About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Matthews didn't challenge DeLay's claim that Obama will "surrender the war on terror"

January 09, 2008 7:50 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: On MSNBC, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told Chris Matthews that if Barack Obama wins the Democratic presidential nomination, "we'll get to talk about what change means when Obama is president of the United States. Change isn't exactly what I think this nation wants to go -- surrender the war on terror, more taxes, more spending, bigger government." Matthews did not challenge DeLay's comments. The next day, a Washington Times article quoted DeLay smearing Obama as a "Marxist."

25 Comments

Speaking with MSNBC host Chris Matthews during MSNBC's coverage of the January 8 New Hampshire presidential primaries, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) attacked Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), saying that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, "we'll get to talk about what change means when Obama is president of the United States. Change isn't exactly what I think this nation wants to go -- surrender the war on terror, more taxes, more spending, bigger government." Matthews did not challenge DeLay's comments.

DeLay was also quoted in a January 9 Washington Times article smearing Obama as a "Marxist." According to the Times, DeLay said: "Somebody from our side needs to start talking about Obama today. He's a Marxist but a very smart one -- he doesn't let anyone know it." DeLay previously said that Obama's voting record in the Illinois Senate was "on par with a 'Marxist leftist,' " according to a December 12, 2006, account by HumanEvents.com's Robert Bluey of a meeting between DeLay and a group of conservative bloggers.

Neither Matthews nor the Times article noted that DeLay is currently under indictment in Texas on money laundering and conspiracy charges relating to a campaign finance probe.

From MSNBC's January 8 New Hampshire primary coverage:

MATTHEWS: Who would your party rather run against -- Bill Clinton's wife, Hillary Clinton, who's having a hard time in this campaign, or Barack Obama, the new kid on the block? Who's easier to tag and beat?

DeLAY: I think they're both easier to beat. They're both liberal. I think Obama's much more liberal than Hillary Clinton, but it's a matter of degrees. And either one of them will bring this debate where it ought to be, and that's a debate on philosophy, on vision, where to lead the country in the future. So I'd really -- I don't care who wins.

MATTHEWS: Wouldn't it be more fun to run against Hillary for your guys?

DeLAY: I don't know. I think she has some good qualities for us. Her unpopularity and her ability to polarize people is good for us. On the other hand, Obama -- and we'll get to talk about what change means when Obama is president of the United States. Change isn't exactly what I think this nation wants to go -- surrender the war on terror, more taxes, more spending, bigger government. I think that's all good for us.

MATTHEWS: Well, the last time you confronted him as a challenger, you threw up Alan Keyes to run against him. You got somebody better this time?

DeLAY: Yeah, I think we've got some pretty good candidates this time.

From the January 9 Washington Times article, headlined "Republicans prepare to take aim at Obama":

But for former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who was known as "the Hammer" on Capitol Hill, said Republicans need to start deconstructing Mr. Obama now.

"Somebody from our side needs to start talking about Obama today. He's a Marxist but a very smart one -- he doesn't let anyone know it," said Mr. DeLay, who said he wanted to throw his shoe at the television set when the Republican candidates opted not to mention Democrats in their debates.

Events neither party controls may more effectively undermine Mr. Obama more than anything Republicans can do themselves.

— S.S.M.
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mefirst (January 09, 2008 8:05 pm ET)
         

      and then there was bush, who said of osama bin ladin, in march 2002, six months after 9-11,  "i don't spend that much time on him..".   maybe that's why he got away at tora bora.

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

      Report Abuse
    • Author by atheist (January 09, 2008 8:05 pm ET)
         

      I'm in Illinois and I already had forgotten about Keyes until I read this article.  That was a huge flop !  Nobody likes a carpetbagger.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by greekfurnace (January 09, 2008 8:05 pm ET)
         

      And, Tom Delay is a fascist. Why is this criminal/traitor still in the media AT ALL??? Chris Matthews is such a stooge.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (January 09, 2008 10:31 pm ET)
           

        Greek,

        I enjoy your enthusiasm and your rant made me laugh. I hope you don't mind if I ask you to explain your rhetoric?

        You call Delay a Fascist? Why do you call him that? 

        Has Delay been convicted of anything yet? Do you believe a man is innocent until proven guilty?

        What has Delay done that qualifies him in your mind as a traitor? 

        I agree that you are entitled to your opinion, I am just wondering what makes you come to those conclusions. If you want to say it is just a rant, that is fine too.

        Thanks

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (January 10, 2008 9:07 am ET)
             
          You've called for Greekfurnace to show why he's called DeLay a fascist and a traitor. I'm sure you've also asked the Washington Times to show proof that Senator Obama is a Marxist right after you sent your angry letter to MSNBC for allowing DeLay's assertion about Obama surrendering in the war on terror go unchallenged. Am I correct?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 12:04 pm ET)
               
            Worrier, I fail to see your point. I am not complaining or arguing. I am just curious why greek would make those allegations. What are your thoughts about greek's description? I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with Delay and his comments, just like I have no problem with Greek offering his. Why I have to write the Times because I asked Greek his reasoning is beyond me. I think it would be wonderful for Delay to explain what he meant by Obama being a Marxist. If you think you can get either Delay or the Times to explain by writing a complaint letter, by all means, please do so.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (January 10, 2008 12:35 pm ET)
                 
              I think he's got a right to call DeLay a traitor because of DeLays many baseless claims questioning the loyalty of other Americans. . I believe that we're all Americans and we're all in this together. I think that any organization (Fox News) or individual (Tom DeLay, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc.) who repeatedly questions another American's patriotism or loyalty, without evidence, is behaving in an unpatriotic manner and is working to undermine the nation. I'm not sure if that's considered the textbook example of the behavior of a traitor, but I've expanded my own definition of the word to include cowardly behavior such as theirs. I'm sorry about my original comment to your post. I thought that you were being selectively outraged. I was wrong to assume that.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 1:39 pm ET)
                   
                Worrier, based on your definition are you not also a traitor? After all you are basically doing the same thing as Delay only aiming your allegation at Fox personalities. BTW, no problem about my post. I enjoy the discussion and reading your posts.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by dbeden4153 (January 10, 2008 10:47 am ET)
             
          three words: Saipan sex industry
          Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 10, 2008 12:58 pm ET)
             
          AA, I think the reason you were asked for an explanation is that you seem to want to hold Greek accountable for his statements (which I agree with), but when it comes to pundits/politicians who have a larger audience and actual influence, he wonders if you would hold their opinions to the same level of scrutiny. On a larger scale, how is DeLay able to make a statement like that without Matthews at least asking him to explain what he means? Its a completely outrageous, and honestly stupid, comment. I am guessing DeLay couldn't back it up with anything other than tired, recycled talking points.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 1:35 pm ET)
               
            Good points. I never said Greek cannot call Delay any of the adjectives he used. I don't know why you would imply that I am. It is not that I hold the pundits to a different standard. I understand Worrier's questions. I thought I answered it, but let me try again. It is not that I hold the pundits to a lower standard, I simply cannot ask Delay or the Times as Worrier suggest. However it is fairly common for us to ask each other to elaborate on their comments. I think it is fair game to comment on Delay' s comment. They are over-the-top as any. I feel Greek's description was also over-the-top. Greek is entitled to his description of Delay. I was simply interested in seeing if he was just ranting or actually had anything beyond what looked like a typical liberal name call. Hope that explains my position. I find it rather amusing that I have to spend more time defending my reasoning simply because I asked the question than the person who made such over-the-top comments to begin with. Why is that?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 10, 2008 2:22 pm ET)
                 
              AA, I didn't mean to imply anything. I just wish we all (posters I mean) would spend half as much energy emailing the networks (and maybe some of us do) about these things rather than venting here. I am going to email MSNBC about his and merely ask why Matthews (or any other host) would allow such outrageous rhetoric (on either side) to go unchallenged. DeLay made a stupid, unfounded comment and should be called on it. I would expect a Dem to be asked to explain if he or she made a comment like that about Bush.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 2:25 pm ET)
                   
                I see your point. Good luck with your letter. I'll be interested in hearing their reply.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by H-Man (January 10, 2008 1:20 pm ET)
             
          AA, I would be happy to answer for Greek. 1. Why is T0m Delay a "fascist"? Here is a link to the definition of fascist. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascist As you will see number 3 is a person with extreme right wing views. I think Tom Delay is a good example of a person with extreme right wing views. Therefore, one could classify him as a fascist. 2. Why is Tom Delay a criminal. You are correct in the eyes of the law you are considered innocent until proven guilty. However, we are dealing with the court of public opinion. Since we are not part of the trial we are welcome to our opinion. In my opinion he broke the law and is therefore a criminal. 3. What has he done that qualifies him as a traitor. When people break the laws governing our electoral process they help to subvert the will of the American people. I believe anyone who does this is a traitor to the principles of this country. I hope that spells it out for you.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 2:17 pm ET)
               
            H-man, Thanks for sharing your opinion regarding my question. It seems to me that your interpretation of the definition of fascist is a political one based on a common but false notion of what a fascist really is. In this definition you provided it seems to me to be just a derogatory term used against conservatives. However in this regard you are not alone. If you are simply calling Delay an extreme right winger, as your definition does, I guess you have a point. My interpretation of the term fascist is more in tune with the description in Wikopedia. Briefly their definition says a fascist is one who believes the interests of the individual are completely subordinate to the interests of the state. Historically fascists have also had a strong belief in national unity based on race or culture or religion with an intolerance of others. I don't see how Delay's comment regarding Obama fulfills any of the definition I put forth. Say what you will about Delay, but based on the definition of fascist I submit, I disagree that he is one. Yes, we are only expressing public opinion. If you want to call Delay "a criminal" it is as okay as me calling Hillary or Bill or any of those I cite below a criminal. Fair enough? As for your definition of a traitor. To be fair, would you call the following traitors? The Democratic National Committee has agreed to pay civil fines and turn over to the Treasury a total of $243,000 to settle accusations that it took more than $1 million in illegal foreign contributions in 1995 and 1996, according to Federal Election Commission records released today. ...The documents also state that the election commission's general counsel found in 1999 that there was ''reason to believe'' that the People's Republic of China ''knowingly and willfully'' violated federal election law. ... ...The documents detail efforts by the Democratic Party and the Clinton-Gore campaign to build their war chest with help from wealthy Asian donors before the 1996 election. In all, the election commission disclosed $719,500 in fines today. - Jan 10, 2008 NYTimes Key leaders of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), including DNC Chair Ed Rendell, DNC Convention and DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe, DNC California Regional Chair Stephanie Berger, and former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, recruited businessman Peter Paul as a major donor to the DNC. They induced Paul to underwrite, host and produce fundraising events for the campaigns of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton in order to pursue his efforts to hire Bill Clinton when he left the White House. They then conspired with the Clintons to hide Paul's various contributions from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the public, and obstructed the Federal investigation that led to the indictment of Hillary Clinton's finance director David Rosen. Are they all traitors too? By your definition it seems to me they are. Do you disagree?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 2:23 pm ET)
                 
              My apologies for the lost blank lines between paragraphs in my recent posts.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by H-Man (January 10, 2008 5:58 pm ET)
                 
              AA, 1. The definition I provided was from Dictionary.com. And it is not derogatory towards all conservatives. It is for extreme right wing views. The key word being extreme. 2. It would not be ok for you to call Hillary a criminal since she was never indicted for criminal activity. On the other hand Tom Delay has been and he was not found not guilty. And before you say President Clinton was indicted remember he was acquitted of the charges by the Senate. However, you would be well within your rights to say you believe he was guilty of the charges. I would just say you are wrong. 3. Paying fines and being indicted are hardly the same thing. In information you posted the FEC said the People's Republic of China may have knowingly broke election laws. Not the DNC not Gore and not Clinton. I will say that there are traitors within the DNC. Hopefully, each will be found and prosecuted. That being said, Delay was indicted not Gore or the Clintons that is why I can call him a traitor.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by therick (January 09, 2008 8:07 pm ET)
         

      "...surrender the war on terror, more taxes, more spending, bigger government."--Delay

      We're NOT fighting a "war on terror."  We NEED "more taxes" to pay for Republican's "more spending," and "bigger government."

      When is this fool going to finally start serving time?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Clevenative (January 09, 2008 8:09 pm ET)
         

      Tom DeLay: "Change isn't exactly what I think this nation wants to go -- surrender the war on terror, more taxes, more spending, bigger government."

      Uhmm, isn’t this what’s been going on for the pat 7 years with the Bush Administration????

      I almost forgot what an idiot this guy is until I caught the blip of him in this video,  Generation Chickenhawk: the Unauthorized College Republican Convention Tour where he is lecturing a group of Collegiate Republicans telling them that If we had the 40 million babies aborted since Rowe vs. Wade 30 years ago, then we wouldn’t need “illegal immigrants” to do the jobs their doing today. LOL! I almost peed my pants laughing when I heard this little bit or conservative Republican wisdom.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by therick (January 09, 2008 8:22 pm ET)
           

        Let's see.  The nuts say there are 20 million illegals.  So, if we hadn't aborted 40 million babies, that means there would be 20 million unemployed.  Bet he didn't think of that!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Clevenative (January 09, 2008 8:57 pm ET)
             

          Apparently, he doesn't think of a lot of things.-:)

          You know my favorite saying... Republicans have all the answers - Problem is, they're always wrong!

          Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (January 10, 2008 10:39 am ET)
           
        You'd be hard pressed to find a better example of wacko right wing philosophy than that wonderful bit from DeLay. Among the many gaping holes, is the simple fact that the number of aborted pregnancies in the U.S. has no bearing on the conditions that exacerbate illegal immigration, most notably the lack of a strong middle class in Mexico.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (January 10, 2008 9:40 am ET)
         
      My God, REPUBLICANS abandoned the War on Terror, to go fight instead a WAR for OIL in Iraq. The War on Terror is a long forgotten memory, as we slog along in a quagmire of civil war in a nation that was absolutely no threat to us. REPUBLICANS guarantee us more spending. REPUBLICANS guarantee us bigger government. In addition, REPUBLICANS guarantee secretive government, open borders, spying on our own citizens (abandoning our Constitution), and HUGE DEBT. REPUBLICANS, granted, WILL guarantee "lower taxes" for their core constituents -- the very wealthy -- but the REST of us can count on a pittance (if any) tax cut, combined with soaring prices on health care, local taxes, heating oil, energy, gas at the pump, pharmaceuticals, and a myriad of other commodities provided by big corporations (which will then realize record PROFITS, to be divvied up amongst the few owners). Delay KNOWS all this, hell, he PRESIDED over most of it as Speaker of the House. A more bald-faced LIAR is hard to imagine. The man is in complete and utter DENIAL of REALITY.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 10, 2008 2:19 pm ET)
         
      "Surrender the war on terror." Obama is, so far, the only candidate who's said he'd go into pakistan in order to get Al-Queada. The Republicans would rather prop up the facist Musharrif than get Bin Laden & his cronies. Distgusting. "Bigger government?" What an irrlevant term. The size of Gov't is not the issue. What do they deliver? What problems can they tackle? AND (most imnportanly) WHAT ARE THE LIMITS ON THEIR POWER? The size of the fed (large or small) means nothing if the supreme court is packed to their advantage. Power concentrated in the hands of f ew, without the courts to protect the rest of us, is far more dangerous than the same power spread over many different bureacrats. "More spending?" More than W. & the rebulican congress of 00-06? Not likely. Unless of coure we finally get a decent healt care system. And considering that the bulk of that would be paid by money currenlty going to the insurnace industry (for a crappy product, I mught add) I'd call that a modest increase for a potentailly great return. DeLay is a moron. And a hypocrit. (And I can't spell!)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (January 10, 2008 8:57 pm ET)
         
      How about changing the policy DeLay loves so much the lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy. Americans arent really behind it. Its party time at Delays house as long as Americans are DYING.
      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.