After touting his presidential prospects, Matthews said Giuliani "never really offered a big idea as to why he would be a great president"
SUMMARY: During MSNBC's coverage of the Florida primary, Chris Matthews said of Rudy Giuliani: "I began to watch his campaign soon after he entered it last year, and the one thing missing was a big idea as to why he should be president," adding, "It was all, it seemed to me ... about the past. It was about 9-11." But Matthews has repeatedly cited Giuliani's experience on September 11 as one of his greatest perceived strengths in the presidential race.
During MSNBC's January 30 coverage of the Florida Republican presidential primary, Chris Matthews -- host of MSNBC's Hardball -- asserted of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: "I began to watch his campaign soon after he entered it last year, and the one thing missing was a big idea as to why he should be president." He continued: "It was all, it seemed to me ... about the past. It was about 9-11." He later said that "timing ... is everything" and that "if Rudy had been able to run, perhaps, in 2001 for president, he might've had a shot," adding, "We didn't hold an election that year." But if Matthews recognized flaws in Giuliani's campaign "soon after" Giuliani entered the race, as recently as January 19, he said otherwise. On January 19, Matthews said to Giuliani: "You know, Mayor, for months now, I think I've been one of the troubadours for you out there in terms of your prospects. I have always seen the Giuliani advantage in a party that treasures leadership." And on November 6, 2007, Matthews described Giuliani as "the person with the best shot to win the Republican [presidential] nomination."
The blog Think Progress also has noted Matthews' January 30 comments about Giuliani's campaign.
Matthews has repeatedly touted Giuliani's prospects as a presidential candidate since 2006:
- During that November 6, 2007, edition of Hardball, Matthews also asserted: "I'm not going to sell Rudy. It's not my job to sell anybody." Later, Matthews said: "You know why I've been saying this guy looks good for a long time -- looks like a potential winner? Because I've been talking to a lot of people in the South -- guys that go to lunches in the South, not necessarily church-y people, just secular Republicans -- they hear about lower taxes, law and order, they like him."
- On the February 7, 2007, edition of Imus in the Morning (then broadcast by MSNBC), Matthews said of Giuliani: "And I think the country wants a boss like that. You know, a little bit of fascism there. Just a little bit. Just a pinch of it." When host Don Imus asserted, "Well, the lame observation being made by a lot of folks, maybe it's not lame, but -- that he can't get the nomination because, you know the right-wing nuts, you know --" Matthews interjected: "Well, you know what -- that is such conventional wisdom. ... [T]here should be a buzzer that goes off when people say that kind of crap. Look, if you go down to Jackson, Mississippi, you go to Atlanta, Florida, you go anywhere in the South to men's clubs for lunch, who is the number one speaker they want? Giuliani."
- On the July 18, 2006, edition of NBC's The Tonight Show, Matthews predicted that "the next president of the United States will be Rudy Giuliani."
- On the July 12, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews said Giuliani is "not only running" for president in 2008, but is "going to win the whole thing."
- On the June 14, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews described Giuliani as the "perfect candidate" to replace President Bush.
Matthews has also repeatedly cited Giuliani's experience on September 11, 2001, as one of his greatest perceived strengths in the primary:
- On the June 12, 2007, edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Matthews -- discussing Giuliani's presidential prospects -- asserted: "Rudy's the ultimate street politician. He was there on the curb when 9-11 struck. He had soot on his face," later adding, "I think that's what people are looking for: somebody who's clear and present and right there answering our questions."
- On the March 1, 2007, edition of Hardball, Matthews touted Giuliani as a "hero," saying that Southerners "can't spell his name necessarily, but they know Rudy was a hero." Matthews also praised Giuliani as "the one tough cop who was standing on the beat when we got hit last time and stood up and took it" and said "[w]e know that Giuliani would be powerful in the ethnic Northeast."
- On the February 7, 2007, edition of Imus in the Morning, while discussing the field of presidential candidates, Matthews called Giuliani "the kind of gutsy, street-corner politician we all grew up with" who "stood on the corner during the fire and told us what was going on."
- On the February 5, 2007, edition of MSNBC Live, during a discussion of Giuliani's plans to file a "statement of candidacy," Matthews declared that Giuliani "has street cred" on the issue of "protect[ing] this country against the bad guys," citing "the image [Giuliani] conveys." He also asserted that "voters like this guy because during 9-11, he was the one guy there on the street corner, answering questions, not hiding like all the other pols did."
From the midnight ET hour of MSNBC's January 30 coverage of the Florida primary:
MATTHEWS: I began to watch his campaign soon after he entered it last year, and the one thing missing was a big idea as to why he should be president. It was all, it seemed to me -- no matter how much coloration there was tonight about the economy -- about the past. It was about 9-11. Jon Stewart's joke in reference to him having "9-11 Tourette's," meaning he couldn't get through a sentence without burping out the phrase 9-11; [Sen.] Joe Biden's [D-DE] reference to the fact that he constructed each sentence with a noun, a verb, and the word 9-11, was fairly telling after awhile, and I think it was about the past.
And I think he didn't really come -- you know, I think of great athletes that run for public office and they think it's an autograph tour. It's about the past. Well, it's not, people like to get autographs from famous athletes, but they want to see what they're gonna do next if they're running for office, and so I think that Rudy Giuliani never really offered a big idea as to why he would be a great president. And I think he made that mistake.
And I'm not sure, as Tim said earlier, I don't think it was a question of his itinerary -- he could've gone to Iowa and been blown out of this thing two or three weeks ago rather than tonight -- I just don't think that it lasted. And as I said a number of nights ago, it seems to me that timing -- an old phrase of my old boss Tip O'Neill -- is everything. Everyone who was around in 1951 remembers [Gen. Douglas] MacArthur's great speech before the Congress, and everybody -- right, left, and center -- said, "My God, if this guy could've ran against Harry Truman, he would've beaten the man that fired him." But the election wasn't 'til the next year, and by then, heads had cooled, Truman was OK. [Former President Dwight] Ike [Eisenhower] was the hero, the great peacemaker. And so, if Rudy had been able to run, perhaps, in 2001 for president, he might've had a shot. We didn't hold an election that year.
Matthews flacked for Giulliani, sung his praises, carried high the "America's Mayor" invented title, and did all he could to portray Giulliani as well qualified to be President and holding all the qualities to be a good one.
Now, all of a sudden, Matthews is wondering WHY he could have been supporting and praising a man who really offered no good reason to be supported.
Here's how Rush Limbaugh dealt with the quandry of having to support Republicans, but lacking any rationalization for doing so.
Limbaugh said, when the Democratic Party retook majority in 2006,
"The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm just going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried."
So, there you have it. Matthews was hefting that bucket the best he could.
I have a sick feeling that McCain is going to be our next President. The MSM is already lining up behind him and turning on Romney, and we know how they feel about Hillary. Hillary will slaughter McCain in the debates, yet the bobbleheads will hyperventilate the next day about how Presidential he seemed...we've all seen this movie before.
As to which one is most likely to beat McCain... it's hard to say. One thing we do know is that the GOP will lie, cheat and steal to hold onto the Presidency. If the Democratic nominee fails to respond quickly and forcefully to the coming sh*tstorm from the Right, they'll steal another election right out from under us.
The biggest disappointment of all will be if they blow this election, which just a few months ago seemed to be theirs for the taking.
If the Democrats nominate Hillary over Obama, they very well run the risk of losing - I am surprised they can't see that. She is far too polarizing a candidate and half the country will never vote for her, no matter who she is up against.
On the other hand, Obama, arguably the more liberal candidate, appeals to moderates, many Republicans and conservatives - he offers a vision of hope and unity, where Hillary reminds many of why the Clinton years were so divisive. Maybe that isn't her fault, but many see Bill, they see Hillary.
Nobody has stirred the electorate in recent memory, so far, the way Obama has - from either party. If the Democrats don't wake up and realize that, they may very well lose in November.
However, if Obama is the nominee, he may be able to use his charisma to overshadow McCain's codgerly demeanor.
The MEDIA is busy portraying this as a NOSE-to-NOSE HORSERACE, where McCain is the likely winner.
What they IGNORE is that their "likely voter" polls are all GARBAGE, because the Democrats are pulling in TWICE the voters in the primaries as the Republicans. They are new, energized, and newly committed voters, and they signal a BLOWOUT in the general election.
But, that's not the story the MSM wishes to report. FIRST, they are invested in McCain, the Republican, being able to continue the policies of GW Bush. (and people are supposed to VOTE for "more of the same"). And SECOND, a blowout is not nearly as good a story as a "TOO CLOSE TO CALL" race. Ratings demand that the election be portrayed as a "nail biter".
How many Americans will step into a voting booth and decide, YES, I want more of Bush's policies, and YES, we should have 100 YEARS MORE in Iraq, and YES, we need more and more wars, and McCain declares are coming?
I daresay, sentiments are AT LEAST seven-to-one AGAINST Bush, and anything that looks, smells, or sounds like him. And McCain stinks of him.
I wonder will Mathews learn from this that he not up to doing two jobs at the same time. Instead of just trying to cover the political figures, he tried to affect the process. He did neither well.
If he were a private political advisor, perhaps it would have occurred to him to advise Giuliani to be more forward looking and more outwardly directed to the actual needs of the voter. The advice does Giuliani little good now.
If he just did his job, perhaps the American people would be edified and make sounder decisions. And Mathews would have some credibility as an unbiased political analyst.
It looks like he cares about the good neither of the process or his professional reputation.
This just in: Chris Matthews is no great brain.
In other stories, the sun is hot and water is wet.
Film at 11:00.... :-)
"... if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking." -- Woodrow Wilson
**Borrowed this quote from Atheist from over at the Imus thread, it applies here as well**
Campaign slogans for Tweety "I wish I knew who to quit you"
Chrissy M. epitomizes the spineless coward, who'd not think twice about uttering a disingenuous remark if it'd get him recognized...by his latest heart throb.
Mr. Mathews' verbal machinations are most salubrious to those who prefer bed-wetting.
After spending months fawning over the superficial appeal of Giuliani...Matthews says Giuliani has nothing beyond that superficial appeal.
Brilliant work there.
I accept your point about Matthews honesty but remember that Matthews merely stated the obvious. Perhaps Sean Hannity and others would not even do that, though.
At the risk of sounding inflicted with delusions of grandeur many times I think my own political acumen, and that of some people here, is at least as sharp as many of the talking heads on television. They just have staffs of producers and researchers to feed them information.
Matthews misguided predictions about Rudy Giuliani simply reinforces the notion that people should think for themselves and not be led sheep-like by talking heads. I just wish the FOX-Faithful and Dittoheads would take note.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109443/
They fill the airwaves with their blatherings, but then, like Carvey's character in the film, forget everything they said before the next day. Was this what it always was like before anybody checked?
I wish Matthews show would stop after he said this, and then show all the clips that contradict him. Go to commercial then, fade to black.
Obama will make a perfect running mate for Hillary, and Edwards would be a GREAT Attorney General. Imagine having his fire for justice, his championing of the poor, and his anger at corporate America, combined with unlimited investigative and subpeona power?
As AG, Edwards will be making BIG NEWS every day, going after corruption and ENFORCING laws and regulations that help out the working man. It will be WONDERFUL.
Of course, if that idiot Nader jumps in as he's now threatening, we're screwed again.
Won't they have immunity when they leave office? May be a dumb question, but I don't care.
I feel pretty certain that they'll never pay for their monstrous crimes. If the Dems are too scared to even hold hearings about the manipulation of pre-war intelligence now, they aren't likely to open that can of worms after the election.
Dick and Georgie will get away, scot free... swimming in money and laughing at the idiots who put them in office...twice.
I guess our last recourse is to make sure that his legacy accurately reflects the putrid stench of his presidency.
If it was possible, I'm pretty sure Dick Nixon would have pardoned himself rather than let Ford do it.
I'm not entirely sure that the issue ever was settled with Nixon. I could very well be wrong, but I watched richard ben veniste (sp) in an interview a few years back explaining how Nixon had never been indicted on criminal charges. He was an "unindicted co-conspirator," and Ford pardoned him for all criminal acts that he "may" have committed in the past. I forget the exact language, but Nixon never actually was criminally prosecuted. Besides, during actual "watergate", I think the main issue was "executive privilege."
I remember the issue of "presidential immunity" came up, indirectly, with Clinton, when he was being sued for acts committed before he took office. I remember commentators saying that sitting presidents cannot be sued for crap that they do in office.
In any event, and besides impeachment, I'm just curious whether there's definitive authority saying that a president can be prosecuted for alleged crimes committed while in office, like perjury or something.
It would be interesting to hear an expert opinion on this matter. It probably won't come up anyway, since the Democrats apparently don't have the spine to pursue it, and if McCain wins (gag), forgettaboutit.
"The biggest case of his legal career was a 1997 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a three-year-old girl who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain whose protective cover other children at the pool had removed, after the swim club had failed to install the cover properly. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings. Sta-Rite protested that an additional warning would have made no difference because the pool owners already knew the importance of keeping the cover secured.
In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half and referenced his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, would later call it "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen." The jury awarded the family $25 million, the largest personal injury award in North Carolina history. The company settled for the $25 million while the jury was deliberating additional punitive damages, rather than risk losing an appeal. For their part in this case, Edwards and law partner David Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service. The family said that they hired Edwards over other attorneys because he alone had offered to accept a smaller percentage as fee unless the award was unexpectedly high, while all of the other lawyers they spoke with said they required the full one-third fee. The size of the jury award was unprecedented, and Edwards did receive the standard one-third plus expenses fee typical of contingency cases. The family was so impressed with his intelligence and commitment that they volunteered for his Senate campaign the next year." -copied from Wiki
There was another case last year in Minnesota..A six-year-old Minnesota girl who was horrifically disemboweled after sitting on an open drain in a swimming pool received three new organs.
Abigail Taylor received a new small bowel, liver and pancreas in a rare triple-organ transplant at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Unfortunately, this problem continues elsewhere in the country...but not in North Carolina.
"A lawsuit was filed against three pool companies for the entrapment death of 7-year-old Virginia Graeme Baker, granddaughter of former Secretary of State James Baker.
According to the plaintiffs, on June 15, 2002, the child was entrapped in a family friend's spa during a party. Her buttocks became stuck to the vessel's single drain, holding her underwater while various individuals tried in succession to save her. Eventually, she was freed, but it was too late.
The suit named Hayward Pool Products of Elizabeth, N.J., which produced the drain cover on the single-drain spa; Poolservice Co. of Arlington, Va., which maintained the pool and inground spa; and Sta-Rite of Delavan, Wis., manufacturer of the pump on the site. Sta-Rite settled for an undisclosed amount before the complaint was served, said the manufacturer's attorney, James V. Etscorn of Baker & Hostetler, LLP, in Orlando, Fla.
The drain cover was not an anti-vortex or anti-entrapment version and hadn't been damaged or loosened before the incident, according to Baker attorney Michael Haggard. "The whole fallacy to the pool and spa industry's argument that if you just maintain your drain cover, everything will be fine is gone now," said Haggard of Haggard, Parks, Haggard & Lewis in Coral Gables, Fla. "Everything was intact. It was operating exactly as intended."
Mary, my mind remains unchanged. I was familiar with how Edwards made his first millions, only not in the detail that you provided. Thanks.
I'm also familiar with tort lawyers, and it seems to me that they get rich on the suffering of their clients. There's nothing wrong with that, as that's they way it's gotta be, but in my impression they want bad injuries, or bad medical mistakes and whatnot. The sadder the case, the more $$$ for the attorney. So I'm not convinced about Edwards magnanimity. Many tort lawyers will take a lesser percentage when there's a much larger pie.
But that's not my gripe anyway. I just don't buy the guy's sincerity. It's not even his message that bothers me, (for it's basically the same as Obama's), but it's his delivery. He tries to come across as the workingman's savior and hero, and I find him bone-chillingly patronizing.
And his crap about being the son of a millworker just annoys the hell hout of me. I mean, so what? Being the son of hardworking parents doesn't mean a d*mm thing to me, and it certainly doesn't make him blue collar. He's a rich lawyer, but he tries to act like some coal miner leading a strike.
So, none of this matters, but I felt I owed you a response b/c I appreciate you filling me in on the details of the case . ..... Again, I just think he's a phony, like an Elmer Gantry of the working class. It's all my opinion, but that's that.
He's had personal tragedy; he's a compelling advocate for labor, the working poor and the middle class. His policy positions were put out before Hillary's and Obama's and are well thought out.
Jimmy Carter is another figure who came from a humble background. He's also been smeared by the right wing, despite his humanitarian work around the world.
Well, this may be true, but you could level the same criticism at doctors, could you not? I would imagine that they make pretty good money on lengthy, high-tech treatments. The sicker you are, the more $$$ for the doctor. Right?
Yeah, some lawyers are like vultures, but they're the only defense some people have against the indifference of the capitalist system. Somewhere there has to be a balance, because I don't think we want to live in a world where the average citizen has no recourse when injured by corporate negligence or fraud.
I'm not sure about doctors. But in any case, all that was by way of saying that I don't think he's some great humanitarian simply because he gets large recoveries for sympathetic clients. Tort lawyers go out of their way to parade someone's suffering in order to put a large money value on it. The way they prepare witnesses before trial to sound pathetic is a bit unseemly.
Nonetheless I agree that lawyers are totally necessary, for the legal system is a procedural racket that requires some knowledge in the field. And I'm definitely not saying that all lawyers are similarly bad -- I'm just saying that unpersuaded by Edwards depiction of himself as some fighter for the workingman, the sick and/or downtrodden. I mean, Obama's another lawyer, and I like him and think he's sincere.
And as for Edwards' personal tragedies, I know I sound cold, but those don't make him a hero either. We all step in it if we live long enough.
Here's my question for you, Thomp. If something like those two cases happened to you, would you call a lawyer?
As a trial lawyer, I am disgusted with the statements you promulgate about Edwards. NO ONE who could ever be a good lawyer cheers for the suffering of others. Would you rather the big companies and doctors who operate negligently be allowed to keep doing this unchecked? Yes, lawyers get fees from tragedy, but there is NO WAY Edwards cheers for injuries or wants them.
This is the same line of thinking that some people have that the Democrats are cheering for more American fatalities in Iraq. Its disgusting and has to stop. Unless you know Edwards personally, how can you not be happy that Edwards gained some measure of justice for those people?
Sorry to disgust you. However, I do happen to be familiar with trial lawyers and view many of them with circumspection. And certainly I'd call a lawyer if those things happened to me. Lawyers have monopolized the people's access to courts, and they require that you "pay to play."
I'm just not convinced about smooth-talking Edwards, even despite his terrific credential of being the son of a millworker. I know lawyers who've made bundles of cash representing injured or dead clients, and they don't all do it out of the goodness of their hearts. So I don't buy Edwards' crap about his life long fight for the workingman against the big bad corporations . . .
Show me a country on earth where you don't need a good lawyer to make your case and have access to the court systems! Do you think lawyers should be free?
This argument makes as much sense as being upset with doctors because they have monopolized access to health. You certainly have to pay to get access to care, do you not? What profession that is necessary to society allows free exposure to his or her expertise. Name one area.
Yeah, Thomp, there are lawyers who aren't great people, but your stereotypes are unnecessary.
You still have yet to name one "con" perpetrated by Edwards.
Yeah I did Nerzog. I agree. I argued with someone here a few months back that I always thought McCain was Tweety's real man-crush.
Well maybe now that Giuliani is onboard with McCain, Matthews will encourage Guiliani to let McCain in on a few of the secrets that helped drive his campaign – like how to get the pee smell out of the Republican Party? :)
"Rudy Giuliani never really offered a big idea as to why he would be a great president"
...that's the way an apologist for the guy would say it. And they'd be sure to phrase it in a way that makes it seem like it's just politics is all.
Note the choice of the words "offered" "big idea" and "great"; as though all rudy had to do was just "offer", and just make his ideas a little bigger, and just lower the bar from great to simply good (even competent), and he'd have been our next President of the United States.
Bullchit.
When you strip those words (and the bullchit behind them) out of the apology, in favor of the flatly stated honest truth, you get:
There was never really any reason why he should be president.
Which is the pure unadultered truth. There was any reason. Not one.