Matthews: Democratic victory will "look bad for the president and world diplomacy"
On the November 4 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, MSNBC host Chris Matthews claimed that if the November 7 midterm election "breaks bad for the president," the "world press, which is anti-American already, will jump on this and say [President] Bush has lost his control over his own government. It'll look bad for the president and world diplomacy."
From the November 4 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
JOHN SEIGENTHALER (anchor): Chris, we saw the president out again on the campaign trail today. What's at stake for the president in this election?
MATTHEWS: Control of his own government. If you look at the world press in the hours after this election is counted, on Wednesday morning, from Rangoon [Myanmar] to Reykjavik [Iceland], the headline's going to read -- potentially, if it breaks bad for the president -- "Bush loses control of government over Iraq issue." The world press, which is anti-American already, will jump on this and say Bush has lost his control over his own government. It'll look bad for the president and world diplomacy.
The Democrats are funded and run by Israel and Big Oil the same as the Repubs. Occidental Petroleum, recently kicked out of Ecuador for gross environmental abuses, is Pelosi's top funder. 40% of DNC funding comes from AIPAC.
What's this mean policy-wise? They'll keep killing arabs for the Crusade, keep trying to influence governments to let US corporations control their countries, and will do nothing for the American working class, other than tax us to kill people and make the rich richer....as they have been doing for the past thirty years.
But then issues don't matter in this childish game of "we good! they bad!" we call US politics. They got the masses thinking only two parties even exist and that one of them is somehow better than the other. Both sides lie, steal, kill, torture, they're even participating in the slow genocide of three million people.
But the fools will vote for them again. They get fed this soap operatic garbage from the news, who refuse to ask any questions and merely cheerlead the immoral acts of their masters and drool over every insult or scandal.
Why do I feel like the only adult in a nation full of children?
I think maybe your reaction to how politics are working itself comes of as a bit childish. Right now, even though both parties may not represent a good choice, it is better to have a balance of power between both parties rather than the current Republican government. Calling people fools and children for putting their hopes behind one party in hope of gaining some semblance of sanity in federal government once again is naive at best. Complaining about the system and name calling because you don't get what you want isn't going to make things change. The system has to be worked from the inside. I also think you ignore the fact that the Democratic Party has itself changed from the inside due to pressure from those who oppose the Republican government. And why do these people vote Democratic rather than third party? Because even though not everything we want will be accomplished, it will at least meet a middle ground. Fracturing and voting for a third party will only weaken the progressive voice and strengthen the Republican hold on power. Third parties can be brought into the system, but only with work and patience. Meanwhile, we have to be careful not to undermine the balance that is being worked for in this election. Complaining about it, and calling people names will just turn people off to your position.
Where's the balance when the choices are "evil" or "evil"?
"the only adult in a nation full of children." thank you for letting us breathe the same air.
You will go to the polls tomorrow and vote for the Democrats across the board, totally ignorant of their policy statements and their past actions, firm in a faith-based "reality" of your own devising that they are pure and noble and will help you. But when you read of another dead Palestinian or Iraqi child, when you read of another torture victim or another attack on the Bill of Rights from the Federal government, just remember this....it was your vote that killed that child, your vote that tortured that person, your vote that destroyed that section of the Bill of Rights.
This goes for you Republicans too.
My hands will be clean, my vote will be Green. I look at issues and the actions of the criminals in DC and see their falsehoods and their evil and I REFUSE to vote for them. So my hands will not be covered in blood tomorrow....you cannot say the same.
I guess the rest of us idiots just don't have your smarts. I guess we are all just ignorant fools who don't have a clue. Do you realize how pompous you sound claiming that others don't know who they are voting for but you know all. I am fully aware of the stand those I vote for have taken on the issues that matter to me and I would guess most on this site are also equally informed. I find the majority of posters on this site to be well informed on the issues...and I find some to be slightly unhinged in their rantings...guess which one you are.
you talk about my "faith based reality"? i'm not the one who keeps insisting that there is absolutely no difference between the democrats and republicans. only the truly ignorant could make that statement. and i think very few of us see the democrats as "pure and noble". but you make sure you run to the polls and vote green, and you'll be just like those people who helped put bush in office in 2000. nader got about 70,000 votes in florida, and by the way, broke his pledge not to campaign in states where the vote would be close. [and yes i understand the people who voted in states that were overwhelmingly red.] just remember that it was all your purity and holier than thou righteousness that helped put two extremists on the supreme court. not me, but you.
"Blame the Voter"
when there are consequences to their vote. just like all the bush voters bear a responsibility. do you have a real argument? or just more stuff you picked up from rush?
yes, yes, yes....not a bit childish.......uncomfortable realism. there's many of us us who are mad as hell, and don't want to take it any more. long live the chomsky's, zinn's, goodmans, hartmann's, schecter's, etc. of this silly country, they (we) may yet change things, and this election could be a crucial first step in another Enlightenment. Here's hopin'.
I am so tired of mattews,carlsonand the rest of these people who if they even look at the poles they would realize that there is something going on with the people in this country and we are tired of the BS and tired of being told what to beleive and what to think about our current adminastration and the party followers in power as they say in the twelve step programs ending prayer"give us the strength to know the difference" I just hope that wednesday november 8th things wll change I know the spin is probably going to be deafing assuming that ther will be a Democratic majority elected in both houses of congress.If that dosen't happen we can pucker up and kiss our libertys GOOD BYE
"Matthews: Democratic victory will 'look bad for the president and world diplomacy' "
I think he meant to say that a Democratic victory will "look bad for the president [but would greatly enhance America's respect around the world] and [U.S.] world diplomacy [efforts]."
Yah, cuz Bush has done such a bang-up job.
... knows what he is saying or what he believes. If anything I think he will roll over for whichever party is in power. If the Democratic Party is able to pull off a sweep, Wednesday he’ll be pining over them and making positive comments on their agenda. But I don’t know, sometimes lately he has been giving the smack down to conservatives who follow Republican talking points, but he may just be trying to cover himself for whichever way the political winds blow.
MATTHEWS: Control of his own government. . . . Bush has lost his control over his own government.
Silly me, I thought the government didn't belong solely to the executive branch. I thought me and you were in there somewhere. In civics class, they taught me that only a dictator can lose "control over his own government," because only in a dictatorship will you find a government that one person can say is his own to control.
to Web Programmer: You may have passed your Civics class but you must have slept & drooled during your English class--it's "You and I"....
On Matthews: I would like to think that the world is atuned to the fact that if the Dems win back the House that this is how democracy is "suppose" to work regardles of whose is in whose pocket.
At this point, the outcome of this election, if the Dems pull this out, hopefully, cannot put us in a worse position than we already are.
On Matthews: I would like to think that the world is atuned to the fact that if the Dems win back the House that this is how democracy is "suppose" to work regardles of whose is in whose pocket.
Jinxer, The word is "attuned." "Suppose" should be "supposed." "Regardless" needs a second "s." Your first "whose" should be "who's," as in "who is." I would also put a comma after "House."
Other than that, though, a well-written comment and a well-made point.
Evergreen--I was trying to see if Webprammer would pick up on those errors but, apparently he was truly asleep at the wheel in class.....
.....good observation.
let your little grammar lesson speak for itself.
Census taker: Young man, where's your grammar?
Little boy: No, ma'am, she ain't here neither.
prig.
to Web Programmer: You may have passed your Civics class but you must have slept & drooled during your English class--it's "You and I"....
On Matthews: I would like to think that the world is atuned to the fact that if the Dems win back the House that this is how democracy is "suppose" to work regardless of whose is in whose pocket.
At this point, the outcome of this election, if the Dems pull this out, hopefully, cannot put us in a worse position than we already are.
Condescending prig.
Damn. Only a few months ago Chris Matthews seemed pretty fair but now he's a real douche. I won't watch his show anymore.
"The world press, which is anti-American already..."
Matthews seems to think the disapproval of someone that the rest of the world disapproves of is going to make us...look bad? Why? It shows we're trying to correct the problem, so that should help future diplomacy.
Countries that dislike Bush are going to hate America because Bush can't control the electorate? What the...?
Why would they be angry that he'd lost control of the Iraq issue here, when they already know he's lost control over the war itself? That should be good news.
This is the type of comment that is made by someone who equates Bush to America in their mind. It won't help Bush, true, but how it hurts world diplomacy...God only knows. Maybe he's just confused, but I can't figure out any positive way to read these comments as they are.
is what the US does to them.
The goverments play with peoples lives and homes as if it were a game of risk among thugs.
It is not the ruling members of state that have to bury their dead loved ones.
Those ruling members conspire and fight and backstab each other other to fight over a few resources and the people feel all the negative consequences.
Poor Matthews! He says "Bushes loses control of the government" - isn't the WH a separate form from the House and Senate? If he loses control of the government does that mean he has been acting like those leaders in other countries with no opposition that Bush wants to remove from power and give them DEMOCRACY? Hopefully it will look bad for Bush policies and the world will breathe a sigh of relief that there will finally be some sort of check and balance over the cowboy rhetoric that we have all been enduring for far too long.
first of all: 'bush has got the respect of the world for his diplomatic skills'. That's basically what he says, since his party losing this election would look bad for world diplomacy. Maybe it's the world's fault, the world simply has no idea how to appreciate his awesome diplomatic skills, when dealing with the world? My father has talked with diplomats here in the EU (and told me once about it), who confirm that a lot of EU leaders are completely exasperated with the undiplomatic, and very preaching tone and attitude of Bush. Clinton on the other hand, was much more knowledgeable about world affairs, bush mindlessly repeats what he's crammed, and doesn't listen nor care for other's opinions. I realise saying this really has little to no value as an argument, since it's impossible for me to back it up, but i found it interesting to hear this. second assumption: 'there is no difference between anti-US government and anti-American'. Kinda logical, since obviously, Matthews himself also doesn't have the capability to distinguish. But i would like to assure mr. matthews that afaik, european media at least have absolutely no problems distinguishing both, nor does the population. And although certainly not everywhere the case, in some places more than others, most people are also capable of distinguishing this, i think. third assumption (which has been mentioned before): 'opinion of the us population doesn't matter much, people voting for the opposition shows how weak we are'. Gosh, what can you say about that. I sincerely hope Matthews himself would see what is wrong in taking this assumption.
way to put anyone on the defensive.
When someone says something against US poilics, call them anti-american or anti-soldier or ask them why they hate everyone.
Similarly with Israel. Anyone that critisizes them is labeld anti-semitic.
You will automatically have them on the defensive trying to defend themselves from claims they never made.
People who use this tactic belong to the scum of the earth.
First of all: 'bush has got the respect of the world for his diplomatic skills'. That's basically what he says, since his party losing this election would look bad for world diplomacy. Maybe it's the world's fault, the world simply has no idea how to appreciate his awesome diplomatic skills, when dealing with the world? My father has talked with diplomats here in the EU (and told me once about it), who confirm that a lot of EU leaders are completely exasperated with the undiplomatic, and very preaching tone and attitude of Bush. Clinton on the other hand, was much more knowledgeable about world affairs, bush mindlessly repeats what he's crammed, and doesn't listen nor care for other's opinions. I realise saying this really has little to no value as an argument, since it's impossible for me to back it up, but i found it interesting to hear this.
Second assumption: 'there is no difference between anti-US government and anti-American'. Kinda logical, since obviously, Matthews himself also doesn't have the capability to distinguish. But i would like to assure mr. matthews that afaik, european media at least have absolutely no problems distinguishing both, nor does the population. And although certainly not everywhere the case, in some places more than others, most people are also capable of distinguishing this, i think.
Third assumption (which has been mentioned before): 'opinion of the us population doesn't matter much, people voting for the opposition shows how weak we are'. Gosh, what can you say about that. I sincerely hope Matthews himself would see what is wrong in taking this assumption.
because they worked out this system of balances and staggered elections to make sure there was always a check on one branch or another. bush is not the country. try and remember a few years back, mr. matthews, when we were somewhat looked up to and respected, even if we did screw up at times. the thing that has lead to such a loss of prestige for us is the fact that we "elected" a know nothing nobody to begin with, a man utterly unqualified for the office, and then given four years of his screwing up, we put him in again. as a british headline said in 04 "how can 57 million americans be so dumb?" the democrats are certainly nothing great, but compared with bush, they are like night and day. i think a "defeat" for bush could only help our image.
Turns out our system of government is vulnerable to major abuses -- but we basically had to get [a] a bunch of lying, thuggish, damn-near-sociopathic criminals hell-bent on seizing and maintaining power, [b] enablers in both political parties too cowardly to stand up and do the right thing because of [c] political advisors who weigh everything in terms of losing the least votes, [d] mass media which can spread fact, fiction, lies and innuendo pretty much instantly, and [e] a lobbying industry who only work for the bottom-line profit of their corporate masters.
Under these circumstances, I'm surprised they haven't tried to go feudal. Maybe 2012.
The way they carve up the voting districts to give each party total dominance over district populations. The way that US Senators, once agents of their home State governments, now lord it over their States. It's proto-feudal, much like the Roman system near the end of the empire.
Rest of the world knows what a disaster bush has been. If dems gain control of congress it would signal to world that we are rational, reasonable people. It would be celebrated around the world, even by our allies. Do we have any left? World is waiting for '08 to start world diplomacy again. Cmon Matthews pull it together.
the other would be to show the world you are not like them and haul their asses in front of courts.
Preferably the international warcrimes court. If we can do it to Saddam, we can do it to those who supported him. Rumsfeld and the hole batch.
Then, and only then, would the world think you honestly mean it.
Otherwise it will be the same 'we don't do wrong'. As if the new Iraq goverment would never have tried Saddam.
that THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION posted detailed plans for NUCLEAR WEAPONS on the "INTERNETS".
When Tweety sez: "It'll look bad for the president and world diplomacy", he's either flipping or flopping - I've lost track, so I'm not sure which it is.
He reminds me more and more of a cat in heat - unpredictably rolling this way and that, hissing, screaming and holding its butt in the air, eagerly awaiting the nearest thing with a tool to mount it.
Thanks.I wish I'd said it.
How embarrassing to think that American newscasters would be more concerned with "keeping up appearances" than cleaning house.
On the optimistic, positive side, how encouraging to see that more Americans are starting to see things as rational adults.
I can't think of a better message to send to the rest of the world ( and yeah, I do care what people think because I'm not 2 years old or a sociopath) than "Hey, World, we got dominated by the frightened zombies for a while, but we;re waking up now".
Every time I get to the MediaMatters website…there’s that ever-smarmy Christopher Mathews shilling mouthfuls of aberrant drivel. Perhaps if he would just bend over & “take one” from that grinning ape, he could then happily croak with a grin on that pasty puss of his. Then we can begin to correct all the wrongs that insipidly dumb simian foisted upon our country.
One must first assume "that grinning ape" isn't the reason Gannon was spending so much time at the White House . . . and that the ape in question hadn't lost the capacity about the same time Laura resumed her alcohol-and-tranquilizer-induced somnolence . . . and that Chris(sy) isn't already taking on a regular schedule . . .
coming from Tweety's mouth . . . after all, he's the same idiot who once suggested that breaking the law "may be part of the job of being President" . . .
What diplomacy?
Attention Deficit Disorder. It would explain the bizarre exhibitions that he so consistantly treats us to. He can't keep his throbbing brain focused on any particular thought for more than a few minutes (or seconds) at a time.
A couple of days ago, while discussing the presidential chimp's reading habits... a strange topic for a confirmed functional illiterate'... Tweetie asked if Dubya' finishes the books he (supposedly)reads. Tweetie then admitted that he personally NEVER finishes the books HE reads.
Finishes books? How often is he even capable of allowing his guests to finish an ANSWER? His mind's focus seems to be ricocheting all over the f*cking STUDIO! He can't seem to follow what his guests are saying, & so he spits out an often unrelated question to the topic that they are attempting to tackle.
Maybe this (ADD) explains why he so often contradicts his own positions from one day to the next. He can't REMEMBER one day's epiphany ten minutes later. Maybe Tweetie is actually a figure in desperate need of our understanding.
Just as Rush is so often OVER medicated, so is Tweetie UNDER medicated. He needs Ritalin... & he needs it BADLY. So, be more generous in your judgements about him. Tweetie could be your own hyperactive 7 year old.
Its not his fault. He can't help having a defective brain. He is simply a victim of biology, more to be pitied than scorned.
Or maybe he's just an assh*le.
What is Matthews smoking? The US lost all of its focus on diplomacy, and has little or no clout respective to the International community. Poll after poll indicates, unequivocally, that the world opinion is massively against this Admin. and its policies. So anything that the Dems. do, will certainly be an improvement. Someone should tell Tweety that he should not wear his Pro-Bush badge on his chest.
Q: "What's at stake for the president in this election?" A: "Control of his own government."
Since when is it the President's government? It is supposed to be the people's government. It is this kind of attitude that is the problem.
...when she appeared on his talk show and declared that if somehow the Republics held onto congress the world would erupt with negative reaction - believing that the American people were beyond hope.
that's the whole point, isn't it?
The president is doing a bad job of world diplomacy. A vote for Democrats is a vote against the president's bad handling of world diplomacy. Ergo, if the president loses control of his government, it will indeed look bad for him and for his handling of world diplomacy.
Hooray
Tweety just looks at diplomacy as a manliness contest. If the Big Guy goes into the arena with fewer Strength points, it's bad for us. Even if he's a blithering incompetent, even if he can't convince anybody to do anything because he's gutted the military and the economy --even if he's despised--lose those strength points and diplomacy's in trouble!
Intelligence? Reasonable policies? Nah, strength!
Speak softly and carry a reasonable policy?
...It'll look bad for the president and *his* world diplomacy, I'd agree. I'll also be very glad for it. The short-term impact to the Executive's foreign policy efficacy seems well worth the trade of preventing further long-term damage to our standing in the world.
Things already look "bad for the president and world diplomacy", because of the Bush Doctrine of bad decisions and bad leadership. That is why, as Matthews said, the world press is anti-American. Hey Chris, guess what, the whole of the Planet Earth hates our country, not just the press. When Bush showed up we stopped being the good guys.
Our country and much of the Planet Earth will be relieved and delighted to see Bush and his rubber stamp Congress lose at this election.
Matthews views the world thru Neocon colored glasses. He's only worried about how the president will look and he doesn't see it as a major improvement and a step forward for our country.
From Sam