an act that he committed which wasn't illegal, because the trumped up charges won't stick.
I don't think Rudy will qualify.
Excellent points in every particular ... but NOT a problem for Rudy. See, he'd be running the IMPEACHMENT himself ... a PREEMPTIVE STRIKE against the "Moral" Rightwingers.
It might help you understand if you picture that scene in "LIAR LIAR" where Jim Kerry goes in the men's room and "kicks his own ass".
Hmmmm. "Kicking one's own ass" ... a Freudian Slip? Not "Kerry", but Jim "Carrey" in that movie.
IF it all weren't so sad I'd be laughing out loud.
Aw hell, truth is I am laughing out loud.
I was thinking the same thing and the reality is, despite Matthew's drooling over Rudy, is that he is not going to be President. If memory serves me right he had an affair while married and the Mayor of NY. Explain to me how the party of "morals" the GOP is going to nominate him again?
Giuliani showed his yellow streak when he dropped out of the 2000 Senate race against Clinton -- I mean, that coward just folded. And I sure would like to know more about Giuliani's marriage - how many weekends out of the past 208 were spent with the wife and kids, etc.
Propagandists likle Matthews only harm Trudy G's chances by glossing over the manifest and shocking moral shortcomings, and his, well, adulterous ways.
What I don't understand, is how these guys became 'THE FAMILY VALUES PARTY !"
Simple, Rick.
They just DECLARED themselves the family values party, & their loyal dogs in the MSM ran with it.
The Dems let them HAVE that label and have YET after all this time, have YET, have YET, have YET (do I make my point) tried to reclaim the "family values" thing. I'm telling you, as a life long Dem meself, that the Democratic party, or at least those who run it, are absolutely, by far, without a doubt, their own worst enemy.
"And I sure would like to know more about Giuliani's marriage - how many weekends out of the past 208 were spent with the wife and kids, etc."
Thanks for reminding me about the NY Times panty-sniffing excursion into the sex life of the Clintons this past year.
You are EXACTLY right - when will the NYT give Rudy the same treatment?
The Cons are getting like those parents with the ugly or untalented kids that overcompensate by telling them they're Yo Yo Ma or Brad Pitt, instead of just telling them they love them and do the best they can.
I caught failed- entertainment -reporter -who-now reviews -childrens-movies -while living-a -sham straight-marriage righty nutball Michael Medved today while doing some road time.
He said- I s**t you not- that GWBush will be remembered, 20 years from now, in Churchillian terms, for his clarity and understanding of the dynamics of the world.
I mean, compare him to his dad or something, give him a chance!
So Medved said, "GWBush will be remembered, 20 years from now, in Churchillian terms, for his clarity and understanding of the dynamics of the world."
Keep in mind, Medved has seen "Being There" with Peter Sellers and "Forrest Gump" with Tom Hanks.
In both instances, we witness the phenomena of the absolutely naive and clueless (simple-minded) stumbling into situations which are perceived and hailed by OTHERS as being brilliant and successful.
Medved realizes, better than most, that REALITY doesn't matter a whit -- that PERCEPTION rules the world. The idea of lionizing the inept through deluded perception is an old, old idea. I'll bet Medved is a fan of THIS Hans Christian Andersen classic:
[link to hca.gilead.org.il]
"The Emperor's New Suit"
The only "Churchillian" term that will be used to refer to GWBush is "not in any way, shape, or form like Churchill."
I just pray for the day that Bush is relegated to quietly attending CHURCH on a HILL and watching NASCAR on weekends so that he can't do any more harm than he already has. 2008 can't get here quickly enough IMO. :>)
"Sir, I knew Winston Churchill. I served with Winston Churchill. Mr. Bush, you're no Winstin Churchill." Mt Lloyd Bentsen(sic?) impresion.
we can look forward to 4 to 8 years more of swooning school-girl crushes out of Tweetie.
That is reason alone to vote against this guy.
Rudy Giuliani will so divide the Republican Party it won't be funny... or maybe it will be funny. With his pro-choice stand and his multiple marriages he will certainly be an anathema to the family values religious right. However, if, as a last resort, the Republican hierarchy has to throw the evangelicals under the bus in order to stay in power they would do it in a New York second. If Giuliani does get the nomination and the Democratic Party cannot produce a candidate as dynamic as Giuliani then the Dems are in big trouble because Giuliani will surely certainly get a significant crossover vote of moderates. It is conceivable that Giuliana could be our next President. Chris Matthews may be right about that. While I find it difficult to ever forgive Giuliana for the way he campaigned for Bush in the 2004 election in order to score points with the Republican Party, anyone would be a big improvement over George W. Bush and his neo-theocratic approach to government. Let's face it Bush has been the least qualified and possibly the most inept President in recent memory. And I'm in favor of any candidate who can break the strangle hold that the religious right now has in American politics.
I beg to differ. You say, "Let's face it Bush has been the least qualified and possibly the most inept President in recent memory."
"Recent memory?" How about EVER?
[link to www.bartcop.com]
I'm not one to argue, Tex. ;>)
Usually when I bring up the "Bush is the worst president ever" thing with conservatives, I get some babbling references to Warren G. Harding and US Grant. I then have to explain that doing nothing is not necessarily worse than doing the wrong thing. I think a ham sandwich would have done a better job than Bush, because it would have done nothing rather than the wrong thing.
Personally, Bush took over first place from Truman, in my book. And he hasn't even dropped a nuclear weapon... yet.
and rubbing his hands on the German chancellor's shoulders was the worst gaffe to date. everytime I picture her arms flying up I can't help but laugh out loud, oh lord help US!
Yes, I think so too! And I've heard often that you can indict a ham sandwhich.
Matthews is a kissass, and can't be objective if he's in love with someone. He does the same thing with Delay. It's "man-love.
Just didn't want to hear what she said because it doesn't fit his fantasy world of how great the GOP is and how wonderful and what "maverick's" McCain and Guiliani are.
What a complete waste of space and time Matthews is.
A joke wrapped up in himself.