Matthews gushes over Ingraham's looks, book in which she writes about threat to power of "shared American culture" from porous borders
On the September 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews prefaced a question to right-wing radio talk show host Laura Ingraham by saying, "[L]et me ask you about something I loved in your book." He then asked: "Nowadays, you're pointing out that parents don't seem to want to have kids. There's a cultural stirring against having more than one or two kids -- even zero population growth doesn't seem to happen in a lot of places -- and I found that interesting. Why do you think that's going on?"
Matthews went on to say, "[T]he irony here -- and I want to be careful, without offending anybody -- but immigration is great for this country. You and I are all products of immigration, but ... it seems like people who are defending illegal immigration right now, a lot of liberals, don't like big families. So, the irony is, we have this big labor shortage. We have a population shortage. People aren't -- we aren't growing in our own numbers, so we need to bring in people, even illegally, or guest workers, or all these gambits that are being talked about, because we don't have an adequate labor supply -- at the same time, let's not have kids."
Matthews did not specify the portion of the book to which he was referring. However, the book's introduction includes back-to-back subheadings reading: "Family Matters" and "Where's the Fence?" The "Family Matters" section asserts: "The American family is besieged by a hostile culture, destructive government policies, and by our own selfishness," while the "Where's the Fence?" section claims: "Our national power and identity comes in part from our shared American culture and language. This power will continue to be eaten away if we don't stop the double-talk and defend our borders."
Matthews opened the interview with Ingraham by saying, "You are -- I'm not allowed to say this, but I'll say it -- you're beautiful and you're smart. And you've got a huge radio audience." When the interview ended, he asked: "Can I sing your praises?" adding, "I get in trouble for this, but you're great looking, obviously. You're one of the gods' gifts to men in this country. But also, you are a hell of a writer."
During the interview, Matthews also stated: "But it is interesting; all day long on this network and others, I'm seeing pictures of Britney Spears. ... [S]he is showing no talent. She's showing her body. She's obviously a good-looking young woman, wearing very little."
This is not the first time Matthews has commented on the physical appearance of a female guest. As Media Matters for America noted, on the August 10 Hardball, while discussing financial news, Matthews told CNBC's Erin Burnett, "[Y]ou're beautiful" and "[y]ou're a knockout." He closed the interview by saying, "It's all right getting bad news from you." A few days later, Matthews said he had been "kidding around," as Media Matters also noted.
From the September 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Laura, I'm holding your book in the air --
INGRAHAM: Yeah!
MATTHEWS: -- so that everybody can see this book. You are -- I'm not allowed to say this, but I'll say it -- you're beautiful and you're smart. And you've got a huge radio audience. OK?
INGRAHAM: Well, thank you.
[...]
MATTHEWS: But let me ask you about something I loved in your book.
INGRAHAM: Sure.
MATTHEWS: You know, I'm one of -- you're one of four. I'm one of five.
INGRAHAM: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: My wife's one of five. We grew up in families which are generally -- our Catholic families tend to have a large number of kids. I had a cousin with eight in the family. The Kennedys, of course -- Bobby Kennedy's family -- what were you telling me? Ten kids or something?
INGRAHAM: Ten.
MATTHEWS: OK.
INGRAHAM: Or 11.
MATTHEWS: Nowadays, you're pointing out that parents don't seem to want to have kids. There's a cultural stirring against having more than one or two kids -- even zero population growth doesn't seem to happen in a lot of places -- and I found that interesting. Why do you think that's going on?
INGRAHAM: Well, I think a lot of things have happened. For some reason, having a lot of kids in some circles has become a selfish act, and, to me -- I think of all my friends -- my friends the Sipolonis (ph) have nine kids, and I'm around them a lot. And it's a house that's filled with love and laugher and craziness and chaos.
But, since when is that selfish, to have a lot of children?
MATTHEWS: Right.
INGRAHAM: And it used to be everybody had a lot of kids. And I think if you want to have two kids, three kids, it doesn't -- you know, whatever, you know, works for you. But I just don't like it when I'm in a line for Shrek 2 with six of the Sipoloni (ph) kids, and I hear people whispering behind me, saying, "Oh, my God! I hope those aren't all hers."
I just laugh. I said, how did we get to this place, where having more little ones running around is a bad thing?
MATTHEWS: Well, it used to be you got your kids. You'd like to have boys, so you had somebody to cut the lawn.
INGRAHAM: Well, yeah. I mean, that's -- my mother was, like, glad she had me when she was, what, 45, 46, because she had someone when my brothers left town to collect the leaves and do all those -- that hard work.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
INGRAHAM: So, I was --
MATTHEWS: Well, the irony here -- and I want to be careful, without offending anybody -- but immigration is great for this country. You and I are all products of immigration, but --
INGRAHAM: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: -- it seems like people who are defending illegal immigration right now, a lot of liberals, don't like big families.
So, the irony is, we have this big labor shortage. We have a population shortage. People aren't -- we aren't growing in our own numbers, so we need to bring in people, even illegally, or guest workers, or all these gambits that are being talked about, because we don't have an adequate labor supply -- at the same time, let's not have kids.
INGRAHAM: Well --
MATTHEWS: It is an interesting sociometric overlay you've hit here.
INGRAHAM: Yeah, well, power to the people. That means you've got to have people to have power. And we're seeing, in Russia, Chris, they're actually paying people to have children. In Europe, the birth rate is so low that Europe is not going to reproduce itself, and so, Europe is ever dependent on immigrant labor and an immigrant workforce, and they're having trouble with assimilation in some quarters that, you know, I know you've talked about, so --
MATTHEWS: All right. You know what's interesting?
INGRAHAM: -- I just think it's something to celebrate children. I just --
MATTHEWS: People want to import labor and they love sex, but they don't like kids. Well, that doesn't surprise me, but --
INGRAHAM: Well, they're not convenient.
MATTHEWS: -- it is interesting; all day long on this network and others, I'm seeing pictures of Britney Spears. The only -- she is showing no talent. She's showing her body. She's obviously a good-looking young woman, wearing very little.
Oh, there it is. We have an excuse to play it again.
INGRAHAM: Oh, no, no. We're not showing it.
MATTHEWS: Please kill that.
INGRAHAM: No.
MATTHEWS: Please kill that.
INGRAHAM: No.
MATTHEWS: Please.
INGRAHAM: Done.
MATTHEWS: I did not do that as an excuse to show that again -- please.
INGRAHAM: No, I don't want the B-roll. They did that to me on the Today show.
MATTHEWS: I know they did it on the Today show. It seems like everybody --
INGRAHAM: A nightmare.
MATTHEWS: -- says they decry the coarseness of our culture, then they show Britney one more time.
INGRAHAM: Isn't this awful?
MATTHEWS: Tell me about it.
INGRAHAM: Isn't this awful? Let's show the pole dancing one more time. I mean, look, Chris, what -- NBC has made millions off of a show which is -- was an amazing show and is an amazing show called To Catch A Predator.
MATTHEWS: What's that?
INGRAHAM: To Catch a Predator.
MATTHEWS: Right, I know.
INGRAHAM: And why not "To Catch a Pornographer?" Because all the predators are the ones who are consuming all of this now instantly accessible porn -- 12 billion dollars a year adult entertainment.
MATTHEWS: OK. Can I sing your praises? I get in trouble for this, but you're great looking, obviously. You're one of the gods' gifts to men in this country. But also, you are a hell of a writer. Your books always do well. Your radio show -- I just looked at the numbers -- you are up there, one of the top most-listened to radio shows.
Yessssss. We must encourage the Master Race to have more children! Be Fruitful and Multiply...it's your duty to the Fatherla....I mean the Homeland!
Way to really, really, really go off the deep end.
How ridiculous this item's placement here is? So, according to MMFA, Matthews isn't allowed to personally compliment any of his guests? Try to fit that one into some conservative misinformation category, or a serious discussion of furthering any agenda except MMFA's obvious one, that they despise Chris Matthews.
Tommy,
I think its here because so many people think that Matthews is a liberal and what liberal would gush at someone like Laura?
Also, I think its here cause its dang creepy (KIDDING about it being here for that reason, not kidding that its creepy).
Has Matthews ever gushed over a liberal like he has over Ann Coulter and Laura? I am not saying that for any reason other than my own edification.
Matthews can gush over cream cheese for all I care, let him do it, it's his show and if he wants to compliment this one or that one, who cares?
Does mean we will get another comprehensive study here comparing Matthews' gushing numbers with conservatives vs liberals > "The Lopsided Unequalness of The Chris Matthews Gushing Show"
Tommy,
Did you read the first part? I get into a lot of discussions with people who claim Matthews is a liberal and very, very biased.
I am not suggesting a study, but I am curious. And of course its his show, but I expect (and I know I shouldn't) analysis and thought when I tune in.
And you get it, read Jeter's post. I don't watch Hardball much but I absolutely trust what Jeter says about it since, I believe, he watches regularly......and he says Matthews is tough on Bush quite often.
And Tommy, I get that he is tough on Bush, but that does not make him a liberal or a conservative in my mind. I was just wondering if he ever had this over the top type of reaction with any liberal guests. Nothing more, nothing less.
As I said, who he does or does not gush over is irrelevant, for me at least. It's the substantive portion of his questioning that is far more important to me, not his silly small talk endearing terms that have many here up in arms.
Let's just ignore all of the gushing praise, because we know that after Chris has stopped smooching her behind he going to get down to the really tough questions. You might also want to think about how an un-attractive guest author might be treated. Are they going to receive the same treatment? I would also mention that it isn't very professional and would question if he is being objective in his interview given his crush on Laura.
This really shouldn't be taking place on this show. Pointing out that he is hard on Bush, really isn't a defense. If Chris Matthews was a real journalist then he would strive to give the same treatment to all of his guests regardless of political affiliation.
Must be Tweety's not gettin' any. Gives new meaning to "I tawt I taw a puddy tat."
"Matthews can gush over cream cheese for all I care, let him do it, it's his show and if he wants to compliment this one or that one, who cares?"--Tommy
This is simply fascinating. You don't care who Matthews gushes over since "it's his show." But you complain constantly about the items MMFA points out, even after we've told you "it's their web site."
Wow. Therefore, misinformers are granted a broader range of liberty than those pointing out their misinformation. Wow.
This is simply fascinating. You don't care who Matthews gushes over since "it's his show." But you complain constantly about the items MMFA points out, even after we've told you "it's their web site."
You know, I was thinking the exact same thing.
Let me answer you this way.
I guess that would be like calling out an MMFA villian of the day for some insulting insensitive comment highlighted here, and in doing so directing an insulting insensitive comment of your own to that very person.......what is fascinating is how many of you rationalize that little conundrum, but it is the same thing, regardless.
As for my comments, they are my opinions, if you disagree with them, then I am flattered.
So basically you have no real counter point, and your attempting to craft a clever cover up response. Gotcha!
This is just my opinion of course so feel not to reply.
Pumpkin, I have gone from "one of your favorite posters" to having a real target on my back, huh?
Your cute little attempts to ingratiate yourself to me in order to position yourself some way fell kind of flat, didn't it? Well, don't worry, it was pretty lame.
Have a wonderful evening.
Wheeew!!! [I thought he was mad at me]
:-)
Morning Sunshine,
I know that your ego usually gets the better of you T and I really do hate to burst your bubble, but your my favorite posters on this site for reasons that are not exactly complementary. I find it very fascinating how far your willing to go in order to prove yourself right or what your willing to say in order to discredit or attack other people on this site. It's kind of like watching a car crash.... I don't think I've ever seen a person that is so ready, willing and able to go to the lengths you do in order to avoid admitting that your wrong. You must be fun at family functions. It's hillarious and very telling that you actually thought for a momement that your opinion or validation actually matters.
Besides Thomas I thought I was so beneath you that I didn't even merit a response? Now your repeating things back to me that I said to you weeks ago ( I feel so warm and fuzzy inside)
So what happened to all the posts from last night? Please don't tell me Sundog got banned!
That would really stink, I liked SD posts. I'm sure that someone "flagged" them and I really wonder who that might be?
If you're responding to my post above (September 13, 2007 04:13:17 PM) I was simply pointing out your hypocracy. Your answer would imply that your hypocracy is just your opinion. . .er,. . . I think ?
Rick,
You can't even see the obvious right before you, can you? Let me help you. The reason Matthews' gushing is irrelevant to me is the same reason that when MMFA posts something ridiculous about some commentator, that is equally irrelevant, therefore my "why is this here" comments are completely consistent for both.
If you can't get it, I can't help you anymore.
You said it's his show, he can say what he wants. I'll buy that.
We've said, 'It's MMFA's web site, they can say what they want." You have often complained about that.
How is that NOT hypocritical?
Please show me where I have ever said MMFA can't put up what they want? Please, I am waiting. Commenting on a thread's validity is one of the functions of a comments section....sorry you can't see that.
"Please show me where I have ever said MMFA can't put up what they want?"--Tommy
I was careful NOT to say that you said that, because I don't think you have. I said you complain about MMFA ie: 'why is this here?'
Then I asked how is this not hypocracy? Just admit you are being a wee bit hypocritical here (since you are) and I'll acknowledge that we're all human, and s--t happens.
C'mon Tommy, that would be a great start to my weekend. :-)
Rick,
If your weekends depend that much on my replies to your posts, then by all means, I don't want to be responsible for you having a lousy weekend, (3 day, must be nice?).......so whatever you want from me, you got!
Just a good start to the weekend (found out I have to do a couple of bids tomorrow, not really work).
Repeat after me: I was a wee bit hypocitical, sorry, I'll be more careful in the future.
[Thanks Tommy, you're a peach]
Well, maybe this will get you through your weekend - your assessment is one of hypocrisy, even a wee bit, and I have acknowledged that you are entitled to your assessments.
If I were to respond the way you are instructing I would be disingenuous, and I am alrready defending that one enough here.
Now you just forget about me if you can and enjoy your long weekend.......Cool?, ;)
Tommy........
I hope you're laughing WITH me over this exchange, because I thought it was funny as heck.
yeah, matthews is tough on Bush NOW although he gushed over him & his codpiece earlier during the whole "mission accomplished" phoniness.
His problem is a real lack of judgment about who is praiseworthy. Ingraham's comments over the years have been designed to fog up rather than illuminate the truth.
I agree about Matthew's gushing over Ingram's looks, it doesn't belong in this post.
Otherwise, he's plugging and giving airtime to a hypocritical righty who lacks credibility. I think that's a great way to forward the conservative agenda, abeit a small one.
So, now even giving airtime to a conservative author/talk show host is furthering the conservative agenda? Perfect, let's just have one political side, the left, 100%, 24/7, on these cable chat shows, that's really good for substanative discussions of issues.
No, I clearly said "a hypocritical righty who lacks credibility".
Well, I have some of my disagreements with Ingraham, but your description of her is your own, I don't share it. She has credibility for many, as for her being a hypocrite, that is also your opinion.
Her hypocrisy is not subject to opinion, it's a fact.
I am not getting into an argument over one pundit's opinions, I could care less actually. You dislike her and call her a hypocrite, fine. It's still an opinion.
No, it's not, it's a fact.
Pete,
I guess you are right. It is a fact that you have your opinion.
Now you too stop or I'll send you to your rooms.
too stop? *sigh* Sorry.
I agree with Pete. Therefore, 2 out of three believe she's a hypocrite. Must be true.
How about this opinion: I think she's a warmongering, anti-minority, anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-constitution b*tch.
And when Matthews says she's beautiful and smart, my opinion is only when compared to Coulter.
That's cold. If I had a choice, I'd bend Laura over before I let Ann have at my best enemy's twig and berries.
Those are the only choices?!? eeeEEEooowwwww
So one of the outstanding comments I saw was Chris' claim that liberals don't like big families. Is that a proven fact?
MATTHEWS: "Nowadays, you're pointing out that parents don't seem to want to have kids."
Then they wouldn't be parents in the first place, would they?
Matthews: "There's a cultural stirring against having more than one or two kids."
I can only speak to this from my personal experience. My choices are to remain at two children, be able to afford the daycare, and save for our two childrens' education, -OR- have one spouse quit their job, we sell the house, move into an apartment and pay more for our family's medical care because we'd lose double coverage.
MATTHEWS: "People want to import labor and they love sex, but they don't like kids. Well, that doesn't surprise me, but --"
INGRAHAM: "Well, they're not convenient."
Not convenient to people like Laura Ingram and Ann Coulter. Apparently, marriage and all that other value voters stuff is inconvenient to them as well, but they are more than qualified to lecture us about it.
I wonder if Coulter and Ingrahm live together...hummmm?
Thanks, you just ruined my favorite porn tape, "Eating at the Y".
Pete,
That's what I was wondering Laura isn't married either is she? So why is she lecturing people about having “traditional large families"? I know the book isn't intended for me an my progeny, I'm sure my progeny is probably the impetus for writing this book. I have heard many conservatives in some form or another bemoan the fact that the people of European descent aren't having as many children as non-Europeans. Now It's too late for the middle aged Ingram and Coulter to be fruitful and multiply but they had better write a couple of books discouraging young conservative blonds to adopt the career path that they seem to enjoy so well and get busy making some alabaster skinned babies.Lynn,
Laura seems to forget that we are being told that it takes $100,000 per child to raise them properly. Who can afford a large family any more?
That's the truth. Snoop I had one kid 28 years ago and I thought raising her was expensive. My cousin told me how much she spends in child-care for her three kids that are ages 4, 5 and 8 and I almost fainted. It's the equivalent of some folks annual income in fact it's the equivalent of the annual income of two minimum waged workers.
Maybe Laura is being disengenious in her argument. I know she prefers women take on the traditional role of barefoot and pregnant, maybe she likes keeping the classes financially seperated as well.
Minimum wage is no way to raise a family. I have always thought of it as a way to BREAK into the workforce.
Illegal Immigrants. Hell, they put 20 people into a house. That is the fact jack!
And they live well and go on to get degrees living that way, right? You are sooooo funny!
You asked a question, is my answer that off base?
YES
Really? Snoop asked how it would be possible to raise several children. Answer: put 20 people into a 2 bedroom house and rent becomes real cheap along with other expenses.
Yes, because "raise them properly" was the premise of my post. Fun is good, but if you were cracking a joke, it wasn't obvious.
I was not joking in my initial answer. If I am wrong, prove it.
You didn't ask if your answer was wrong, you asked if it was off base. I replied; "YES."
I'm sure you can figure out the reasons it was off base.
Well I don't know that determining the size families is Conservative or Liberal thinking.
I'd figure it's often financial. Or lack of time one can give to a family. Or just a personal preference.
I've no problem with Matthews on air flirty behavior. It's not terribly professional, but this isn't the Network Nightly News...it's Political cable programming. If Ms.Ingraham isn't insulted or offended, then it's not worth ringing ones hands over.
It's really a shame that MMFA has such distain for Chris Matthews. Yeah he fawns over Rudy, flirts with pretty ladies...BUT this guy is one of the toughest commentators I've seen/heard on the Bush administration & the Iraq War.
I'd suggest if you don't watch Hardball you give it a shot. You might find yourselves overlooking some of Matthews foibles, when you see how he goes after Bush & the neocons.
Jeter, you've got to be kidding. Matthews keeps a set of kneepads nearby just in case Bush, Delay, or any of the other criminals stop by, and he hates Democrats.
After a guest commented about certain immigrants being honest, hard working, etc., Matthews replied "Sounds like republicans." As if to say that Democrats are dishonest and lazy.
Really, you've got to be kidding.
Rick, do you watch Hardball?
If you don't then I'll figure you are basing your opinion solely on what MMFA cherry-picks and displays here.
Try watching Matthews for a week...
I'm sure you won't agree with him 100%, but I think you'll find he's not anything like he's portrayed here.
Jeter, I do watch Hardball 2 or 3 nights a week, depending how busy I am. And I rarely miss his Sunday show.
Oddly, I've found him to be more balanced on his Sunday show. I've thought about this, and I think it's because he has other journalists appear on Sunday, and he can't get away with the BS (on either side) in front of them because he could end up looking really stupid.
I've seen him critically question the Bush ad,inistration, but he seems to do it more from a 'devil's advocate' position. Hardly as an actual critic, as he seems to do with Democrats in general.
The quote I provided above was when I was watching him live one evening. I don't remember if it was even posted here (maybe it was) but it touched a nerve as I worked very hard that day, and was drained. I emailed, and finally hand wrote a letter to MSNBC. So far, in vain.
From what I've watched (first hand) I'm sticking with my post.
And tonight (Friday) I have to admit that Matthew seemed to be all over Bush like ugly on an ape (that seems fitting).
I watched Chris regularly for several years. I liked his delivery, I felt he read his audience well and could deliver good punch lines where adequate. I started loosing respect for him during the last election, he did not provide that same fair and balanced analysis he was known for. After a few months it became clear he changed his style for the worse.
So she looks good, so what. Is there really that much hate toward Chris Matthews because some times he dares to question both sides? Unlike Olbermann , O'Reilly, Carlson.
Do you EVER make a post that doesnt slam Olbermann? We GET that you are obsessed by him. You seem 20 minutes away from a TRO.
Matthews has been drinking again! First Ingraham is NOT beautiful, by far outside and especially inside. I was switching the channels and I wanted to hear what the hate monger had to say, and of course, she didn’t disappoint. It was interesting that Ingraham was saying why don’t we have larger families? First, not all having a large family these days takes a whole lot money. Second, Ms Ingraham how many children do you have? NONE!
Matthews is a suck up! He was wrong on the war and is trying to back track by saying he was questioning the administration back in 2003 . NO, you didn’t. Video is a horrible truth teller, when you lie Chris.To JETER2 and TOMMY too...
It's not just how Tweety slobbers (even more) over Ingraham, it's that he does it knowing (one would think) the positions she takes in her writing and on the airwaves.
Re-read (or maybe read for the first time) the third paragraph in this piece - maybe it'll change your mind.
Maybe not.
She faught Cancer and God Bless her she seems to be doing well, ever think that is why he is saying this?
fought. sorry
She fought cancer--so what? She won--Good!, but, So what?
Does this give her liscense to bleed the public?
Is she allowed to spread whatever lies she wants because she had cancer?
Sue.
I certainly hope he wasn't being nice to her just because she had breast cancer. I am a breast cancer survivor and so is our fellow poster Pearl. Now beleive me I wouldn't like it if someone fawned over me and was disingenously nice to me just because I had breast cancer. I beleive most cancer surviors would be very annoyed if someone were doing that to them.
I would hope Chris and everyone else would focus on what causes cancer. We had a presentation at work today on our quarterly performance, part of the presentation was about cancer awareness. Amazing statistic that 1 in 7 women get breast cancer.
October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I just received a magazine that is selling some pretty fly pink gear in "honor" of it, now they will donate a portion of the proceeds to the American Cancer Society which is a good thing of course. But actually if one wants to make a donation that will be specifically directed to breast cancer research the Susan Komen Foundation is the most appropriate orgnization for that IMO.
That was the presentation - the Susan Komen foundation! My company will have several fundraisers and a marathon to raise funds as well. Last year my company matched donations dollar for dollar against every other company in Austin. We hope to improve on that record this year.
Drafted,
I read it the first time.
"Family Matters" section asserts: "The American family is besieged by a hostile culture, destructive government policies, and by our own selfishness,"
Where's the Fence?" section claims: "Our national power and identity comes in part from our shared American culture and language. This power will continue to be eaten away if we don't stop the double-talk and defend our borders."
I happen to be in agreement with both excerpts.
"The American family is besieged by a hostile culture, destructive government policies, and by our own selfishness,"
I agree with this statement also. I think we strongly disagree on who the villians are.I think we strongly disagree on who the villians are.
Probably. You think all the "villains" are Conservatives. I believe BOTH Conservatives & Liberals have had their share of villains, & can be blamed for bad policies that have hurt families & our country.
Maybe we don't disagree so much. Without getting into a long debate (my fingers can't take it) tell me if you agree with these "villians":
1) RW Talk radio; Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage
2) GWBush administration
3) Fox "News"
Got 3 liberal ?
No, there is not enough OUTREACH for liberal talk radio. Not a fair comparrison.
Democtrats - Party of BAD ideas.
Republicans - Party of CRAPPY ideas.
A Dem stands up in Congress and shouts, " I got a bad idea"
The Republican stands up and shouts, " And I know how to make it crappier!"
-Lewis Black
I am in agreement as well Jeter.
I think one point about all this that MMfA and everyone else is missing is that the job illegal immigrants are taking are not being held by citizens because of junky pay and benefits, not because there are literally not enough workers. Latino culture, one that advocates several generations living in one household and that despises waste, is more compatible with these sorts of jobs than Americans are.
Good point, Dex. In fact, Ingraham backs you up;
INGRAHAM: "... my mother was, like, glad she had me when she was, what, 45, 46, because she had someone when my brothers left town to collect the leaves and do all those -- that hard work."
That's gotta be a tough one for conservatives, they want to get rid of the Mexicans, but then people are going to call them selfish for creating their own cheap labor.
God damnit. The Dems are just as much to blame for Illegal Immigration as the Republicans. KICK THEM ALL OUT!
Since when have Americans not wanted to be Carpetners, Truck Drivers, Landscapers, Service Counter Help ect ect.
"Jobs Americans wont do" - A message brought to you by a GREDDY agends.
I understand your frustration, but do you understand that a large portion of those jobs, agriculture and construction in particular, require a mobile base? I've seen it for years now. Workers clean one farm, then move on to the next farm. They'll hit 30 farms by the end of the growing season by moving from county to county. I am not calling my fellow americans lazy, but I am pointing out that we like to settle down in one area and have a job that doesn't require a lot of movement. Do you disagree with that?
In regards to the farming industry I agree.
But this isn't the first time that Matthews has acted inappropriately over a female guest - he even did it just a week or two ago. He's seriously inappropriate with his comments and not just with his female guests. Its incredibly unprofessional and I'm glad that people are calling him out on it. I normally don't have a problem with Matthews' comments, no matter how off topic and ridiculous they may be - this is something that I think is crossing a line.
You'd better call Laura Ingraham then and clue her in on what should offend her, because she promptly thanked Chris Matthews for his "inappropriateness" towards her.
The viewing audience has every right to be offended by what takes place on the show even if the guest is not.
Let me take a small stab at WITH.
Chris never calls Laura on exactly what she’s written in her book. He allows her to sugar coat her statement and make it appear like she’s just in favor of Americans having larger families like in the old days when in fact she writes something with a lot more bite , The "Family Matters" section asserts: "The American family is besieged by a hostile culture, destructive government policies, and by our own selfishness,". Chris allows Laura to speak regarding her notion that Americans are not having large families because the are selfish. Instead of spending his time gushing over Laura and her looks, maybe he could ask her what “hostile culture“ is she referring to and exactly what does “hostile culture” mean regarding families. When she writes the following in: "Where's the Fence?" section: "Our national power and identity comes in part from our shared American culture and language. This power will continue to be eaten away if we don't stop the double-talk and defend our borders" she sound a lot like Bill O when he spoke about immigration and he referred to white culture or something like that. Considering some of the things she's written his interview time could have included a lot more questions and a lot less gushing over her looks.
MATTHEWS: -- "it seems like people who are defending illegal immigration right now, a lot of liberals, don't like big families."
Yes, Chris, those liberals have a seething hatred of big families.Or, they've noticed that cultures that are still regularly have these big families have to go to other countries to find jobs.
MATTHEWS:"So, the irony is, we have this big labor shortage. We have a population shortage."
Yes, Chris, a labor and population shortage.Those are both things that exist in this country.We also have a surplus of Unicorns, and here in Southern California, an alarming shortage of traffic.
Somebody better notify the Liberal Kennedy’s about all those dang children they had and are still having. I believe Maria Shriver has about five doesn't she? The truth is rearing children and providing for them WELL is an expensive endeavor. I have a cousin who has three children. She and her husband both have to work to provide for those kids.
The fact that she's flogging this 'hostile culture' stuff with the Republican Administration just set about reducing the number of children who can get health care is just, well--typical. I can tell you what the hostile culture is, and it ain't Hollywood and it ain't the government. It's Corporate Ameica who takes families and uproots them, that slicesthem apart, and them drops them. Want to settle down, folks? Maybe after you retire. You get promoted? You'v got to move. You get downsized? You've got to move. And the fast track? No kids, please! It isn't the government that made it impossible for middle-class moms to stay at home. You want that nice house in the suburbs in a good school district? You both work. And if your jobs don't have benefits? Raising kids will bankrupt you, if you try to pay for health care out of pocket. And if you turn down a transfer so that you can put down roots and your kids don't get whipsawed from losing their friends over and over? Why, you're a loser! Hollywood portrays this as the nightmare it is. EVERY damn movie glorifies family and home! No, it's the corporate culture that has chopped up the extended family, demands you be tied to your cellphone or Blackberry, expects extra hours at the expense of family time, and, when you've done all of that, fires you and drops you into chaos. My parents were able to buy their little suburban house and live there their whole lives. My dad was able to stay at one job his whole life. (Because of the Union, that's why!) People don't want to have kids because, from a system that encouraged stability, it's morphed into a system where stability is for the rich and the old. And when a family falls victim to that chaos, it's Republicans who stand up and say that they made bad choices, that the free market blah blah blah.
Laura, if you're not helping poor families your not helping families. Her idea of a 'hostile culture' is allowing kids to live togther and Murphy Brown.
My idea of a hostile culture is the familial abattoir the corporate world has made of middle-class America. Your bosses, Laura.
Personally, I don't want kids because I don't like them. They annoy me. I know, I know, we're all supposed to LOVE children, but not this kid, nope, nope, and more nope. I especially find other people's kids somewhat annoying, I can't even imagine if I had my own.
That being said, me and the wife have decided to NOT have children. Yes, we like our alone time, yes we hate screaming kids and chaos, and she doesn't hate kids, just me.
That being said part 2. If Dr. Laura is such a big proponent of having children why doesn't SHE have a few dozen?
Magnolia,
To each their own. My experience is that children are God's greatest gifts! My greatest happiness in life has been raising my children.
AA,
I don't doubt that at all. I come from a large family, and I know my parents loved raising kids. I guess I probably came across a little harsh, but that's just me being sort of sarcastic. Having and raising kids, it's not for me. I've definitely got that figured out for certain. This is not to say that if my wife became pregnant, we would most definitely have the child, and I'm sure it would be great, and I would change my tune, but it would take an "accident" for that to happen.
I don't begrudge for a moment someone else's choice to have children. When I said before that I hate kids, not all kids, because friends of mine have good kids, nice kids, fun kids. I just get annoyed easy is all. I'm a 34 year old crumudgeon is what it all boils down to.
Mag, don't feel bad. As a mother of 3 girls there were times when I wished I could run away from home. Between hair issues, boy issues, PMS issues, teenage issues... well you get the picture. ;-)
I know what you mean. My teenage girl is pure heck right now. I've renamed her little miss drama queen. And my son? I did not know it was possible to charge $1,000 in text messages in one month. I was proven wrong...
Mag, I'm a 45 year old curmudgeon who was pretty sure he didn't want kids by the time I was 16 or so. My Dad had 8 of them, so I'm also averaging it out to a reasonable level.
I also have nephews and nieces, and friends kids, who I love and find entertaining and fascinating.And when I'm through being entertained and fascinated, I go home, and revel in the peace and quiet. ;0)
I've posted on this topic before, and will repeat that I don't think having kids is any more selfish than not having kids- we all do what makes us happy. I just don't tell the reproducing type that they're selfish as much as they tell me that I am. I also don't ask for the tax breaks or time off work that they do, but that's the lot I chose.
Besides, those of us who don't have kids have another calling. While AA's greatest joy has been raising his children, and I salute him, I have more time to spend with AA, as a surrogate father, or Sheriff Taylor to his Dep. Fife, giving him guidance on his journey to manhood, and that is my greatest gift.
And you tried to tell me you felt for kids that had been molested and such.
I don't think we have a shortage of workers. We have a shortage of pay. It's simply supply and demand. Stop the influx of illegal workers who will work for subsistence level wages and wages will go up, attracting legal residents to those jobs.
ps. I think Laura is nice looking but part of me feels Matthews is ego-driven, condescending, and at the same time patronizing by gushing over good looking women. In case he didn't realize it, Laura was in front of the cameras and everyone can form their own opinion rather quickly without his help. I think he thinks he can get away with a bit more of his pandering by thinking this flattery in front of a camera will help him with drinks after....
At least this isn't a man crush ... at least I don't think this is a man crush.
matthews says "we have a population shortage". no go on that one. we passed 300 million last october 17, and today we are at 302, 860,000 plus. we are projected to go to, at a minimum, 400 million plus by 2050. not a good idea for the environment, our energy independence, or cutting pollution. matthews claims that we don't have an adequate labot supply, but in many cases if employers were forced to improve working conditions they could get workers. many farmers now are going to things like hydroponic farming in greenhouse like settings, not only improving yields but saving much of the hard labor.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
This mutliculturalism issue is broader than what this article might assume. Samuel Huntinton recently described similar perceived problems in, I think, Foreign Affairs Magazine. This also questioned how Hispanic Catholics would effect american culture. However, this same argument was made about Irish Catholics mid-nineteenth century. These drunken Irish would destroy american culture. There were multiple cartoons that have been used in history texts showing Irishmen as missing links, and drunken monkeys. Since then we have had an Irish Catholic President, and an Irishman currently running for president.
Shortage of workers? To quote Jon Stewart, "Whhaaaaa??". Matthews is totally full of crap. There's a shortage of JOBS. We take in now about five times more people a year than we create jobs. We're up to our armpits in workers and the jobs keep disappearing overseas. Not only do we need to crack down on illegal immigration, we need to crack down on those who exploit our tariff-free borders to take jobs from Americans and haul butt to Thailand or China to exploit their slave-wage labour. I still can't understand how they think they can get the US worker to pay for all that cheap-made junk when our wages are stagnant and unemployment is rising. But then the greedy tend only to think of how fast they can fill their wallets, not how long the gravy train can last. What do they care? If all collapses about them, they'll be the only ones who can afford to eat. The conditions remind me of France 1786. "Let them eat cake."
Actually Let Them Eat Cake was a statement of concern. Before the Fench revolution bread was the most common foodstuff. Cake was thought of as a calorically reinforced foodstuff, kind of like ensure. So the comment was one of lets find a way they can get better food. The flip side is that the upper classes supported their own class interests over the nations. During a fiscal crisis neither the nobility or the church (the first and second estates) were willing to support the state financially. Rather, they felt the emerging middle class (the third estate) should pay. Think of the War on the Middle Class.
Leave it to a couple of millionaire pundits to wonder why people aren't having 10 kids anymore.
Tony Snow is leaving his job because he wants to make more money than his $160,000 press secretary salary.
Just how out of touch are these people?
"Snow, who had said recently that he would leave before the end of Bush's presidency, said cancer was not the reason he was stepping down. Instead, the father of three said he needs to make more than his White House salary of $168,000. He can earn far more money on the speechmaking circuit."
[link to www.foxnews.com]
Meanwhile:
"Median household income climbed 1.1% to $46,326 in 2005. That means half of U.S. households earned more and half earned less. Per capita income rose 1.5% to $25,036, the Census Bureau said.
The income jump hid some somber news. Earnings actually fell for people working full-time. Household income rose because more people worked in the households, albeit at lower paying jobs. Median earnings of men declined 1.8% last year. For women, the decline was 1.3%."
In essence Tony Snow says he needs more than 4x the median household income to raise 3 kids.
[link to www.usatoday.com]
Amazing, thanks.
Well, at least he didn't question her about going to all those polling places to vote in Florida. Oh wait, I'm sorry, my bad, that's the OTHER blonde teuton that Matthews thinks should be the model for propagation of the master race.
Does Laura have any children? My quick research indicates that she doesn't (I'll stand corrected if someone shows me otherwise), so she's forced to tell an anecdotal story about how people react when they think she's a mom when she takes the neighbor's children to the movies. I'm not sure I'd call her a hypocrite over this, but her obvious disaproval of selfish Americans supposedly wanting less children seems a trifle odd.
Matthews read a book, a whole book? Dust cover, maybe. He sounds as though his reading is limited to teleprompters or reruns of his own rants.
I wonder what Mrs. Mathews thinks of her husband flirting with Ingram, Ann Coulter, and Erin Burnett? I guess Chris has a thing for right-wing nutjobs.
NBC just wants war. It is their parent corporation's biggest product.