That was then ... Matthews lauded "experience" of Bush's Cabinet picks in 2001, but says Obama's selection of prior administration vets is "crap"
SUMMARY: Amid reports that President-elect Barack Obama has decided to nominate Clinton Justice Department veteran Eric Holder to be attorney general, Chris Matthews criticized Obama on Hardball: "You could do this in any bureaucratic state, you could do it in the old Soviet Union. ... You don't need elections for this crap." But in 2001, Matthews said of George W. Bush's Cabinet picks, which included veterans of past administrations: "There's some real heavyweights in terms of experience."
On the November 18 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, amid reports that President-elect Barack Obama has decided to nominate Clinton Justice Department veteran Eric Holder to be attorney general, host Chris Matthews said, "This is what you do when you don't have elections. You simply promote the people ... who had the deputy jobs. You could do this in any bureaucratic state, you could do it in the old Soviet Union. ... You don't need elections for this crap." But in 2001, responding to then President-elect George W. Bush's selection to his cabinet of veterans of prior administrations, Matthews offered a very different assessment of such actions. Purporting to quote "an NBC driver" on the January 3, 2001, edition of Hardball, Matthews said the driver, a Vietnam veteran, is "like a lot of guys you meet," and said, "They want guys who've been around and survived." Matthews then said of then-President elect George W. Bush's Cabinet picks: "You've got it in this Cabinet. There's some real heavyweights in terms of experience."
At the time, Bush had nominated Donald Rumsfeld to be secretary of defense, the same position he held under President Ford, and Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H.W. Bush, to be secretary of state. He had also named Dick Cheney, defense secretary under President George H.W. Bush, to be his running mate.
While Matthews raised the question of whether, in his Cabinet picks, Bush "risk[ed] being overwhelmed by their maturity and veteran status," he did not suggest that Bush was mimicking "the old Soviet Union" in selecting people who had served in previous administrations.
From the January 3, 2001, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews (retrieved from the Nexis news database):
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about this big fight over the Cabinet. First of all, it's -- the most impressive Cabinet appointment in the world right now is -- is Colin Powell, your friend.
BILL BENNETT (secretary of education under President Reagan): Well, obviously...
MATTHEWS: Clearly.
BENNETT: ... hailed worldwide and everyone in America loves him.
MATTHEWS: Probably the most impressive Cabinet appointment since Jefferson or whatever back in the early days of our republic. Do you think he might find his way into a vice-presidential nomination in four years?
BENNETT: Sure he can. And who knows what Cheney wants to do? He could have found his way into a presidential nomination. If you remember, some of us were encouraging...
MATTHEWS: But this will be the less -- this would be less dramatic. This would be a smooth transition.
BENNETT: Yeah, this would be an easy transition. Exactly right.
MATTHEWS: And he -- I've been thinking about this overnight. The Bush people have a tremendous ace in the hole. It's Colin Powell. He may run the next time. That ticket would be undefeatable.
BENNETT: Well, it's an ace in the hole for that. It's, also, an ace in the hole, I think, for some serious issue of foreign policy. If we need an appeal to the nation, the president makes it. Colin Powell can also speak and persuade a lot of people.
MATTHEWS: I had an NBC driver the other day, I was doing the TODAY show, and he said something really powerful to me, like a lot of guys you meet. You know what he said? He said people -- and he was in Vietnam for -- he said people like to be around veterans. They like to be with a guy who's been there 10 months. They don't want to be surrounded by raw recruits, and...
BENNETT: That's right.
MATTHEWS: ... and guys that -- you know, just guys who were brought in -- grunts, as they were called.
BENNETT: Right.
MATTHEWS: They want guys who've been around and survived. You've got it in this Cabinet. There's some real heavyweights in terms of experience.
BENNETT: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: Does your guy, the president elect, risk being overwhelmed by their maturity and veteran status? I mean, you've got Dick Cheney in the room. Don Rumsfeld, the former secretary of Defense. You've got Colin Powell, a world hero. And you're the least...
BENNETT: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... impressive guy in the room.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think so, but very strong. I -- you know, when I went to a university once, the president of the university told me if your department chairman -- there's only one test for a good department chairman -- hire people whose -- who are -- whose light will shine brighter than his, that's a secure guy. This is a very strong bunch of people. It's also -- and a lot of people are somewhat surprised -- a conservative Cabinet. I mean, it's...
MATTHEWS: Very.
BENNETT: ... diverse and all this, but this is a very strong, conservative Cabinet.
From the November 18 edition of Hardball:
MATTHEWS: But first tonight, as President-elect Obama assembles his governing team, some of the members of the new administration charged with change look awfully familiar. Joining me, MSNBC's political analyst Pat Buchanan and American Prospect editor and author of Obama's Challenge Robert Kuttner.
Pat, let's take a look at some of these faces. I mean, they are not the new kids on the block. Eric Holder tonight, for attorney general. Hillary Clinton for secretary of state. Joe Lieberman stays on as senator from Connecticut and prime member of the Democratic caucus. Look at this list. We've got Lieberman on, [John] Podesta [co-chairman of Obama's transition team], [Rahm] Emanuel [incoming White House chief of staff], Holder, Clinton -- the list goes on. I'm looking for the new face. Pat?
BUCHANAN: Well, we're in -- look, we're in retread city, is what's going on. This is the Nixon -- I mean, the Clinton alumni association showing up here.
MATTHEWS: No, you're a Nixon alumni association.
BUCHANAN: I'm Nixon alumni. But you know, but Eric Holder is, I mean, he's a very competent, able man, but the thing he's most famous for, as you mentioned, is a pardon -- Frank Rich's pardon, which he expedited on behalf of Bill Clinton. He was going to run for mayor of D.C. He's as local as you can get. I mean, I don't see anyone from outside, real change here. I mean, these people are undeniably competent, but this is what you'd expect if someone else had won.
MATTHEWS: This is what you do when you don't have elections. You simply promote the people -- Robert Kuttner -- who had the deputy jobs. You could do this in any bureaucratic state, you could do it in the old Soviet Union, do it anywhere you have a bureaucracy. You don't need to hold elections to promote deputies to the top job when it comes time, right? You don't need elections for this crap, do you? Robert?
KUTTNER: Well, I was disappointed --
MATTHEWS: You just keep promoting people from within in any old, tired bureaucracy. That's what you do. You don't think. It's very Republican thinking, Pat, by the way.
By the way, he didn't pardon Frank Rich of The New York Times; he pardoned Marc Rich.
BUCHANAN: It was Marc Rich.
MATTHEWS: I know you've got Frank on your mind. But, uh -- just kidding. We all make mistakes here.
Media Matters: you get the most flattering pics of these hosts. And the crawl underneath proclaims "vegetables appear to offer special protection..."
I think Chrissy is throwing tomatoes at former Clinton officials just out of boredom. He and shrub had such a cozy relationship, and he's been a bit snippy after they broke up.
MMFA is really hammering on Chris Matthews...
And I'm sure once they're done with Matthews it's off to dissect Michael Savage and his all-star performance that he gave today...
If Chris doesn't want experienced picks, at least have the decency to say why he doesn't agree with the picks. Only an idiot thinks putting 100% new never before tested individuals into cabinet slots is a good idea. Bush proved that point several times over.
bennett says everyone loves colin powell. not me, not after he got up at the united nations and spread the bush propaganda about wmd. things that he knew to be false. i actually think powell could have been elected president in 2000, but his credibility is gone with a lot of people.
as far as the cabinet appointments, they will be way better than whoever is there now. i think hillary should not take the job if she's conflicted about it, but it's up to her and obama.
the republicans have once again become capitalists. now that it's help for the auto industry, we have to let them fail. but the problem is much bigger than an airline or bank failing. in those cases, someone buys up the assets, changes the signs on the ticket counter or puts new deposit slips in the lobby and life goes on. that would not be the case with cars. those factories will need to be retooled and that will take a lot of time. everyone will be affected down to the dealers. it's worth 25 billion to avoid the massive disruptions. a big part of the problem is that people are afraid to buy because of the economic crisis we're in. i realize the auto companies are partly to blame, and any aid should come with the provision that they set a high fuel efficiency standard. oil prices have dropped, but eventually will go up again. it's time we started taking the problem seriously, thirty years too late.
To be fair to Republicans, what I heard on MTP Sunday wasn't just "let the auto industry fail". The position was that 25 billion wouldn't have a chance of saving the auto industry and if it did it would be a worthy investment.
But the person arguing against aid to the auto industry was saying that the 25 billion wouldn't be nearly enough. I have no idea if that's true, I also know there are some Republicans that do support helping the auto industry, it's not 100% opposition.
To be fair to Republicans ... - bruce1ace
That will be quite enough of THAT.
nothing is ever 100 percent. but i have heard lots of republican politicians say let them fail. as i said, i'm not willing to just hand money over with no strings, but what's going on here is not just a matter of them selling gas hogs no one wants. toyota is down also. the general economy is contributing to this. maybe it will cost more, but it just seems odd that we can vote 700 billion for banks and aig, yet we're willing to let an industry fail that will have a huge impact nationwide and that will take a long time to replace as an economic force. in any case, the sooner bush and his band of rejects is out of office the better. i don't trust them to do, or even know, the right thing.
No one with a brain gives two poops what the Savage Lunatic says.
He is fun to point at and laugh at, however.,,
I don't recall Matthews saying anything overtly sexist about Simple Sarah. Maybe you can provide an example?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me try my theory about why Sarah Palin seems to be catching on. I don't think she's running as a traditional VP, which is no big deal. She's running as kind of like the other partner, somewhere between a VP and a First Lady, maybe
Oh yeah, ya got us there. Why that's way more vile than calling hillary a b!tch, a c*nt and just about every other sexist word out there...
No all sexists comments are unacceptable.
Mathews may have some sexism, but his hatred of the Clintons exsists independentaly of it.
I will agree with you about his hate of the Clintons, his nasty remarks during the primaries.
i fail to see where matthews was slamming her. he was saying she would be more than a vice president. calling someone the "other partner" implies they would be almost as equally important as the president. not much of an example.
Okay, that's one example of a statement that is marginally sexist, though I would classify it as more patronizing.... and certainly not very hateful.
If he "spewed the most sexist hate" toward Simple Sarah for two months, surely you can find something a little more provocative?
Sure I could but is that my job? The guy has a record of hate toward women his hate toward Hillary should be proof enough. Why are you defending someone who seems to have issues with women?
No particular reason.... I just think that you're exaggerating the offense.
That, and I think any contempt heaped upon Simple Sarah is justified... the woman is dangerous.
Yeah i am sure her down syndrome child thinks she is dangerous. You are disgusting.
what make you think dangerous people don't love their families and vice versa. i have no doubt george bush loves his family and they him. i also have no doubt that he is the worst thing to happen to this country in many years. palin thinks the world runs on those ridiculous cliches she throws out.
Because it isn't conservative misinformation. Go to littlegreenfootballs or whatever if you want to read about that.
But MMFA felt this attack on Sarah Palin was
Baker on Palin's appearance at VP debate: "Shoulda had a little cleavage going ... I noticed a panty line on her"
On the October 3 broadcast of The Chris Baker Show, Baker said Palin "shoulda had a little cleavage going" during the vice-presidential debate, and that he "noticed a panty line on her."
Well you've got me there. I don't know why Media Matters would go after Baker and not Matthews. Unless they think the idea that people want to see Sarah Palin's cleavage is conservative misinformation.
what matthews said, and what baker said, are two different things. you insisting they are the same doesn't make it true.
I would normal cut into Matthews like a buzzsaw.
But I think we maybe should give Chris a break. He was very excited about the election of Obama. I think that Chris, like so many other Obama people, expected the enitre government to transform immediately because of the "Change" mandate. But the truth of the matter is that Obama is a practical politician and the work of government has to be done -- so here comes the mainstream career poliiticians. The far left is already grumbling about more or less the same thing. Perhaps, they have a right to feel let's say let down. My wife is iffy about the "Clinton appointment" at best or perhaps they are just being unrealistic.
The Constitution does not easily allow for government 180's and that why BushCo had to shred it -- so the government could go from a device to promote general welfare and personal rights to well what it is now.
Plus for good or bad how many people can run a government anyway.
It's that darned liberal media bias again, huh?
I tawt I taw a Clintonite!
I did! I did!
I did taw a Clintonite!
"If Obama didn't pick experienced people they'd be hammering him for that. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't."
True that.