Matthews: "[W]hat do you have with McCain? Integrity"
SUMMARY: On Hardball, Chris Matthews asserted: "Look, the war's not going to be any more popular in November. It may be somewhat OK with 30, 40 percent of the people, but it's never going to be a winner. The economy's not going to be a winner. So what do you have with [Sen. John] McCain? Integrity." But Matthews did not note his own role in promoting that image of McCain, despite numerous false assertions and inconsistencies.
During the May 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asserted: "Look, the war's not going to be any more popular in November. It may be somewhat OK with 30, 40 percent of the people, but it's never going to be a winner. The economy's not going to be a winner. So what do you have with [Sen. John] McCain? Integrity. Who's the best person to run against on integrity? Hillary [Clinton]. Based upon all the numbers we have, she has a candor, an honesty problem." But in asserting that the public views McCain as having "integrity," Matthews did not note the media's role generally and his own role in promoting that image. In Matthews' case, that promotion includes frequent references to McCain as a "maverick," someone who has "always been honest," and someone who displays "candor" and engages in "straight talk," despite numerous false assertions and inconsistencies.
From the May 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: The thing that makes me think that the old attempt by the conservatives -- and including non-party people like Pat Buchanan -- to run against Hillary is, every time I sit against Pat Buchanan here, he doesn't give it away, I just know what he's up to. Because Pat Buchanan has a number of brains. One brain is for analysis, which he uses. The other one is for strategy. He is giggling at the idea of going against Hillary Clinton in the general. And here's my theory -- I don't know why I'm saying this. You're supposed to say this.
KEN BLACKWELL (former Ohio secretary of state): Well, look, Chris --
MATTHEWS: Look, the war's not going to be any more popular in November. It may be somewhat OK with 30, 40 percent of the people, but it's never going to be a winner. The economy's not going to be a winner. So what do you have with McCain? Integrity. Who's the best person to run against on integrity? Hillary. Based upon all the numbers we have, she has a candor, an honesty problem. Isn't that the smartest move for you guys?
BLACKWELL: Susan is absolutely right when she said, a couple of months ago, they probably were rooting on Hillary --
FORMER REP. SUSAN MOLINARI (R-NY): Yeah, I think [unintelligible].
BLACKWELL: -- because she had known negatives. And they thought she had a ceiling of about 52 percent. But what this Reverend Wright incident has done, you know, has brought down his popularity, risen -- has pumped up his negatives, and he is now --
MOLINARI: And the other thing that she's been able to do in this race, both -- he's enabled her to do, obviously, is to appear much more moderate, doing Bill O'Reilly, you know, getting union endorsements, seeming like the reasonable -- again, you know, this is the woman that can win, you know, a lot of those Reagan Democrats in Pennsylvania, right?
MATTHEWS: [unintelligible]
MOLINARI: There are a lot of them in Staten Island, New York, who will not vote for Barack Obama now as a result of the Reverend Wright [unintelligible].
MATTHEWS: Are they anti-Barack votes or are they pro-Hillary votes? In other words, are those people ready to vote for Hillary now, but they really are planning to vote for McCain later?
Not my first choice either. I was thinking something more along the lines of "a$$hole".
Not sure how they'll s pin the backstabbing of the vets, but leave that to our friends in the media.
Doesn't matter how much pandering he does...
Doesn't matter how many flip-flops Grampy does...
The corporate media is going to sell the "brand"--Maverick, Integrity, Straight-Talker. Either democrat will be dogged until election day, but McBush will get a free pass, or get such light treatment he can coast into the White House.
It's very important that they keep issues in the background. Much easier to sell the "brand" when you can keep politics at a 6th-grade level, or a gutterball level.
I don't think he understands what "integrity" means.
If Tweety is trying to equate "Gramps McCain" with "integrity", then he obviouslt doesn't know what "integrity" means.
The point Matthews is making is considering how behind the eight ball McCain will be on issues this fall, how vulnerable his party and their record is on the issues, that the best strategy to run against the Republicans is most likely integrity......and between Clinton and Obama, Clinton is more beatable in that match-up, according to Matthews and many out there.
This isn't misinformation, it's a pundit's opinion that casts an unfavorable shadow on Hillary, and doesn't push the narrative that McCain is scum, and that is a no-no.
Tommy, thanks for thanking Solon for his well reasoned post, and thank you for recognizing Solon's class and dignity. It's really nice to see posters acknowledge another posters good points, and go one step further to take the time to thank them. I could go on and on, but in short, thank you for thanking Solon. And please, have a great weekend. ;-)
Solon and I battle, and our tempers get the best of us, but I have always respected his passionate opinions, disagreeing with them does not equal disrespect.
Thanks for your kind words, you have a nice weekend too.
Tommy, WHAT exactly is going on with you and Solon??? I guess I was a fool to think we had something special!
** (arms folded, lip quivering, trying to be strong) **
Tommy,
Media Matters has given many clear examples which seem to indicate that McCain has no integrity--and that he's a panderer and a flip-flopper. Have you heard any on them?
That is odd. I didn't watch it but have seen a few snipits on Morning Joe. BTW Joe & Mika both said O'Reilly did a great interview, and Hillary did well with her answers.
All I can figure is MMFA is still looking the video over OR theres nothing they can get Bill for. Ha! That would be a first.
I don't typically watch but I made it a point to. I was curious to see the MMFA reaction. I agree with the assessment of both Bill O and HRC. Some of the things she proposes and believes are still too far left for me but she came off as confident, knowledgeable, and personalbe.
One of the things that bothers me about Obama is that when he's off the stump or out from behind the teleprompter he's kind of clumsy in his presentations and responss to questions.
"One of the things that bothers me about Obama is that when he's off the stump or out from behind the teleprompter he's kind of clumsy in his presentations and responss to questions."--DS
I've noticed that as well, but my gut reaction to this is that he's trying to be as thoughtful as possible about his answer or statement. I liken this to walking a thin tightrope, and teetering sideways while trying to find the proper balance. This is certainly better than falling off the rope to disaster, which is what we have in the White House now.
Honestly, Mel Tillis would be better than what we have now.
Honestly, Mel Tillis would be better than what we have now.
Thanks for the Friday afternoon laugh - I just had a visual of Mel singing the State of the Union Address.
Imagine the two of them in a debate:
Mel: I, I, I, er, I, ah, er, eee, I . . .
W: I, I, I, er, I, ah, er, eee, I . . .
Rick, that's funny, it's something I've noticed about Obama, his deliberate pauses, occasionally close to stammering.
It doesn't register as a negative to me, as some of the most brilliant and thoughtful people I know tend to float off and mumble at times when speaking. It seems to be a by-product of actual brain activity, and a real passion for the words used.
I only think it could hurt him among those who like it short,sweet and dumb. I've seen this during my lifetime, not only in politics, but in the workplace. Saying nothing, or spouting platitudes, forcefully and clearly can come off as more "confident" than original thoughts that hit the occasional speedbump because of the effort that goes into them.
I think this is something that has always been a factor, but I first really noticed it with R. Reagan, the "Great Communicator". That guy could read happy-talk scripts like a mo-fo (before he started getting dodgy in the noggin), and the timing of the late 70s was ripe for that, against the soft-spoken and intellectual Carter.
BTW, that was the first election I was able to vote in ('80), and I think it was a milestone in the dumbing-down of America.
"Rick, that's funny, it's something I've noticed about Obama, his deliberate pauses, occasionally close to stammering."
My guess has always been that this is a deliberate affectation to downplay his intelligence so as to avoid seeming too smart to some non-Blacks and too White (or educated) to some Blacks. I never brought it up myself, but this handicap has made wonder why so many consider him such a good speaker.
You still wonder about that?
Do you still wonder about the shape of the earth?
One place where no gray area exists is in clear, direct statements that wholly correspond with the speaker's entire history of thought on the topic. Matthews directly stated that McCain has integrity. He said it, he believes it, and you know he believes it. You also know he's wrong.
Feel free to cite any instance of Matthews questioning McCain's integrity if you want to disagree.
No, you are, again. Matthews is wholly entitled to his opinion regarding McCain, as you are. If you can't accept the difference of opinion, then no wonder you look here for constant reinforcement of yours.
You need to really get a grip on what an opinion is? It would make you look less foolish.
Do you ever reply to what is said to you, or do you just repeat "can't we all just get along?"
I presume these boards are here for debate. I'm not here to get along.
Of course he's forgotten the Keating 5 scandal...
Conservative scandals are easily forgotten. Democratic smears have a longer shelf life than uranium.
How do you NOT have that with Senator Obama?
(Other than in the minds of right-wing reactionaries that is.)
cCain in the White House. remember none of the Bush's robots will have a job in government if he doesn't.
I did think this was the highlight of the conversation:
FORMER REP. SUSAN MOLINARI (R-NY): Yeah, I think [unintelligible].
MATTHEWS: Look, the war's not going to be any more popular in November. It may be somewhat OK with 30, 40 percent of the people, but it's never going to be a winner.
This guy matthews talks about "the war" as though he were talking about a contestant on American Idol.
Remember when the problem with you (an American Person) with regard to "the war", was that you were "war weary"? The message back then was, there's nothing wrong with "the war", but it was you... you were weak, and tired... you didn't have enough resolve, or fortitude or backbone or whatever it is that you didn't have to finish the job, you weary old fool you.
Remember when the problem with you, regarding "the war", was that you were impatient? You just didn't have the foresight, and you couldn't see the big picture... they (rumsfeld I remember) said you were so childish and stupid and impatient, that you thought you were getting an "instant gratification war"... remember that?
Well, now you're a noodge (if that's how it's spelled)... your impersonable, and not friendly I guess... you disapprove of things that other people (30 or 40 percent, according to matthews) find popular, find "somewhat OK" is what the moron said specifically...
You just don't know a good thing when you see it, you weak weary spineless impatient fools... you just can't find it in yourselves to see "the "war" as popular, or "somewhat OK", like 30 or 40 percent of your Fellow Americans do.
You're not supportive enough.
And if you don't get on board, and start finding "the war" popular, then guess what might happen?
It might just one week not come back, that's what... it might disappear from view, disappear from your television (or disappear more than it has already)...
..."the war" might not keep coming back, week after week, like an American Idol contestant, if you don't start finding it more popular.
Very well done Dem...
Your posts often stand out, and we appreciate them.
At the risk of piling on, I'll say "great post" too. Popularity is an American virtue, and much more important to the media/conservative mindset than to that of the normal human. Just as it's not uncommon on this site to see examples of conservative propaganda rebutted with ratings statistics, the validity of a war is analyzed in terms of focus groups and market testing.
Like that ol' t-shirt from the 70s said, "10 billion flies can't be wrong!"
How many times will the "War" be a separate issue. The economy is sinking in large part because of the "War" they are inseparably linked.
I fail to understand how anyone can support a pro war candidate unless one is benefiting from war profiteering.
McCain should not get any votes from rational well thought out people.
But since maybe one third of our country might be described as religious fundamentalists, then rational thinking is severely curtailed.
I only think it could hurt him among those who like it short,sweet and dumb. I've seen this during my lifetime, not only in politics, but in the workplace. Saying nothing, or spouting platitudes, forcefully and clearly can come off as more "confident" than original thoughts that hit the occasional speedbump because of the effort that goes into them.
Col, your entire post was great, but the above really explains how many politicians typically frame an issue in the most simplistic and straightforward manner, leaving out "small" details and nuances that can drastically change their form. It's easy to spout them with confidence because they're dumbed down and lack any thoughtful explanations, since that takes TIME and sufficient MEMORY.
All those Staten Islanders not voting for Obama still live in New York, a blue state.
So these talking heads on basic cable can talk about them to no end, however under our electoral college system, their votes are unlikely to count.
Matthews: "[W]hat do you have with McCain? Integrity"
Nope. Not a bit of integruty.