Matthews to McCain: "[Y]ou know you're in my heart!"
SUMMARY: During MSNBC's coverage of President Bush's final State of the Union address, Chris Matthews told Sen. John McCain, "Senator McCain, you know you're in my heart!" later concluding, "Well, you show a lot of courage out there, Senator." Matthews has repeatedly gushed over McCain and his candidacy.
During MSNBC's January 28 coverage of President Bush's final State of the Union address, Chris Matthews -- host of MSNBC's Hardball -- began an interview with Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) by saying, "Senator McCain, you know you're in my heart!" At the end of the interview, Matthews said: "Well, you show a lot of courage out there, Senator." Earlier on Hardball, during the "Power Rankings" segment, in which he predicted "who I think has the best shot right now at being the next president of our country," Matthews ranked McCain last out of his picks for the top four presidential candidates, saying, "At number four: the least promising -- break our hearts -- Senator John McCain, a regular of this circuit." McCain was ranked last behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).
As Media Matters has extensively documented, Matthews has repeatedly gushed over McCain:
- On two occasions, Matthews asserted that McCain "deserves to be president"; he had previously stated that McCain "deserve[s] the presidency."
- On the July 10, 2007, edition of Hardball, Matthews described having to report on problems in McCain's campaign as the "worst part of my job."
- On the February 13, 2007, edition of Hardball, Matthews touted McCain's "maverick reputation," as well as "the cut of [his] jib."
- On the December 13, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews described McCain as "a firm man," despite many instances of McCain's shifting positions and inconsistent rhetoric.
- On the November 19, 2006, edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, Matthews described McCain as "kind of like a Martin Luther ... reforming and finding the pure conservative movement" and even praised McCain's office as "really a senator's office out of the movies."
- On the September 10, 2006, edition of The Chris Matthews Show, Matthews asserted: "The press loves McCain. We're his base."
- On the August 27, 2006, edition of The Chris Matthews Show, Matthews asked his panel of guests: "Why does the media like McCain? I mean, what's going on here? Does he seem to be more authentic than other politicians?"
- During a panel discussion on the May 10, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews said he is "still hanging in there for a McCain-Giuliani ticket" for the 2008 election.
- On the March 14, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews characterized McCain as "a maverick," adding that "everyone knows he's a solo fighter pilot out there."
From the 10 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's January 28 coverage of the State of the Union address:
MATTHEWS: Let's go to Senator John McCain, Republican presidential -- there he is! Senator McCain, you know you're in my heart! I have to tell you the president gave your speech tonight.
[...]
McCAIN: I know that pundits like you and [MSNBC host] Keith [Olbermann] were making different predictions about who was going to win about a month ago, not only on the Democratic side, but on our side as well. So, I think a lot of things can happen between now and a week from now or even -- so, I just think --
MATTHEWS: I know.
McCAIN: -- things are very unsettled. I think a lot of Americans are undecided.
MATTHEWS: Well, you show a lot of courage out there, Senator. Thank you very much for coming on tonight. And by the way, we have our jobs, too. Our job is to predict what's --
McCAIN: I know you do. Tell Keith.
MATTHEWS: -- going to happen tomorrow night and we can't do it very well, but we do like doing it.
From the January 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball; time now for the Hardball "Power Rankings," my favorite time of the week. Although it's scary, I'll tell you who I think has the best shot right now at being the next president of our country.
Here with me is Newsweek's senior political correspondent Howard Fineman, who's also an MSNBC analyst, of course, and Newsweek's; and also, NBC's own Andrea Mitchell. And up in New York, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson.
Well, it's the final hour -- "Final Four" tonight. It's like the NCAA. We've got down to four teams tonight, here we go.
At number four: the least promising -- break our hearts -- Senator John McCain, a regular of this circuit, coming off a big win in South Carolina. Last week, he wanted to bump off Rudy Giuliani in Florida. That may be easier done than said as it turns out. But Rudy is not the problem; it's Mitt, running neck-and-neck with McCain in Florida right now.
McCain keeps picking up endorsements from newspapers and lawmakers, but will he win in Florida tomorrow and set himself to go national a week later on February 5th? We got him in fourth. I'm going to go to Howard on him. Howard, how are John McCain's chances?
Nerzog,
I think if it's McCain vs. Obama, it will be old media darling vs. new media darling.....may the best darling win.
;)
(eyes tearing up)
(sniff, sniff)
Those poor candidates with the D after their name, even though they trounced the ones with an R after their name just one year ago, they are still victims of the evil corporate media.
That evil Corporate Media is simply attempting to ensure that the same doesn't happen again - whether by faking the "recount" (as in the recent expose of NH), or by pre-conditioning the electorate that "Dems are bad, and will get you killed if you vote for them".
Seems to work, too, since you spend all your time WITH-ing, as opposed to addressing the preponderant - no, exclusive - control of that media by those central five Corporations; or the tilt introduced by that oligopoly into our understanding of Bungle's treasonous actions. Why have no US Corporate Media covered the Sibel Edmonds disclosures of 2001 treason, nor Bungle's quiet attempt to innoculate the traitors via "Presidential Order"? Why so little about any of his deceits and lies? I can't even find the coverage of his participation in the 935 documented lies of his Administration to fire up the invasion of Iraq?
Congley, don't you ever read back what you write to yourself and say: "Evil corporate media? Evil? Who else talks all the time of "evil"? If I replaced a few words in my writing, could I have just written out a talking point for neocons?
Then you can welcome yourself back from the Dark side...where Left and Right swing so far, they come together.
From the point of view of a living creature, to find my "rights" eclipsed by some immortal and greed-driven artifice, is the essential "evil". Given a mortal opponent, even a Hitler or Khan, one may purpose to outlive that opponent. Given an obligated opponent, one may seek its weakness in those obligations. Given a constrained opponent, as in regulated, one might attempt to control it via those regulations. We have substituted instead an immortal, with obligation to no living creature, and released the reins of regulation.
If it cannot be executed, nor imprisoned, and daily lies to me, that is evil!
What specific "rights" of yours have been eclipsed?
And your post sounds like the jacket introduction of a sci-fi thriller novel.
Back when Science Fiction was "new" - a few periodicals and Jules were the genre - I did have aspirations to write some. I gave those up in favor of a steady income, but perhaps the talent is still there?
Meantime, my 8th amendment rights have been eliminated by this cohort of Bungle and the telcos, my "freedom of speech" has been revised to "freedom to buy speech (if you have the money)" and my "free press" has become the instrument of my oppression. There may be more, but that will do for a thought-starter.
That "free press" has become the instrument not of information, but of Corporate/Repugnant propaganda - and, yes, the "consolidation" has in fact created an oligopoly. So that is now denied all of us, by the acts of Repugnants and co-conspirators. Or do you have a better explanation for all the lies not exposed, all the questions not asked, all the silencing of opposed voices as "endangering Government Secrets"?
All of us - every single one, even tommy - is subject to the same denial of habeus that afflicts the inmates at Gitmo - and for any cause crossing the mind of the Bungle-in-Chief. Moreover, we are all affected by the "decision" to inflict "cruel and unusual" punishment as a means of interrogation - i.e., torturing "suspects" to get them to confess something. That appears to catch two - Eighth and Fifth.
After digesting the loss of the Eighth, and the First, what about the "surveillance" and the Fourth?
So, until the "TaxoCrat Dems" take YOUR paycheck completely away, you have no complaint?
I didn't move the goalposts, you just failed to complete your reading of the Eighth - and I did mention that I had personally been affected, as has every member of the species, by those denials and erosions of our rights the bell tolls for me!
"less the case"
Believe what you want.
Silly Congley, the Dems are crushing the Repubs in corporate donation receipts right now. Dont' be so naive about corporations and Republicans; corporations didn't support them because they were the evil fascist party of america, but because they were in power. Now the tide has turned, so there's no reason at all to believe that McCain will get more from the "corporate media oligopoly" (is that going to be the new Batman movie badguy??) than Obama/Clinton will.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6359.html
Why did you even bother posting then, pointing out McCain when his more-than-absolutely-likely opponent in the general election will be one of those 2 dems that are soooo corporate-friendly?
And yes, we can play semantics until we're blue in the face, but did you read that, 1 year ago, Repubs were winning 6:4 on corporate sector donations, and now Dems are winning 10:0? That's a 6-sector swing! The evil fascist corporations are hedging it all on Dems! I'd say that was crushing.
Did you read the exclusions (sectors not covered)?
Did you explain why the Corporate Media is hiding from us the 935 lies? Did you explain why the Corporate Media is hiding the entire issue of Sibel Edmonds and the treason which she has revealed? Did you explain why the Corporate Media has buried - no, ignored, as in refused even to mention - the evidence of collusion by the NH SOS with the private entity responsible for counting and recounting NH's primary?
Did you explain why the Corporate Media is so vigorously plumping the Repugnant candidates for virtually every office? Or so earnestly derogating their Dem opposition?
And can you explain why the corporate media evil minions would be so god awful stupid to pump up the Republicans and denegrate the Democrats, when they have done a complete 180 on donations from the R's to the D's?
If you are asking me to comment on the vapidity and inertia of the "minions", I refuse. They self-indict with every word of every item.
If you are asking me why there is money flowing to both parties, now, that is simple: one buys influence whereever it is for sale. Then one works full-time to ensure that those with whom one has purchased influence exercise it for one's benefit.
These guys were like a pack of hyenas yapping at Clinton's heels throughout his two terms, and now they've become tail-wagging, drooling puppies who blindly chase after whatever ball the Bush Administration tosses out for them. I just don't get it.
I rest my case.
Nerzog,
That had far less to do with Clinton's ideology than it was about a juicy White House sex scandal. The public ate it up, the media sniffed it out.....if Clinton were a Republican and the same thing happened, do you honestly think it would have been covered any differently?
Despite a juicy and clear sexual scandal, involving a MAJOR WHITE HOUSE FIGURE (Rove) aka "Bush's Brain", hardly a peep even when the "press credentials" turned out to be Rove's fiction?
I did already figure it out, and it has to do with that slant of the "news" that both Nerzog and I have cited as the reason for most of the Corporate Media lies.
Yeah, the fact that a reporter lobbed a softball question to Bush and was friendly with a presidential advisor, yeah, that was as big a story as the President of the United States receiving oral favors from an intern in the oval office and then lying to the American public about it. Damn the press for treating them any differently. And damn the public for not being as interested in Rove as they were in Clinton.
You have your finger on the pulse of the nation alright.
The problem is that, as Conley points out, there have been various sex scandals involving Republicans during this term. While they have recieved brief attention, none have been beaten to death the way the Lewinsky scandal was. Besides, we were repeatedly assured that the Clinton/Lewinski scandal wasn't about sex, but the "Rule of Law". Remember?
Nerzog,
I have always said Clinton/Monica scandal was overplayed, and way too much of our money and resources were wasted as a result, however it would have been no different, in my opinion, if he were Republican, and that is the point.
You can't compare Congressional scandals with Presidential ones, they are in a different league - the entire country votes for the President, much larger in scope and coverage than any local or state representatives. If George Bush had been involved in a sex scandal, do you think the opportunistic press would have swept it under the rug and covered it "delicately"? I doubt it.
Right guys, wrong body parts...
Tweety has intimate contact with McCain alright, but Tweety's securely attached to John a bit south of the chest cavity.
Senator,
"You know you're in my heart. And, how are we gonna beat the B*tch?
"As you know, I'm just as tough on conservative as democrats." God Bless America!
"you know you're in my heart!"
Happy Valentine's Day, John. From Chris. xox
The most recently documented Matthews-Romney crush I could find on MMFA was Friday, October 5, 2007. Before that, Matthews had not been smitten since August. Before that, May. Before that, February. All told, I found four items specifically calling out Matthews for his crush on Romney throughout 2007.
Interesting to note that I found twice as many MMFA items dealing with Matthews' fawning over Giuliani for the same time period. I may not have understood, but were you saying that Matthews was favoring Romney over Giuliani when Giuliani was leading the polls (pretty much all of 2007)? While MMFA can't be considered comprehensive, the history I found does not seem to support your hidden agenda theory."Oh Chris, thank you so much. I love coming on your program and also simply adore Tim Russert on Meet the Press because you guys are really in my corner. You know, Limbaugh has been so mean to me lately. And could you call me the "Maverick" just once, so MMFA will highlight that too? Thanks much, see you at the Republican destruction in November".
John
I keep seeing these guys saying change,change and I just wonder how a man who is probably set in his ways is fooling some people that he is that person,to bring change.
I know that we all can appreciate what the man went through as a POW.But that aside in todays world the things I hear him talk about seem irrelavant unless you want to go back in time
They tryed proping up Rudy,and you see how thats working out.I guess to prove my point,one of the post the other day suggested a youtube showing of the last Republican debate and Ron Paul was asking him a queation that dealt with economics.The expression and Pauls comments after the debate(priceless).
MATTHEWS: "Senator McCain, you know you're in my heart!"
That is so sweet...! How about a box of chocolates and a foot massage, too?
Another CM thread. Well, I've got nothing but a limerick since he isn't worth doing a substansive post.
Chris is all fuzzy for John
Who is a grumpy old con
His traight talk is twisted
His message ham fisted -
That war with Iran he is bent on
Chris Matthews in his pants felt a pain
Like his heart, his trousers did strain
"I'm pithching my tent
For this Maverick Gent"
Said Matthews "I'm raising, McCain!"
I don't think there is any question who is going to get the best media attention , John McCain has been called the " straight shooter " " the maverick " almost daily , as well as expertise in foreign affairs and military .
He will also give what the power elites want , the media and other corporation s will get deeper tax cuts , giving the infotainment corporations another opportunity to play on peoples " patriotism" , with jingoism designed to make McCain the best guy to handle the " bad guys" .
You watch ..mcCain's so called " terrorism Creds " will be pimped with a steady drum beat , after a false flag op. , or some act of terrorism that is automatically linked to the neocon's favorite bad guy, Al Qaeda and they are primed for it, never questioning all the phony claims of Al Qaeda in Iraq by the Pentagon . When the time is right , they will play every card in the deck , to get John McCain elected , the " terrorism card " ....the military leader card " ....the " right man for the times card " ..... .
Remember the PNAC doctrine is a long term doctrine and what we should be talking about is who is going to try to take over this blood thirsty , Imperialistic war on the middle east and starting in Africa as well .
Remember , The Rockefellers, the CFR etc. always have bets on both sides, to ensure a winner for them , 99% of the time .
the Kahoneez
I had to switch to CNN for the recent election coverage because of the obvious preferences of the MSNBC anchors in their reportage. I don't mind if Chris Matthews or Olbermann like one candidate over another..put them in the chair that defends that candidate..but don't put them out front as anchors for the coverage. Sorry, but MSNBC is in the minor leagues when it comes to that kind of broadcasting. If people find Matthews and Olbermann entertaining, fine. But let's not pretend they are actual journalists. I'd opt for Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw in a nanosecond