Ignoring polling, Matthews claimed "[t]wo-thirds" of Americans say leave [Gonzales] alone
Discussing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' April 19 appearance at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys on that day's edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews baselessly asserted that "[t]wo-thirds of the American people say -- I mean, they don't like it, but they don't think he's [Gonzales] telling the truth -- but they say leave him alone." In fact, several polls have indicated that a plurality of respondents believe Gonzales should resign, while other polls show the public divided on the subject. During the program, Matthews also did not challenge the false assertion by guest David Rivkin, a Justice department official under President George H.W. Bush, that senators "did not talk about specific U.S. attorneys" with Gonzales during the hearing.
While Matthews asserted that "[t]wo-thirds of the American people say -- I mean, they don't like it, but they don't think he's telling the truth, but they say leave him alone," numerous polls have found that at least a plurality of respondents want Gonzales to resign, while other polls show the public divided on that question.
- An April 13-15 USA Today/Gallup poll asked, "Do you think Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should or should not resign over his handling of these dismissals?" Forty-one percent of respondents said Gonzales should resign, compared to 37 percent who said he should not, while 22 percent had no opinion.
- An April 12-15 ABC News/Washington Post poll asked, "Given this issue do you think Gonzales should (lose his job) as attorney general, or (remain in his position)?" Forty-five percent of respondents said Gonzales should "lose his job as attorney general," while 39 percent said he should "remain in his position"; 16 percent said they had no opinion.
- An April 10-12 CNN/Opinion Research Group poll asked, "Do you think Alberto Gonzales should or should not resign as Attorney General?" Thirty-eight percent of respondents said Gonzales should resign and 37 percent said he should not; 24 percent said they were unsure.
- An April 5-9 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll noted, "As you may know, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales first said that he did not discuss the firings of some U.S. Attorneys, but documents released showed that he had attended meetings and saw recommendations on the subject," before asking: "Based on what you know about the matter, do you think Alberto Gonzales should resign his post as Attorney General, or not?" Fifty-three percent of respondents said Gonzales should resign, compared with 29 percent who said he should not; 18 percent said they "don't know."
Matthews also allowed Rivkin to assert that the committee "did not talk about specific U.S. attorneys" with Gonzales and that the hearing "was all about generalities" and contained "very little substance." In fact, according to a Washington Post transcript of the hearing, senators questioned Gonzales about his role in and the reasons for the firing of several specific U.S. attorneys, including Carol Lam of California, H.E. "Bud" Cummins III of Arkansas, David Iglesias of New Mexico, John McKay of Washington, Margaret Chiara of Michigan, and Daniel Bogden of Nevada. Several of these firings were the subject of questions from multiple senators.
Later during the segment, Rivkin asserted, "Look, do you tell me when [former Attorney General] Janet Reno, in my opinion, everybody's opinion, seriously mishandled the Waco siege, was she pilloried like this?" Robert Raben, an assistant attorney general during the Clinton administration, noted that Reno "was pilloried like this by [Rep.] John Conyers [D-MI]," but Rivkin dismissed that notion, saying "I don't remember such hearings." In fact, the hearings did take place. A May 10, 1993, Time article described a portion of Conyers' exchange with Reno:
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Waco disaster last week, Reno found herself under fire from Congressman John Conyers Jr. The outcome at Waco, Conyers declaimed, was "a profound disgrace to law enforcement in the United States of America." As for Reno, he continued, "You did the right thing by offering to resign. And now I'd like you to know that there is at least one member of Congress that isn't going to rationalize the death of two dozen children."
Listening to Conyers' attack, the 54-year-old, 6-ft. 2-in. Reno thrust out her jaw and glared. Then, her voice quavering, she replied, "I haven't tried to rationalize the death of children, Congressman. I feel more strongly about it than you will ever know. But I have neither tried to rationalize the death of four ((Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)) agents, and I will not walk away from a compound where ATF agents had been killed by people who knew they were agents and leave them unsurrounded." Then she added, "Most of all, Congressman, I will not engage in recrimination."
Additionally, Matthews asked Rivkin, "Was this the biggest bad thing in the world, or is it a fundraising campaign for [Sen. Charles] Schumer [D-NY] and the Democrats?" Schumer is chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. Later in the program, Matthews noted evidence that the U.S. attorney scandal was more than an alleged Democratic fundraising campaign, citing "all these conservatives" -- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), conservative activist Richard Viguerie, American Conservative Union chairman David Keene, Reagan administration associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein, and Sen. John E. Sununu (R-NH) -- who "want [Gonzales] to go."
Matthews added, "But they're not part of the campaign committee of Chuck Schumer." But later in the program, during a discussion about the hearings with Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and the Chicago Tribune's Jill Zuckman, Matthews asserted, "To be very blunt and political, has Chuck Schumer had enough of this case? He's raised enough money on this for Democratic Campaign Committee, that there's not much more to get out of this stone?"
From the April 19 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: David, put it in perspective from your perspective. Was this the biggest bad thing in the world --
RIVKIN: Of course not.
MATTHEWS: -- or is it a fundraising campaign for Schumer and the Democrats?
RIVKIN: Pretty much. It's enormous hyperbole. Look at what they have not said. There was very little substance. They did not talk about specific U.S. attorneys. They did not say, "This email reveals some prohibited conflict or some prohibited reason." This was all about posturing. This was all about generalities. Everybody agrees that the back end stuff was handled badly, but they kept hammering at him to try to force him to admit that something was wrong.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Dana Rohrabacher, pretty conservative former Reagan speechwriter, congressman from California, wants him to go. Bob Barr -- he's hardly a moderate. He wants him to go. Viguerie wants him to go. Keene wants him to go. Bruce Fein, John Sununu Jr. -- all these conservatives want him to go.
RIVKIN: It doesn't mean that he -- that they are right. But more importantly --
MATTHEWS: But they're not part of the campaign committee of Chuck Schumer.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Did you see the latest polling?
RABEN: -- who cares about due process.
MATTHEWS: Two-thirds of the American people say -- I mean, they don't like it, but they don't think he's telling the truth, but they say leave him alone.
[...]
RIVKIN: -- and some mismanagement. Look, do you tell me -- when Janet Reno, in my opinion, everybody's opinion, seriously mishandled the Waco siege, was she pilloried like this? She said --
RABEN: Yes, she was pilloried like this by John Conyers --
[crosstalk]
RIVKIN: But I remember --
RABEN: -- the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
[crosstalk]
RIVKIN: -- taking responsibility for it, but I don't remember such hearings. It's unfortunate. It really is. There's nothing there. This is utterly smokeless crisis. There is nothing there.
MATTHEWS: OK.
[...]
MATTHEWS: To be very blunt and political, has Chuck Schumer had enough of this case? He's raised enough money on this for Democratic Campaign Committee, that there's not much more to get out of this stone?
ISIKOFF: Well, I don't think that --
MATTHEWS: Does he really want him to fire him?
More evidence of matthew's partisan hackery. The guy's a tool. Plain and simple.
This is another classic example of "Doing a Matthews."
Where he just babbles on and doesn't really know what he's saying, or what he's trying to say.
One thing you can count on: It's going to make Democrats look bad and the Cons look good.
This man is a total joke.
RIVKIN: It doesn't mean that he -- that they are right. But more importantly --
MATTHEWS: But they're not part of the campaign committee of Chuck Schumer.
Give Matthews a break. With one line, he debunked Rivkin's whole theory. Not the M.O. of a conservative hack, I think.
Now, scattered? Occasionally incoherent? Well within the bounds of reality.
Personally I never thought Matthews was a conservative ideologue. He isnt the brightest crayon in the box and his man crushes on an every changing list of Republicans is flat out weird but I dont see him as a rightwing koolaid drinker.
Indeed.
But he's ALSO not remotely a "flaming liberal", as many of my conservative acquaintances believe him to be.
Why? Because he worked for Carter 30 years ago?
Puh-leez...
No, I agree, he isnt within miles of liberal
I actually say leave Gonzalez there also, let this whole administration just stay until the day they leave on 1/20/2009. How much more damage can they do? At least a moron Attorney General is better than someone we know nothing about. We know what to expect from Alberto the moron.
"How much more damage can they do?"
10 to 1 odds they can and they will.
How much more damage can they do?
I really fear the answer to that question.
"How much more damage can they do?"
A lot more... particularly because they are as obstinate and set in their ways as they've always been. No "lessons learned" from this crowd. The country and the world will be better off when Bush and company are gone. Even if the best the Democrats can do for now is to "run out the clock" and continuously throw obstacles in the path then that's what Congress should do.
Gee,I don't know, Doris...how many clauses are there left in the Constitution?
For Matthew to allow this partisan dirtbag to come on his program, sit there, and tell America that "they didn't ask about specific U.S. attorneys"--and not respond to the lie--it's just a total disgrace.
rivkin: "...I don't remember such hearings"
Shouldn't that comment disqualify rivkin's opinions from serious consideration on this matter, as proving (at best) that he's ignorant, or (at worst) that he's a liar?
Nah, that is just the standardised lie for circumstances such as Rivkin or Gonzales or Lurita Doan faced: when confronted with an undeniable fact, don't remember that. Subsequently, Cheney will then deny it, but you get out without a provable lie under oath to worry about.
Is the press helping the Bush Administration run out the clock?
With the appointments of two Supreme Court justices and the use of government resources for partisan advantage, as well as the erosion of freedoms here at home and goodwill overseas, and last but not least a broken Iraq and an unstable Middle East, it will take several decades to undo the mischief that has been wrought by this most disastrous of Presidents.
Judging from the less-than-interested reaction of the media to obvious examples of Administration skullduggery like the Scooter Libby case and the U.S. Attorneys scandal, I get the sense that instead of providing the ultimate public service to the American people, the MSM will allow the Administration to sweep anything it considers damaging, embrassing or even criminal under the rug. There are two years left in this criminal Presidency. If the MSM lived up to its responsibility as part of the community and didn't turn away when crimes and misconduct are uncovered, the inevitable legacy of damage and destruction that George Bush will bequeath us might be mitigated.
Unfortunately, I don't think the MSM will ever come near such matters.
There is NO attorney scandal. They serve at the pleasure of the President and can be removed at ANY time. It is only a scandal because the demoncraps are whining and crying about it and the MSM will do anything for the left.
The scandal which you deny, "lies" in the lies under oath, the obstruction of justice, the tampering with our franchise. Further, it is evidenced not only by the testimony we have already heard, but also by the measures taken by the RNC to evade the Presidential Records Act and the Hatch Act, and the contradictions induced by those measures, with each of the aforementioned acts.
Sufficient, *I* think, to warrant far greater interest by the Corporate Media - but, then, money votes separately from mere citizens.
Hey, GOPLOVESTOSEEDEADAMERICANS, Keep telling yourself that an Attorney General lying to Congress is no big deal. Or that politicising the justice dept doesnt matter to anyone no matter WHAT the polls say. I am sure that it make sense to morons like you and perhaps you can convince some other simpleminded, brainwashed, koolaid drinkers. Good luck with that.
It sure seems that way. Or at the very least, they seem to give BushieCo the benefit of every doubt, even when there is obvious opportunities to directly and substantially criticize the ills which include the constant death of American soldiers.
This just in, Alec Baldwin berates his dry cleaner.
Does Matthews realize that in 60 years from now an inspiring writer director will want to do a documentary on Goebbel wannabes and use Matthew clips along with clips of many other Goebble lites and call this group Bushies further leaving the viewers wondering where were the Americans.
Were you people calling for Janet Reno to be fired after Waco? Or after the Elian Gonzalez debacle? The attorneys serve at the President's pleasure and can be removed at ANY time by the President. Alberto Gonzales did what the President asked him to do, nothing more nothing less. No illegalities took place so stop with the pseudo horror of it all.
Goody! The next time a Democrat president fires an US Attorney for not prosecuting enough Republicans, you can do two things, flyboy.
Shut. And Up.
Or will you decide then that using a US Attorney to expedite partisan warfare on the opposing party is a bad idea? My money's on this one...
Demsowndefeat: "Were you people calling for Janet Reno to be fired after Waco?"
There are two clear signs of an unsubtle mind: being the Supreme President for Life of the "Three's Company Fan Club" and using "you people."
By "you people" I mean the ones who have selective outrage for Alberto Gonzales, but said nothing when Janet Reno murdered 80+ people in Waco. The attorneys can be replaced for ANY reason. What part of any do you not understand?
The attorneys can be replaced for ANY reason.
No, they can't.
The fact that the attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the President" does not mean that it's OK for him to fire an attorney to interfere with an ongoing investigation.
Despite what Bush 43 (and Nixon 37) may think, the President is not this mystical potentate, imbued with the ability to make all acts legal simply by cleansing them with His holy Breath. He is a mere mortal, subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
Read the Constitution and the U.S. Code then come back and apologize. There were no attorneys fired while doing an investigation.
Hey, GOPWANTSAMERICANSTODIE
You are wrong again. Do you EVER know what you are talking about?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/blumenthal
In September 2006, just weeks before pivotal Congressional midterm elections, Paul Charlton, US Attorney for Arizona, opened a preliminary investigation into Republican Representative Rick Renzi of the state's First Congressional District for an alleged pattern of corruption involving influence-peddling and land deals. Almost immediately, Charlton's name was added to a blacklist of federal prosecutors the White House wanted to force from their jobs. Charlton is someone "we should now consider pushing out," D. Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez's chief of staff, wrote to then White House Counsel Harriet Miers on September 13. In his previously safe Republican district, Renzi had barely held on in the election. On December 7, the White House demanded Charlton's resignation without offering him any explanation
Tell that to Bud Crimmins.
Do your homework: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4447
Then apologize to him.
Well, there really wasn't much I could say about Reno (I was 5 years old at the time). But there's plenty I can say about Gonzales, so how do you deal with people like me?
"Janet Reno murdered 80+ people in Waco."
Whoa, tiger. You're starting to sound like Timothy McVeigh.
And "you people" is always pejorative. It is an absolute lumping and indicative of an undifferentiating mind.
BTW, what happened in Waco was lousy, but if all responsibility is borne by the head honcho, how many people has Bush murdered?
Hey, GOPWANTSTOSEEAMERICANSDEAD, not for ANY reason what part of you are flat out wrong dont YOU understand?
Waco was mishandled.
But show me anywhere in the world where an incident that involves the murder of four police officers doesn't end badly for those who fired the shots.
And how can anyone talk about the sanctity of the family and then refuse to turn a child over to a surviving parent after the death of the custodial parent?
Yea it's like a certain demoncrap president using the IRS to get back at people that rock the boat. But I know you liberal pinheads don't care about rules, laws, or the Constitutuion. No laws were broken in the firing of these attorneys, and no attorney was taken out while any active investigation was ongoing. So quit your whining and get on with your anti-American life.
It's okay so long as no laws are broken? Then it should sit just peachy with you if we continue to ask why this partisan corruption is given a free pass by the media. First amendment and all keeps it legal, yo.
DEMSOWDEFEAT You have no idea of what you speak. Take a look at your last sentance. If it wasn't yours what would you think about it, what does it say, can you parse it. You come across very angery and this is interfearing with your(possible) argument. Set back for a few. Before you launch again into holy battle agin usums. Check the info here you can probably find a fine argument on the attorney firings. If not as has been noted in many places except the major media. If upon questioning the A.T. had said that we don't have to tell why we fired them. End of story, he dosn't have to. In this case he ran off at the mouth about performance issues. As you might in their case. The departing attorneys had problems with this. This being news to them. Because of this the circus creaked and proceeded to go into assisgned motions. The real reasons concerning the firings is still to be told and may elude us. I could tell you my suspicions, however I believe you'd be more likely to focus on them for the purpose of venting. Your missing an opportunity on that path. We welcome debate. A string of insults shows nothing positive for your side of the argument. Get some info and actually be come apart of the discussion.
DoD(o)
"So quit your whining and get on with your anti-American life."
Tough debate and holding the government's feet to the fire is what being an American is all about. So take that crack and shove it in your ear. Hard to do, I know, with your head shoved so far up your rear.
And aren't you proud to hold your administration to the "nothing illegal" standard? Of course, we'd have to forget all the Republican Congressmen, Congressional and White House aides, and Repugnicant connected lobbyist wearing prison orange, wouldn't we?
Your selective memory is quite astonishing. When did the rule of law ever matter to a lib? Remember Al Gore's, "theres no legal controlling authority" rant about his ILLEGAL fundraising at a Buddhist temple? So if there is nothing illegal, there's nothing illegal.
Hey GOPWANTSAMERICANSTODIE, are you REALLY this stupid? I mean how far beyond your capabilities IS higher brain function anyway? Who wipes the drool off your face? Lying to OR misleading Congress IS a crime. YOU are lucky being a complete moron ISNT. The ReNABLAcans are the ones that are wiping out the constitution which you apparantly wouldnt know from toilet paper. Get back to your fascists R us meeting and dont forget that hood. We dont hate America, nor unlike YOU Americans. We however arent that fond of complete idiots, like YOU and Bush.
Solon, now I know who you are. You're the one they've got on tape soliciting teenage boys on NBC's "To Catch a Predator". You must be a member of NAMBLA the way you advertise for them. All you can do is start name calling when you can't refute something someone says. That really shows how "smart" you are. Get a life, and a JOB.
WWAAHHHHH, you are such a weak sister. You dont know anything about me. Just like the only things I know about YOU are based on what you post. Like you are a MORON. And you come in here with an insulting nick, insult us in every post then snivel like a little girl WWAAHHHHH, how dare you insult me. WAAAHHHH only incredibly ignorant conservatives like me get to insult people WWAAHHHHHH. Are you a six year old girl? Nah, a marginally bright six year old girl would at least ONCE make a cogent argument. All YOU do is come in here insult us then whine shamefully that we dont treat YOU with respect. You do know you are embarassing yourself with your abject stupidity dont you?
Thank you, Solon, for being willing to take some lumps for the home team in dealing with this person.
A few days ago I got a forwarded e-mail, with a slide-show presentation of photos from 9/11, and the following message:
"Our leaders are worried about global warming, and why prosecutors were fired even though it was legal. I haven't heard what their position is on getting the people who did this except for surrender."
My first thought, on reading it, was "this is even too stupid for Hannity to use." On the other hand, it really smacks of the mindset of our friend DemsOwnDefeat--do you suppose he does mass e-mail propaganda in his copious spare time?
You might be on to something. It seems about his speed.
But no commentary on how your boy (at GWB's "pleasure") performed under the scruntiny of a few questions? He seemed pretty "defeated."
The "I can't recall" dodge was first used by Jimmy Hoffa, when Congress was investigating corruption in the Teamsters. Every Teamster official who testified prior to Hoffa had taken the 5th on virtually every question. He fooled everyone who expected him to do the same, claiming (with a big grin) that he couldn't remember a thing.
Gonzo's in great company.
Hey GOPWANTSTOKILLAMERICANS, does that cover making misleading statements to Congress?
Matthews is a part of the "coarsening of America". Much like Jon Stewart's comments on the now defunct "Crossfire" the media is complicit in its handling of important information, for young and old alike. Ignoring polls is the least of it. David Ignatious of the WP last night caught Chris on this, told him he was "oversimplfying" Hillary's positions, and Matthews got defensive, eventually calling Ignatius basically a hawk, and how dare you criticize me. Matthews, like another person we know "dosen't do nuance". How irresponsible.