About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Chris Matthews claimed, "Deceit is what drives me crazy," but what about Giuliani's "deceit"?

November 07, 2007 3:41 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: A New York Times article quoted Chris Matthews saying, "Deceit is what drives me crazy, either by Bill Clinton or the hawks in this administration." However, Media Matters for America has documented several instances in which Matthews has failed to note "deceit" by Rudy Giuliani. Despite evidence of Giuliani's "deceit," Matthews routinely praises Giuliani and his candidacy.

42 Comments

A November 6 New York Times article about prime-time hosts on MSNBC and their criticism of the Bush administration quoted Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC's Hardball, saying, "Deceit is what drives me crazy, either by Bill Clinton or the hawks in this administration." However, Media Matters for America has documented several instances in which Matthews has failed to note "deceit" by Republican presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Furthermore, despite evidence of Giuliani's "deceit," Media Matters has documented that Matthews routinely praises Giuliani and his candidacy. Among other things, Matthews has said Giuliani "looks like [a] president to me," predicted a Giuliani victory in 2008, and said Giuliani "may well be the perfect candidate to replace" President Bush." As recently as the November 6 edition of Hardball, Matthews declared Giuliani "the person with the best shot to win the Republican nomination" and asserted, "I'm not going to sell Rudy. It is not my job to sell anybody." However, he and his panel of guests, which included the Politico's Mike Allen and the New York Post's Charles Hurt, called Giuliani "a gunslinger," "a straight-talker," "a quick draw," "a tough, kick-butt policeman," and "this tough, kick-butt cop from New York."

Matthews has failed to note "deceit" on the part of Giuliani on numerous occasions, including:

  • On the October 29 edition of Hardball, Matthews uncritically aired part of a radio ad for Giuliani in which Giuliani claims that when he had prostate cancer, his "chance of surviving ... in the United States, 82 percent" but that his "chance of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine." But as Media Matters documented, an October 30 entry by Michael Dobbs on washingtonpost.com's Fact Checker blog noted that "the survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain." Dobbs wrote that "the two countries are much closer" in terms of the "mortality rates from the disease," adding, "About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year" in both countries. Dobbs quoted Howard Parnes, chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute, saying, "When you introduce screening and early detection into the equation, the survival statistics become meaningless." Despite this and numerous subsequent reports calling into question Giuliani's statistics, Matthews has still not addressed Giuliani's claims in the ad. On October 31, the Times reported: "Asked if Mr. Giuliani would continue to repeat the statistic, and if the advertisement would continue to run, [Giuliani spokeswoman Maria] Comella responded by e-mail: "Yes. We will."
  • On the October 12 edition of Hardball, Matthews discussed the possible indictment of former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik on charges relating to Interstate Industrial Corp., a company suspected of having ties to organized crime -- a charge the company denies. Matthews uncritically aired Giuliani's quote, "I've already said I should have checked his background more carefully." Matthews did not note that Giuliani "told a grand jury that his former chief investigator remembered having briefed him on some aspects of Bernard B. Kerik's relationship with a company suspected of ties to organized crime before Mr. Kerik's appointment as New York City police commissioner," or that Giuliani does not dispute having received the briefing, despite saying he "had no memory" of it, as The New York Times reported in March.
  • On the October 10 edition of Hardball, Matthews uncritically aired Giuliani's claim during the October 9 debate for Republican presidential candidates that Clinton is "going to give out $1,000 to everybody to set up a 401(k). The problem is, this one costs $5 billion more than the last one." In fact, as Factcheck.org noted, "It's simply not true that Clinton proposes to give out $1,000 to 'everybody.' That sum would only go to those making $60,000 a year or less, and only if they also contribute $1,000 of their own to their 401(k) plans." Clinton's plan also "provide[s] a 50% match on the first $1000 of savings for every couple making between $60,000 and $100,000, which will be phased out after that."
  • Media Matters documented another instance of Matthews accepting Giuliani's "deceit" in the October 9 debate. During the debate, moderated by Matthews and CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo, neither moderator challenged Giuliani after he repeated his claim that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "once said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America." In fact, in a 1996 C-SPAN interview, Clinton agreed with author Aren Ehrenhalt's characterization of the "unfettered free market" as "the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation" -- not the "most destructive." Clinton went on to say that the "market is the driving force behind our prosperity" but that it "cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over people's lives."

As Media Matters previously noted, Giuliani made a similar claim during the May 15 Republican presidential debate -- asserting that Clinton said she "agreed" that "the unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America". At the time, several media outlets uncritically reported his misrepresentation of Clinton's comments. Additionally, in an August 13 CNBC interview, Kudlow & Co. host Larry Kudlow did not challenge Giuliani's assertion that Clinton "agreed with the statement, 'The unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America.' ... That's got to tell you her ideology, right? She agreed with that statement a few years ago."

In addition, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Matthews has routinely lauded Giuliani for being "on the street" after the September 11 terrorist attacks. But in hyping Giuliani's performance on 9-11, Matthews has failed to note the reason Giuliani was on the "street corner" after the terrorist attacks, though Hardball guests have noted it. For instance, on the September 11 edition of Hardball, Air America president Mark Green noted that Giuliani "located the emergency command center in the World Trade Center complex after it had been attacked" in 1993. As Media Matters has noted, authors Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins wrote in their book Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 (HarperCollins, 2006) that when Giuliani heard about the disaster, his original destination was his "much-ballyhooed command center" in the World Trade Center complex [Page 6]. According to Barrett and Collins, Kerik, "who was waiting to meet [Giuliani], decided it was too dangerous to bring the mayor up to the command center [Giuliani] had so carefully and expensively built" [Page 340].

On the May 23 edition of Hardball, Matthews did, however, draw attention to an instance of Giuliani's "deceit." During an interview with Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE), Matthews noted that Giuliani "seems to get away with a lot of factual mistakes." Matthews then aired a clip from the May 21 edition of CBS' Late Show with David Letterman, during which Giuliani said: "It was the policy of the Clinton administration to have regime change in Iraq. So in a way, George Bush carried out what Bill Clinton wanted to do and didn't get the opportunity to do." Matthews then called Giuliani's comment "[a]bsolutely B.S." and said: "I get so overwhelmed by the lack of fact-checking by the journalists covering these guys every -- why don't they just stop him and say, 'What are you saying, Mayor?' "

From the November 6 New York Times article:

In an interview Friday, Mr. Matthews, who was once an aide to Thomas P. O'Neill Jr., the former Democratic speaker of the House, recalled that his criticisms of the Clintons in the mid-to-late 1990s made him an outcast within the party, and are still echoed in his skepticism about Mrs. Clinton today.

"I really do take on people with power," he said. "Deceit is what drives me crazy, either by Bill Clinton or the hawks in this administration."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by stormskies (November 07, 2007 3:51 pm ET)
         

      And what about Matthews own deceit ? Deceiving his listeners with made up story lines about Clinton ? Story lines that he makes up out of thin air ? Story lines about Gore when he was running for President ? Lies upon lies, deception after deception, emanate from this Repiglican proxy for General Electric's corporate agenda. Just like his palls Russert and Williams. They are in fact the NEW AXIS OF EVIL: RUSSERT, WILLIAMS, AND MATTHEWS ...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wasademocrat73 (November 07, 2007 4:00 pm ET)
           

        Oh, poor Hillary!!! She was asked a tough question and she couldn't dance around the issue without being called on it.  Boo hoo hoo. 

        You can't wear the pants in the family and not expect to kicked in the crotch now and then. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 07, 2007 3:53 pm ET)
         

      "I really do take on people with power," [Matthews] said.

      Ha ! An excuse to link to this picture of Tweety preparing to "take on" some Mitt-Power!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by stormskies (November 07, 2007 3:58 pm ET)
           

        HOW PERFECT .. AND RIGHT ON ... THANKS FOR POSTING .. LET'S REMEMBER THAT COULD ALSO BE AQUA VELVA'S MANS ANY NUMBER OF MAN CRUSH BOYFRIENDS: BUSH, THOMPSON, MCCAIN, IN FACT ANY REPIGLICAN HE WOULD MEET IN A MEN'S ROON WAVING A FEW BUCK IN FRONT OF HIS SNOUT NOSE

        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (November 08, 2007 1:41 pm ET)
             

          Oh, come on!  That is SUCH a distortion!  Chris is nowhere near that ripped! LOL

          Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (November 07, 2007 4:02 pm ET)
           

        Can't help but notice the package on Tweety.

        (I'm comfortable enough with my own masculinity that I can make comments on other men's packages without appearing to be playing for the other team.)

        Report Abuse
    • Author by wasademocrat73 (November 07, 2007 3:55 pm ET)
         

      This is lame.  How do any of these show deceit? If anything, it shows that Guiliani's campaign didn't use the figures approved by MMFA, he didn't look into Kerick's background enough or, oh horror, gave the guy the benefit of the doubt and misspoke on one occasion.  If MMFA held every candidate to the same level of scrutiny, Hillary would be ALL OVER this site. 

      I happen to watch Chris Matthews and he equally "promotes" Hillary as the lead candidate in the Democratic party - in fact I am sick to death of all the coverage he gives her.  I would like MMFA to do an analysis of how much time Hardball spends on Democratic candidates vs. Republicans. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 07, 2007 3:58 pm ET)
           

        Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and just about everybody on Fox spend an incredible amount of time talking about HRC too. Is it your opinion that they're "promoting" her as well?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wasademocrat73 (November 07, 2007 4:02 pm ET)
             

          Actually, yes.  They assume she's the Democratic nominee and we haven't even had the primaries.

          Conservative?  Uh, no.  Just not liberal.  But most liberals have lost perspective on reality so I understand if you don't get it.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (November 07, 2007 4:18 pm ET)
               

            "Conservative?  Uh, no.  Just not liberal.  But most liberals have lost perspective on reality so I understand if you don't get it."

             

            This is a response to...?

            Care to elaborate?

            Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (November 07, 2007 4:06 pm ET)
             

          Actually, I think Fox would love for Hillary to be the nominee.  I think by making it seem as if there isn't a contest, Fox is actually trying to push Hillary into that position.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by beinemac (November 07, 2007 3:58 pm ET)
           

        "conservative misinformation"...I'm not even going to bother with a post.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by LeftSidePositive (November 07, 2007 8:35 pm ET)
           

        Guiliani's campaign didn't use the figures approved by MMFA You mean, didn't use figures found in reputable sources. Or, in other words, used inaccurate figures. Or, in other words, was DECEITFUL.

        he didn't look into Kerick's background enough or, oh horror, gave the guy the benefit of the doubt and misspoke on one occasion. I'm sorry, you don't get to "give the guy the benefit of the doubt" when it comes to a police commissioner's ties to organized crime. You give someone the benefit of the doubt when they're an hour late for work, maybe, or left a line blank on a report, but I would argue that this is a somewhat bigger deal. And you don't "misspeak" about what you have or have not told a grand jury. That's the kind of thing you should remember!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (November 07, 2007 4:07 pm ET)
         

      Matthews loves Rudy. Fact.

      Matthews dislikes Hillary. Fact.

       

      I'd like see Matthews at least TRY to appear a tad more neutral. BOTH Hillary & Rudy deserve criticism. He should dole it out equally.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wasademocrat73 (November 07, 2007 4:10 pm ET)
           

        You know because you asked him personally?  Or are you one of those "special" liberals?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (November 07, 2007 4:16 pm ET)
             

          In case no one's ever told you.

          You're an ass.

          Don't assume that everyone hear is a moonbat.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (November 07, 2007 4:16 pm ET)
             

          Liberal?

          Nah pal, I'm a Republican/Conservative that watches Hardball every night.

          If he doesn't love Rudy, & dislike Hillary, then he's doing one hell of an acting job!

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (November 07, 2007 4:17 pm ET)
             

          Are you one of those 'special' trolls, that thinks everyone is liberal because they post on a progressive website?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wasademocrat73 (November 07, 2007 4:24 pm ET)
               

            BEINEMAC commented that I posted "conservative misinformation".  I responded to that post, clarifying that I am not, in fact, a conservative.

            Clear now?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (November 07, 2007 4:31 pm ET)
                 

              OK, I see.  You're just not a big fan of continuity.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by wasademocrat73 (November 07, 2007 4:33 pm ET)
                   

                I try.  But sometimes someone jumps in before I get the post out.

                Report Abuse
            • Author by beinemac (November 07, 2007 4:45 pm ET)
                 

              I'm not actually interested in your political slant. I was merely pointing out the information you can find under "About Us", including the purpose of this site. Be a conservative (we have several that post regularly), but don't show up and pretend you have all the answers

              Report Abuse
              • Author by wasademocrat73 (November 07, 2007 4:51 pm ET)
                   

                Huh? 

                I didn't do anything any different than any other poster.  You're just calling me out because I don't agree with you.  Don't try to make it out to be something other than it is.

                Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (November 07, 2007 4:14 pm ET)
           

        My biggest complaint about Giuliani is that he is playing both sides of the abortion debate.  He tells the pro-choicers that he is pro-choice and tells the conservatives that he will appoint mini-Scalias to the bench.

        Neal Boortz was calling Giuliani "pro-choice" this morning, which I regard as total misinformation. What the judges and justices appointed by the next president do makes more of a difference than what the president does on the issue.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wasademocrat73 (November 07, 2007 4:18 pm ET)
             

          I sort of agree.  But in my opinion, I don't think abortion is an issue that falls under the constitution or should be addressed by the supreme court.  I think it's a state issue. 

          I also think it's used too much by both sides as a scare tactic.  In reality, how many people are affected by the abortion issue?  I'd argue not many.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (November 07, 2007 5:55 pm ET)
               

            We've got a few that will argue your leg off over it.

            Julie is getting a pass here, lots of people get passes. The Democratic front runner does not. I don't see this as a bar that every candidate must pass. Just the ones with a "D" by their name.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 08, 2007 12:44 am ET)
                 

              Eweston, that's why it's (D)ceit that drives Tweety crazy. When it's (R)ceit, he gets a receipt.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by eweston8542983 (November 08, 2007 9:41 am ET)
                   

                His secret (re)ceit for love. Would it be pushing it to ralley for the (con)ceit of the the whole (con)cept?

                This is a trick question, handle with your own favorite form of protection.

                Is it Friday yet?

                Report Abuse
          • Author by LeftSidePositive (November 07, 2007 8:28 pm ET)
               

            LOTS of people are affected by the abortion issue, in the US, about 40% of women have had one:

            [link to www.nytimes.com]

            And, control over your own body (and access to safe medical care) is a basic human right, NOT a state issue by any stretch of the imagination. And, if you believe states where the population appears to be against abortion have no need of it being legal, I urge you to think deeply about the story of the abortion protester who finds herself pregnant in the article above.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (November 07, 2007 4:08 pm ET)
         

      Does it look like Matthews is a spurned lover here?  Anyone else getting that vibe?  Not that there is anything wrong with it.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (November 07, 2007 4:18 pm ET)
         

      His continuing representation of himself as the hero of 9/11 is disgustingly decietful.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by GlennJericho (November 07, 2007 5:18 pm ET)
         

      Yes, I would highly doubt that the quality of English hospitals' work is that poor, but in pointing out the fact that the survival rate has to do with screening and early detection only proves his point.  You die because you find out too late because you have to wait in line for months just to have a biopsy.  It's like the 108 year old woman who was told that she would get her new hearing aids...in 18 months!

      And so what if in a debate he mixed up disruptive and destructive.  Firstly, there is three letters difference, and he was pulling this quote off the top of his head.  Secondly, since when is disruptive a positive word?  Granted destructive is stronger that the former, but it is clear that Hilliary was conveying negative feeling toward the free market. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by LeftSidePositive (November 07, 2007 8:46 pm ET)
           

        Did you not read the part about the mortality from prostate cancer being the same in the two countries?

        Also, screening does carry some risks, as in some cases treating when you get a false positive can be dangerous. Keep that in mind when you argue that it's automatically better to screen.

        There's a HUGE difference in "disruptive" and "destructive." "Disruptive" only means it has the potential to change things a lot, often in a negative way, but not necessarily. Having a baby "disrupts" your life, but hopefully that is a wonderful thing--but that doesn't change the fact that it will bring a lot of changes to your life that you have to accommodate. Same thing with the free market--it necessitates a lot of changes, some of which are good. HRC said the free "market is the driving force behind our prosperity" (definitely a good thing) but it "cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over people's lives" (i.e., that the changes/disruptions it brings have to be dealt with intelligently).

        Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (November 08, 2007 6:22 pm ET)
           

        GlenJericho leftside was correct about destructive and disruptive. You don't think a pregnancy can be disruptive to a person or families life and be positive at the same time? Things can be destructive too and positive too.  Look at nature .  Don't you grow by destroying your old self in a sense,isn't that what growth in life and society is ?  A destruction of the old and birth of the new  by the process that was started in the old leading to a rebirth in a sense?  Ghouliani was not only distorting Hillary's statement he was talking out of an orifice that was not his mouth!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by steve k (November 07, 2007 7:10 pm ET)
         

      Giuliani's the most blatant liar the Republicans have. Romney will tell the lies he needs to to win votes. Rudy will lie just because he feels like it. And the lies he tells aren't small ones, but huge, whopping, unbelievable lies.

      Just one example: he claimed to be at the 9/11 cleanup site as much, if not more than, any of the rescue workers, and claimed to be "one of them."

      However, his logs show that he was only at the cleanup site for 29 hours between September and December 2001. This <a href="[link to www.salon.com] article</a> points out that, during the same period, he spent twice as much time attending Yankees games. 

      What staggers me is not so much what he lied about, but how easily he lied about it. It wasn't hard to check up on him--his own logs showed the truth--but he really didn't care.

      He knows the media won't touch him. He's safe with the likes of Chris Matthews pushing his tough-cop image without stopping to think what a Giuliani presidency would actually mean.

      Watch out for Giuliani. He's more aggressive, more militaristic, and more corrupt than Bush, and he's the most electable of the GOP candidates. If he is elected, he will start war with Iran, Syria, and Pakistan, while simultaneously instituting a police state at home. That will mean the end of the American republic.

      <a href="[link to www.washingtonmonthly.com] is an article detailing how Rudy's mayoralty amply demonstrated his paranoid, vengeful, secretive governing style. It is a must-read for anyone who cares about what will happen in 2008.  

      Report Abuse
    • Author by GlennJericho (November 08, 2007 3:09 pm ET)
         

      "It was the policy of the Clinton administration to have regime change in Iraq. So in a way, George Bush carried out what Bill Clinton wanted to do and didn't get the opportunity to do."

      Maybe this will sound familiar:

      "Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job,finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats,when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, 'You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.'"

      or maybe

      "For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligations to destroy its weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them.America will continue to contain [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] and we will work for the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people. Now, last month, in our action over Iraq, our troops were superb. Their mission was so flawlessly executed, that we risk taking for granted the bravery and skill it required. Captain Jeff Taliaferro, a 10-year Air Force veteran of the Air Force, flew a B-1B bomber over Iraq as we attacked Saddam's war machine. He is here with us tonight. I would like to ask you to honor him and all the 33,000 men and women of Operation Desert Fox."

      No, my liberal friend, that was not a George Bush quote, it was Clinton. 

      Or maybe THIS

      "Regime change" is not explicitly stated, but it sounds to me like they had the same goals as the Bush administration.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (November 08, 2007 6:10 pm ET)
           

        GlennJericho good quotes but they took place in different environments and circumstances and  I'am not  defending the Clintons. The fact is that Clinton did not invade Iraq,he knew better.  Bush despite all the warnings. Even if Clinton just didn't have the opportunity but would have, are you saying that "Ghouliani" is not lying on the other issues in the article?  Ghouliani lies and he does it boldly and withoout conscience.  His kids can't stand him, he married and divorced his cousin.  He demeaned then Mayor Dinkins,who happened to be black, as"that washroom attendant" to a demonstration by police officers roushing them up to such fervor that they began jumping on cars in a racist rage against the mayor. Chris Matthews and other pundits let him get away with it and that has been documented on this WEB site and others.  All I'am asking is for the media to respect the responsibility we give them by being fair and accurate! Chris Matthews thinks this is some kind of game of which he has some kind of inside knowledge that us "citizens" don't. He like Russert feel their responsibility is to their political friends and if the public is informed in the process well.  We have to llet them know we are the deciders,its We the People!  Not we the pundits!

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.