Mediaite » Chris Matthews

Chris Matthews Explains JFK’s Affairs: He Was Able To ‘Understand People’s Feelings And Not Be Moved’

Alex Alvarez — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:54:44 +0000

On Friday, the folks at Morning Joe invited Chris Matthews — who recently published Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero, a book about (you guessed it!) John F. Kennedy — to the show to discuss Mimi Alford, a former White House intern who recently came forward with the story of her affair with the former President.

Joe Scarborough, for one, isn’t exactly shocked by the news that Kennedy engaged in an affair with a young press intern. He brought up two other interns — named “Fiddle and Faddle” by the secret service — and Joe Kennedy‘s rumored interest in his son’s dates.

Matthews called JFK’s actions “indefensible” and gave us some insight into what Kennedy was like as a person:

Part of it that’s indefensible is his tone of detachment, his ability to understand the feelings of those around him, and in fact track them and manipulate them, whether it’s Curtis LeMay or it’s his wife. I mean, his amazing ability to understand people’s feelings and not be moved by them at all. I think the word that’s been used recently is “heedless.” Cold detachment.

And the other part of it is the compartmentalization of his life where he could have what seems to be — if you’ve listened to all these tapes that have come out — a full marriage. Discussions about emotions and life, the normal things that most married couples think of as marriage, that sharing of emotions and life. And, yet, having these other compartments with these other women at the same time. He was able to keep them sealed off from one another in a way that was almost inhuman.

At the end of the segment, Matthews implored viewers to buy his book instead of Alford’s.

Have a look, via MSNBC:

NBC’s David Gregory: Mitt Romney ‘Realizes He Has To Rip The Other Guy’s Face Off’

James Crugnale — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:12:56 +0000

Appearing on Hardball to discuss Mitt Romney‘s new campaign strategy in the wake of being swept in Tuesday’s elections by Rick Santorum, Meet The Press host David Gregory suggested that the former Massachusetts governor has discovered he needs to take drastic measures. “I think what he’s doing now is cautious, tactical play here,” Gregory surmised. “He realizes that he thought he could stay above the fray for a long time, now he realizes he has to rip the guy’s face off here!”

“Can Romney ever convince the right he’s one of them?” Matthews earlier questioned. “Let’s look at this as an autopsy situation, he’s not dead but something’s going on.”

“He’s not closing the deal with conservatives,” Gregory explained. “He’s also not closing the deal with some big names in the Republican Party who don’t just knock him as “The Wall Street Journal” did because he can’t be trusted on conservative issues, but because he doesn’t have a broad campaign with big ideas meant to deal with big problems.”

“Why is he held back from anything but the alternative to what he thought would be a badly wounded president?” Matthews asked Gregory.

Gregory suggested Romney will soon ramp up negative campaigning.

Watch the segment below via MSNBC:

The Media’s Shameful, Inexcusable Distortion Of The Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision

Dan Abrams — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:34:16 +0000

One of the beauties of the transfer of power from major media operations to individuals, bloggers and tweeters is that they — we — can all serve as a sort of fact-checking peanut gallery. So it’s hard to imagine that, in this day and age, the mainstream media could repeatedly misstate the holding of one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions without being roundly excoriated. Not a matter of opinion or a partisan viewpoint, but, simply parroting a mistake or lie about the holding in that crucial ruling.

I have followed the Court’s Citizens United decision particularly closely because my dad, Floyd Abrams, was one of the lawyers who argued it (for free, incidentally) in the Supreme Court, on behalf of Senator Mitch McConnell. Their challenge was to a part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that barred corporations and unions from engaging in what they argued was classic political speech — producing and showing a movie on television that criticized a candidate for President and spending money for ads that support or denounce that candidate. They prevailed in a divided 5-4 ruling. Subsequently, and not surprisingly, the ruling became one of the most controversial opinions of our day, with many on the left denouncing the ruling as a fundamental threat to our democracy.

Let me say at the outset that I don’t entirely agree with the position my dad took in the case. He sought and got a broad ruling striking down major parts of the statute. In my view, the Court could and should have decided the case on far narrower grounds, thereby avoiding the need to overturn some past Supreme Court rulings (On a personal note, I have also been amazed at the vitriol directed at my civil libertarian father from the left over his defense of a constitutional principle he firmly believes in. Defend a Nazi’s right to march? No problem. Defend the most repugnant members of our society’s right to speak? Absolutely. Defend a corporation’s right to engage in the political process? Inexcusable). But my personal view on the nuances of the ruling is beside the point. This is about what the ruling said and didn’t say, what it did and didn’t do. And about how so many in the media keep getting the ruling and its impact dead wrong.

There are two media myths and inventions that are most commonly cited.

Myth 1: The Court invalidated disclosure requirements in political advertising, thereby allowing donors to remain anonymous.

Wrong. The Court ruled just the opposite and upheld, by an 8-1 vote, the McCain-Feingold requirement of identifying donors.

Myth 2: That the Court’s ruling in Citizens United opened the door to wealthy individuals like Sheldon Adelson to pour millions of dollars into PACs.

Wrong again. The Citizens United ruling had NOTHING to do with the ability of individuals to spend their money to support candidates. That had been decided back in 1976, when the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment protected the right of individuals to make unlimited independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates for federal office. In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations and unions were entitled to the same rights. It wasn’t that long ago, after all, that the Swift Boat ads, legally paid for by individuals, soiled John Kerry during the 2004 campaign.

But reading the New York Times, Washington Post and watching MSNBC in particular, it is hardly surprising that the public would be confused. On January 9, in a front-page piece on the influence of Newt Gingrich supporter Sheldon Adelson, the Times inaccurately reported that Adelson’s $5 million donation to a pro-Gingrich SuperPAC “underscores” how the Citizens United case, “has made it possible for a wealthy individual to influence an election.” On January 14th, a column by Gail Collins asserted that, “all these billionaires would not be so worrisome if the Supreme Court had not totally unleashed their donation-making power in the Citizens United case.” The opinion, in fact, did nothing of the sort. I don’t know if it’s sad or just troubling that the Times issued two corrections on the earlier piece, including the year Citizens United was decided, but none on its repeated and major error about the ruling itself.

The Washington Post has done no better. On January 11th, Dana Milbank, writing of Adelson’s $5 million donation to a pro-Gingrich SuperPAC, asserted that it was, “the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision which made such unlimited contributions possible.” And on February 5th, E.J. Dionne Jr. blamed Citizens United for permitting, “the brute force of millionaires and billionaires … to have their way.” The Post published a letter from Floyd Abrams today highlighting the error, but without a formal correction.

It seems this faulty analysis has worn off on MSNBC host Chris Matthews as well, since he, too, regularly misreports the case’s ruling. “Under this new court ruling, Citizens United, your opponent can run a terrible campaign and relentlessly destroy your reputation without putting your fingerprints on the ad,” Matthews said. “You don’t have to say, ‘I’m Mitt Romney and I paid for this ad.’ So now in Iowa, where the people don’t like negative campaigning, you can run the bombing campaign or destroy your opponent without having your face or voice associated with it. That’s what Newt wasn’t aware of. It’s his fault that conservatives like them have gone along with these court decisions, that have allowed big contributors, wealthy people to put unlimited amounts of money into negative campaigns without putting the name of their favorite candidate in the ad.”

This is a double dose of wrong, since the disclosure requirement in the law was upheld and the case had nothing to do with individuals. One might forgive Al Jazeera for getting it wrong and it’s not unusual to see partisan advocates misstate a ruling like this to further a political agenda, but the mainstream American media should have no excuse.

NBC’s Michael Isikoff seems to have become the network’s Citizens United “expert,” since he addresses it in so many of his appearances. According to Isikoff, “the ‘independent’ SuperPACs –thanks to last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case — can collect unlimited amounts from wealthy donors and directly from corporations. This gives them the latitude to potentially spend even more money than the presidential campaigns themselves, which are still constrained by official limits of $2,500 per donor.” It’s true that Citizens United changed the law with regard to corporate spending, but the opinion did not change the law on an individual’s ability to “spend even more money than the campaigns themselves.” Before and after Citizens United, individuals could give unlimited amounts to outside groups. On January 10th, leading up to the New Hampshire primary, Isikoff and Reverend Al Sharpton engaged in a conversation on MSNBC, in which both men demonstrated a misunderstanding about the ruling by repeatedly talking about the supposed impact on the ability of wealthy individuals to impact elections.

Last month, Isikoff enhanced Matthews’ misunderstanding of the opinion’s impact on disclosure:

Matthews: It seems to me, Michael Isikoff, that this is going to be message out
of Iowa, the power of these third party or SuperPACs, where you don’t have
to put the candidate’s name on it, you don’t put the names of the
contributors on it, the money is unlimited, and you can basically destroy
your opponent if you have got enough rich friends. Legal, right?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely, under the Supreme
Court ruling Citizens United last year.

So is there any argument at all to support their claims? Not on the case’s impact on disclosure requirements. But on the effect on individual donors, the strongest argument is a sort of psychological one articulated by law professor Rick Hasen, who concedes that, yes, it is true that individuals could donate unlimited amounts before Citizens United, (he points out that George Soros gave $23 million to help John Kerry), but because a “legal cloud” hung over what were referred to as 527′s, some might have been reluctant to dump huge sums into them. Well, that hardly serves as cover for the myriad of journalists and media figures claiming as a matter of fact that Citizens United opened the door for the Sheldon Adelsons of the world.

This case has led to some heated dinner conversations in the Abrams household, but in the media that debate often appears to be based on a ruling that never occurred. How many times have I heard people wonder aloud how Citizens United could have treated money as speech? It didn’t. It held, as NYU Professor Geoffrey Stone pointed out in the Huffington Post, that when the government regulates money, “because it is being used to enable free speech it necessarily raises a First Amendment issue.” Can a corporation really receive First Amendment protection? The New York Times Company, The National Broadcasting Company and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting among many others, sure think so.

You may disagree with the opinion, you may think that expanding the ability of corporations to fund campaign messaging is a true danger, or just, as I do, that outside money is a major concern for our democratic system. But that doesn’t change the fact that the political chattering set ought to be far more concerned and outraged by the indolence, indifference or just bias, that has led to the widespread misinformation by the media about what the court actually considered and ultimately ruled.

Chris Matthews Beams: President Obama’s Smile ‘Worth Five to Ten Points’ On Election Day

James Crugnale — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:03:20 +0000

On Monday’s Hardball on MSNBC, Chris Matthews gave President Obama’ an early Valentine, fawningly gushing over the political power of his toothy grin. “I think that smile of his is worth five to ten points in the general!” Matthews exclaimed. “His campaign strategists might feel differently.”

Matthews has not been shy to acknowledge his love of the President’s smile in the past, saying last year, “That smile! That cute smile we all love in that guy. That wonderful, boyish smile of his!”

Matthews’ advice just might sway the President to keep on brushing those pearly whites.

Watch Matthews compliment President Obama below:

(h/t Newsbusters)

Chris Matthews: Romney Cannot Connect With Voters Because He Has ‘No Evidence Of Having Suffered’

Josh Feldman — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:22:26 +0000

One argument for the GOP nomination Mitt Romney has over his rivals is that his time in the private sector gave him enough experience to effectively create jobs, and because unemployment figures are so dismal, the nation should put Romney in charge so he can fix it. But with the latest numbers showing unemployment is steadily dropping down to 8.3 percent, Chris Matthews wondered if Romney will be able to sustain that argument for much longer.

Matthews asked Time editor Richard Stengel if Romney is a good politician considering the comments he made last week regarding poor people. Stengel didn’t think it really mattered how good or conservative Romney was, because if he wins the GOP nomination, it’s not as if a whole bloc of conservatives will suddenly flock to President Obama.

Matthews and Andrea Mitchell agreed that the problem with Romney’s comments on the poor is that they may have been too true to his character. Mitchell argued that rather than being concerned about his political skills, voters are more worried about how conservative Romney will be as president compared to Obama. Matthews joked that at no point in the campaign has anyone gave the words of wisdom “Let Mitt be Mitt.” The Washington Post‘s Nia-Malika Henderson felt Romney was just too out-of-touch to average voters, and he is less able to connect with voters than his rivals. When Matthews brought up how awkward Romney looked during Donald Trump‘s endorsement of his candidacy, everyone on the panel agreed that it was not a good visual by any strain of the imagination.

But what about Romney’s business credentials? Would his claim that he would be able to fix the economy not play as well in the election because of the latest drop in the unemployment rate? Howard Fineman suggested Romney could still use this line of attack successfully unless there was consistent job growth above a certain level from now until the election. Matthews noted that past presidents who have been relatively wealthy have been able to connect with voters on some level, and he wondered if it had to do with a sense people have that Romney has not really gone through tough times.

But as Fineman reminded everyone, for all the problems people have with Romney, he is probably going to end up being the Republican nominee.

Watch the video below, courtesy of NBC:

Contraceptive Mandate Is Not About Religious Liberty, It’s About Female Liberty

Tommy Christopher — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:01:27 +0000

On Wednesday evening’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews convened an infuriatingly one-sided panel to discuss the Obama administration’s recent decision not to permit an exemption for some religious employers to the contraception mandate. The Washington Post‘s Melinda Henneberger and Melissa Rogers of the Brookings Institution took turns trashing the decision, and the point of view of doctors, nurses, teachers, etc., who would be marginalized by such an exemption was not represented.

The Obama administration announced, last year, that insurance plans would be required to provide a raft of preventive services, including contraception and sterilization. Currently, religious organizations enjoy a “conscience exemption,” and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently announceed that non-church religious employers will be required to cover such services, without deductibles or coinsurance, beginning in August of 2013.

Matthews and his panel made some fairly good points about the politics of the decision, of which Henneberger said “I’m trying to figure out how it could have been handled more poorly, but I can’t.”

To all appearances, Catholic leaders emerged from talks with the Obama administration confident that their concerns would be given priority in this decision, and are feeling burned now. Matthews pointed out that many Catholics are swing voters, and angering them in an election year could be unwise. Rogers pointed out that there were ways to extend coverage to the affected employees without making the churches pay for it, although from a philosophical standpoint, such a loophole would seem cosmetic and hollow, at best. Still, these are all legitimate points, worthy of discussion.

This is where I part ways with Matthews and Co. Opponents of the decision are calling it an infringement on “religious liberty,” a premise that Rogers accepts, saying “I think they had a good goal in mind, which is in my view expanded contraceptive coverage, is a good thing. The problem is they’ve struck the wrong balance here on religious liberty. We shouldn’t in my view require objecting religious employers to pay for and offer their employees a plan that they preach against.”

The whole problem here is the premise that the goal is “expanded contraceptive coverage,” an argument that Jay Carney unhelpfully made at yesterday’s White House briefing. The goal here is protecting female employees in non-religious jobs from having someone else’s religion forced on them, to provide these women with equal protection under the law. There is nothing in the First Amendment that guarantees churches the right to run hospitals and schools that serve the general public. If your conscience didn’t allow you to put out a fire, you wouldn’t have a right to be a fireman, but you could still go to your pro-fire church to your heart’s content.

However, women who work at these institutions have a right to be treated equally. Not to do so amounts to an infringement on their religious liberty, and their right to equal protection under the law. If the Catholic church refused to provide birth control to black non-religious employees, would we even be having this discussion?

That is not to say that Matthews, et al, aren’t entitled to their opinion, and simply saying “If you don’t like it, don’t run a hospital” isn’t remotely realistic, but the women being affected by this decision should have been represented in the discussion. It is a shame they weren’t.

Here’s the segment, from MSNBC:

Author’s note: The opening paragraph of this story has been amended, as a courtesy to Melissa Rogers. The last sentence in the opening paragraph originally read “no one spoke a syllable for the doctors, nurses, teachers, etc., who would be marginalized by such an exemption,” and now reads “the point of view of doctors, nurses, teachers, etc., who would be marginalized by such an exemption was not represented.”

For more on her position on this matter, click here.

Chris Matthews’ Epic Rant On Romney: ‘He Wouldn’t Be Caught Dead At A Tea Party Meeting’

James Crugnale — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:48:10 +0000

During MSNBC’s election night coverage of the Florida GOP primary, Chris Matthews went off on a lengthy jeremiad against Mitt Romney about how his wealth has made him out of touch with the majority of Americans. “His family has all they want. They’ve gotten their take,” Matthews harangued. “When you’re hiding your money from the tax collectors so that you can have a fatter life, you don’t identify with the person trying to scrabble along making it in our society, who is a true patriot, left, right or center. Why are you hiding your money overseas if you are a patriot? It seems like you are part of the problem — in fact, you are one of the bad guys.”

“I think he has a very, very difficult time identifying with the yearnings of the American people for a better country and he’s earned that problem,” Matthews jabbed. “He has not identified with the revolutionary struggle of this country for its last 200 years. It is not anywhere in his bones, a revolutionary, anywhere in his bones, is he dissatisfied with the America he was born to — he was born to that weird small portion of America that had it happened to him. He says he didn’t inherit it, he inherited everything: his education, his status, governor, father head of an auto company. Everything about him basically happened to him.”

“He wouldn’t be caught dead at a tea party meeting,” Matthews added. “It is below him and I think they know it…he’s never been in any movement. He’s benefited from the way things are. How can he pretend to be at the barricades?”

Watch Matthews’s comments below via MSNBC:

Andrew Sullivan: GOP Can’t Stop Gingrich Because Of Support Among Fox News & Talk Radio Audiences

Josh Feldman — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:05:48 +0000

Newt Gingrich‘s family values have been the subject of much attention during the GOP primary race, and on his show today, Chris Matthews highlighted a poll which showed roughly half of the respondents rated Gingrich’s personal standards poorly. Mathews asked panelist Andrew Sullivan if the GOP establishment still retained enough clout to heavily influence the race going forward, given the concerns they have about a Gingrich candidacy.

Sullivan argued the establishment has lost control of its “tiger,” or rather, its populist religious base, and they’re worried that the tiger will end up turning on them this time. Time‘s Mike Duffy made the observation that no big-name Republican governors have come out to help Romney or stump for him, though Matthews pointed out a few of these Republican governors have their own problems to deal with. Duffy also noted that every time Romney sends out a spokesperson to argue on his behalf, it reminds voters that Romney is being supported by the Republican old guard, and he’s the candidate of choice for the establishment.

Kathleen Parker brought up Gingrich’s reaction to the audience at last week’s NBC debate being silenced, suggesting he only does well when he gets to feed off the energy of a crowd. But geographically speaking, Parker thought Gingrich was only doing well in places like South Carolina and Florida was because they’re Southern states and Gingrich is a familiar face to many in that region of the country.

Matthews wondered if the establishment would have any power to stop Gingrich following Florida. Sullivan expressed his doubts.

“I don’t think they can because the people behind him are the Fox News viewers and the talk radio listeners, and that is the Republican establishment.”

Sullivan predicted that if Newt Gingrich captures the GOP nomination, Ron Paul will end up running as a third-party candidate and expected such a race to be a “realignment election.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of NBC:

Chris Matthews Harangues Alex Wagner Panelist: ‘Are You A Romney Guy?’

Tommy Christopher — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:54:14 +0000

On Wednesday’s edition of Now with Alex Wagner, perpetual motion machine and Hardball host Chris Matthews showed up to liven things up. In a segment about the current slugfest between former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Gov. Mitt Romney in Florida, Matthews (seated next to former Obama spokesman Bill Burton) called out GOP strategist Phil Musser for being a “Romney guy,” and concluded the segment by throwing host Alex Wagner off, responding to her kind outro by saying “This is how you dump guys, huh?”

Matthews started out by making the case for the “Newt Effect,” that even if Romney wins the nomination, “He will imitate Newt by the end. Your party (the GOP) is being pulled so far to the right, no matter who the nominee is, the President will be able to grab the center. Do you want to be to the right of Newt?”

Burton added “(Romney has) already found places where he’s trying do that, on the Ryan budget, with immigration, he is –”

“Round them up? Self-deportation? That’s a cartoon.” Matthews interjected.

“To pivot from, ‘We have to turn off the magnets for the illegals,’” Wagner said, “to trying to do a vague courtship of the Florida Hispanic community by saying ‘We will have self-deportation.’”

Musser pointed out that a new poll has Romney leading with Hispanic voters in south Florida by 15 points.

“Because he has leadership down there,” Matthews responded. “Guess who understands Spanish well enough to have a debate in that?”

Musser, undeterred, said “I think the Quinnipiac poll that shows it pretty close today is probably about right.”

Matthews lit into Musser. “I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were a Romney guy? i thought you were just a GOP strategist. Are you a Romney guy?”

Amid Musser’s protests, Matthews continued, “I thought we were here to analyze what we think is going to happen, not to advocate what we want to happen.”

He said this while sitting next to fellow panelist Bill Burton, who is head of the pro-Obama superPAC Priorities USA, and while Burton ostensibly doesn’t have a dog in the GOP primary fight, it wasn’t really a fair attack on Musser, who was billed as a former adviser to Tim Pawlenty’s campaign. Pawlenty, you might remember, was an early endorser of Mitt Romney, so both sides of that table were pretty clearly labeled.

Still, Matthews made a pretty convincing case for a Gingrich win. “Parties are driven by their souls in the end…Not everyone goes (into the voting booth) strategically, they go in with gut anger and they have strong feelings with the candidate that is like them. Newt is more like a Republican voter.”

That Quinnipiac poll notwithstanding, Romney is in real trouble in Florida, and while polling is closer nationally, the wind is at Newt Gingrich’s back.

Alex Wagner wrapped up the segment with some effusive praise for Matthews. “Chris Matthews, always distilling it into a nugget of wisdom. taking it to a different level. Thank you for your wisdom and intelligence and savoir faire. It’s an honor to be on set with you, sir. Thank you for joining us.”

“This is how you dump guys, huh?” Matthews joked, then took another shot at Musser over Wagner’s laughing protests. Pointing at each of his fellow panelists, Matthews said, “This guy is smart, This guy is smart, and this guy is a flack for Romney!”‘

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC:

Howard Fineman: ‘I Have Never Heard Newt Gingrich Call President Obama President Obama’

Tommy Christopher — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:04:20 +0000

During a SOTU preview segment on Tuesday evening’s Hardball, MSNBC contributor Howard Fineman made an observation about a rankling trend among certain opponents of President Obama, the tendency not to address him by his hard-won title. Framing it in the context of those who question the President’s legitimacy, Fineman noted “I have never heard Newt Gingrich call President Obama ‘President Obama.’”

I thought I’d put Fineman’s claim to the test, using last night’s debate. The results were surprising.

Huffpo‘s Howard Fineman and host Chris Matthews were discussing tonight’s State of the Union Address, and Matthews began by criticizing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for “blasting what he hasn’t heard yet” in a “pre-buttal” in Florida earlier today. Maybe Romney has watched Minority Report too many times, because he accused the President of “us(ing) the State of the Union to divide our nation.”

Fineman called out the kettle in Romney’s premonition, pointing out that “You and I just spent the last month immersed in and covering some of the most divisive rhetoric I have heard on the campaign trail for years.”

“They don’t accept the President’s legitimacy in many ways,” he continued. “I have never heard Newt Gingrich call President Obama ‘President Obama.’ It’s usually just ‘Obama.’

“And I know that sounds like a trivial thing,” Fineman added, “but it’s not. It’s very important.”

The trend that Fineman identifies has even been cause for outrage among the President’s supporters coming from liberal critics of the President, and while there most certainly plenty of people who dismissively referred to “Bush” during the last administration, that level of informality becomes outright disrespect when practiced by those seeking the office.

While it’s true that Gingrich uses the President’s full title when he’s appending it with “food stamps,” I took a look at last night’s debate transcript, and found something surprising. The unsurprising part is that Speaker Gingrich mentioned the President by name seven times, and didn’t once address him as “President Obama,” calling him “Barack Obama” four times, and spitting out “Obama” three times.

What is surprising is that only one of the four candidates, who collectively mentioned the President 14 times (not including “Obamacare”), referred to him as “President Obama” at all. If you guessed it was “Don’t I look presidential?” Mitt Romney, you would be wrong.

It was former Sen. Rick Santorum, who used the title 3 out of the 5 times he mentioned him. Of the other two instances, one was a reference to “Barack Obama” while he was in the Senate, and the other was in a sentence that immediately followed a reference to President Obama: “Iran is not just another country, or a little, small country, as President Obama said classically during the campaign. Obama’s Iran policy has been a colossal failure.”

There’s probably not a lot of crossover between Sen. Santorum’s supporters and the President’s, but at least Santorum has the decency to address our president (and his) with the respect he has earned.

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC’s Hardball:

Roasturbation: Politico Posts Own Roast For 5th Anniversary

Tommy Christopher — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:41:32 +0000

They grow up so fast, don’t they? Online political media giant Politico turns five years old today, and to celebrate, the site posted a video roast by some quotable notables in the political media world. While the site has arguably earned the right to toot its own horn at least once every half-decade, did they really have to overshadow the birthday of Saved By The Bell actress Tiffani-Amber Thiessen?

January 23 is also the birthday of Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, who, it should be noted, only won that one morning, and perhaps most fittingly, late Battleship Potemkin director Sergei Eisenstein. Most DC media types will tell you that they’ve never met a Politico reporter who wouldn’t push a baby down the stairs to get a story.

The nearly six minute video includes roastimonials from the likes of David Gregory, Bob Schieffer, Donald Trump, Katie Couric, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Willie Geist, Diane Sawyer, Tom Brokaw, Candy Crowley, Luke Russert, Greta Van Susteren, Chris Matthews, Jonathan Karl, Andrea Mitchell, Steve Scully, Jamal Simmons, Norah O’Donnell, Erin Burnett, Alex Wagner, Dan Rather, Al Sharpton, Mark Halperin, Dylan Ratigan and Arianna Huffington. FishbowlDC‘s Betsy Rothstein collects some of the funnier quotes:

Politico is “truly a news organization that acts its age: a petulant five-year-old concerned with only trivial matters,” host of “MTP” David Gregory says with a smile.

With a few repeats and some intensive listening, Arianna Huffington can be understood as saying, “Just as I was sitting down to write this, I saw that Mike Allen had already broken what I was going to say.”

MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” host Willie Geist remarks, “I’ve gotta recuse myself because I don’t care for Politico, inside the Beltway gossipy garbage. And CBS “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer cracks, “The next thing you know, you’ll be getting your driver’s license.”

I don’t know that I can top any of them, but I will add this: Why did the Politico reporter cross the road? I don’t know, but give it 5 minutes, and FishbowlDC will have a plog post about it. Probably without a photo.

Even though we don’t go for this kind of self-promotion, the video is fun, and Politico has earned every second of it. Happy Birthday, Politico.

Chris Matthews: Only Way Romney Can Beat Gingrich Is To ‘Catch Up To Him With His Hatred Of Obama’

Josh Feldman — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:55:01 +0000

Last night, all the networks were talking about Newt Gingrich and what his victory in South Carolina means for the future of the GOP presidential race and the chances that Mitt Romney will end up being the nominee. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews told Rachel Maddow that at this point in the race, Romney is incredibly vulnerable, and if he is going to end up being the party nominee, he is going to have to shift to the right to attract the same kind of voters that are now flocking to Gingrich.

Matthews predicted that no matter who eventually wins the GOP contest, the battle lines have moved significantly to the right because “Newt Gingrich has set the standard now.” He argued there was only one sure way forward for Romney in the race.

“The only way that Mitt Romney can beat Newt Gingrich now is to catch up to him with his hatred of Obama, his willingness to take on the American establishment. President Obama represents, I believe it’s fair to say, a center-left Democratic party. Now the Republican party is moving over to the right, if not the far right. Newt is taking it there. The only way Romney can beat him now… is to catch up to him and the move in the party to the right.”

He anticipated the Obama team might end up playing for the center in the upcoming election if this were to be the case going forward. Maddow noted the unique situation of three separate winners in three separate states, asking Matthews what could possibly account for the “historic volatility” that has threatened Romney’s near-inevitability of winning the nomination.

Matthews recalled the “insanity of last year” with candidates emerging every month or so as alternatives to Romney, and believed Gingrich’s second surge was the continuation of the “Not Romney” trend from last year, only more damaging because now it’s costing Romney delegates. Matthews compared this race to the Republican competition in 1964, when after two other candidates took two different states, Barry Goldwater suddenly surged after one of his rivals got embroiled in scandal. But as many people will recall, 1964 did not turn out so well for the Republican party. Matthews said that this year we’re seeing an “unstable pattern” with no discernable logic to it whatsoever.

Watch the video below, courtesy of MSNBC:

Jenny Sanford On Newt Gingrich: ‘Open Marriage’ Calls Into Question His Character

James Crugnale — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:26:52 +0000

In an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball Thursday, Former South Carolina First Lady Jenny Sanford slammed Republican hopeful Newt Gingrich over the revelations that he asked his ex-wife for an open marriage, saying it called into question his character and that he wouldn’t get her vote.

“Do you think it’s going to have an impact on Saturday’s voting?” Matthews asked. “You know, I think it will have an impact for some people,” Sanford opined. “I don’t know how much of an impact because people, for the most part, already knew that Gingrich, you know, was on his third wife. But I think that actually seeing one of his wives speaking about him in an unflattering manner, it has got have an impact in some respect. It does call into question his character certainly on the personal side. And, you know, as a voter, I encourage people to look at both sides, the personal side. And if you’re going to overcome somebody’s moral failings or infidelities, you have to also look at where they stand ideologically and how much does their rhetoric match their reality. In my mind, Gingrich falls short on both fronts. So, he wouldn’t get my vote.”

Sanford was previously married to South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford who disappeared in June 2009 to have an affair with a woman from Argentina.

Watch Sanford’s interview with Chris Matthews below via MSNBC:

Juan Williams: Gingrich Wanted Debate Crowd To React To ‘Strange Character, Juan’

Frances Martel — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:55:16 +0000

Juan Williams received some of the most visceral reaction of anyone during Monday’s Fox News Republican debate when asking Newt Gingrich to explain his comments on child janitors. On tonight’s O’Reilly Factor, he reacted to some of the fallout: namely, Chris Matthews claiming that Gingrich had pronounced his name in a “racially charged” way. Williams didn’t touch the race issue, but did say that he believed the audience looked at him during that as a “strange character.”

Williams and Bill O’Reilly began their discussion with Gingrich’s claim that young people need to be taught to have a work ethic, which Williams attacked. “When you see that jobs are offered to young people in this country, you have lines around the block… he was suggesting that somehow these kids don’t want to work,” he argued. O’Reilly perceived it differently, as Gingrich suggesting that jobs within schools be funded by the government to help teach work ethic. That Williams did not find objectionable, nor did he find it compatible with Gingrich’s actual words. “He said the kids don’t have work ethic,” Williams contended, though O’Reilly replied that “he didn’t say it was the kids’ fault,” but that many grow up in a “welfare situation.”

“I think he wanted to play racial politics at that moment,” he said of the comments Gingrich used against him as moderator when confronted about the idea that some believed he wanted to “belittle” minorities. O’Reilly asked Williams whether he thought Gingrich “was pandering to a certain voter in South Carolina,” which Williams said he did believe. O’Reilly then turned to another aspect of the exchange: the way Gingrich pronounced “Juan.” “Chris Matthews,” O’Reilly explained, “said he way he called you Juan was kind of racist. Did you take it that way?”

“Remember, I’m facing Newt, so I heard behind me the moment he went ‘Juan… the minute I heard the hoot and hollering I realized how he played to the audience,” Williams responded, joking that the audience immediately began to ask “Who is this strange character, ‘Juan‘?” and adding the caveat that the setting is what made it different. He did not say what he though Gingrich thought of him or what he intended to say about Williams, only that “he wanted to stir the audience at that moment.”

The segment via Fox News below:

Chris Matthews Accuses Newt Gingrich Of Racially Charged Use Of The Name ‘Juan’

Jon Bershad — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:29:54 +0000

A big moment of last night’s debate came when moderator Juan Williams and Newt Gingrich argued over Gingrich’s comments that many have seen as condescending towards blacks. However, Williams really should have been offended due to Gingrich’s incredibly insensitive pronunciation of the word “Juan.” At least, that’s the opinion of Chris Matthews who accused Gingrich of a racial motive in the way he used Williams’ name.

Matthews’ comments came during an appearance on Andrea Mitchell Reports in which he and Mitchell discussed the tone in yesterday’s all white audience. Matthews accused Rick Perry of using terms bordering on “succession” when he talked about the South Carolina people’s “war” with the government. However, the focus was on Gingrich and Williams and particularly Williams’ first name. While Matthews agreed with a lot of what Gingrich said, he argued that this was a coded message to the crowd.

“That use of the name ‘Juan,’ the way he did it. You can’t argue these things. You either see them or you don’t. It’s just the way he did that. I sensed a little applause when he said ‘Let me help you’ when he answered the Juan question. It’s in the eye of the beholder. And, by the way, calling someone a racist is the worst way to get them to stop being racist because everyone gets defensive. … So it’s stupid to say it but, honestly, if you notice it, you sort of ought to blow the whistle. Because there is a dog whistle going on here.”

Matthews isn’t the only one accusing Gingrich of being condescending to WIlliams. Meanwhile, the Right is accusing Williams of race baiting Gingrich.

And so the Circle of Anger continues spinning, forever onward.

Watch the clip from MSNBC below:

Chris Matthews And Panel: How Much Of Romney’s Opposition Is Due To His Mormon Faith?

Josh Feldman — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:55:42 +0000

One of the biggest questions in this election cycle is how dedicated the Republican party is to defeating President Obama in November, regardless of who the nominee is. American evangelicals still have a strong distrust of Mitt Romney, partially because of his moderate political positions, but a new poll out shows that a vast majority of them prefer Romney to Obama despite their reservations.

Politico’s John Harris called Obama’s potential reelection loss the biggest unifying factor in the Republican party currently, while any Christian concerns of Mormonism is not as big an issue within the party as it was four years ago. Kelly O’Donnell, NBC’s Capitol Hill correspondent, noted that based on her observations, Mitt Romney was definitely not the kind of person who strong evangelical Christians would vote for as a first-choice option.

Matthews brought up Rick Perry‘s campaign strategy of appealing directly to a strong Christian base, and Liz Marlantes admitted that on paper, Perry would be the ideal evangelical candidate. In the spirit of fairness, Matthews noted that Romney isn’t the only well-known Mormon politician, pointing to Democrats like Harry Reid.

Interestingly enough, Marlantes noted, the group least likely to vote for a Mormon president isn’t conservative evangelicals, but in fact, liberal Democrats. She claimed many people in this group just dismiss Mormonism as a “cult.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of NBC:

Romney Surrogate Gov. John Sununu Takes Turns Insulting MSNBC Anchors

Frances Martel — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 03:32:04 +0000

Is former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu this election’s Zell Miller? Challenging Chris Matthews to a duel was just about the only thing he didn’t shout at the MSNBC team today, as he told Ed Schultz the statistics he cited were “a crock of crap,” told Lawrence O’Donnell he didn’t “know what you’re talking about,” and challenged one of Matthews’ comments as “anti-American.”

Sununu first went after “the socialist attacks you’re getting against Mitt Romney” from Republicans, before Schultz interrupted to ask about numbers from the Tax Policy Center that claimed Romney’s tax plan would hurt the middle class at the expense of the upper classes. “I think that’s kind of strange,” Sununu responded, before adding, “There’s a technical term for that: it’s a crock of crap.”

O’Donnell then had a question for Sununu, on the fact that President George H. W. Bush did significantly better in 1992 in New Hampshire than Romney did. “You don’t know what you’re talking about!” snapped Sununu, before asking whether those numbers were from 1988. They weren’t; they were from 1992, when President Bush was an incumbent. “You’re really funny… you can’t resist it, can you? He came in as an incumbent– of course he got 50%” Sununu replied. He added that Romney had an advantage in the general election that Bush did not: “He’s running against a completely incompetent President” (presumably Sununu was talking about 1992, since Bush’s previous go-round was against Michael Dukakis).

Then it was Matthews’ turn, and he had a hardest question than the previous two, or at least a more personal one: whether Romney talking about “being unemployed” and “pink slips” “are appropriate for him to use when at no time in his like has he felt economic insecurity?”

“His success is due to his hard work… to begrudge him his success is anti-American, no?” Sununu replied. Matthews rephrased the question and got a slightly less adversarial answer: “I think what he’s talking about is reviving the soul of America.”

The only MSNBC anchor that came out of the exchange unscathed was Rachel Maddow, who stepped in just to confirm that his first comments about Romney critiques being socialist was directed against other Republicans. “They don’t sound Republican, they sound more like guys coming out of the left wing,” he concluded.

The segment via MSNBC below:

Chris Matthews: ‘If I Were Voting, I’d Vote For Huntsman’

James Crugnale — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:57:07 +0000

Hardball host Chris Matthews appeared on Morning Joe Tuesday morning and lauded the independence of New Hampshire voters. “I was going back to ’52, and it says we’re real, we’re American and we’re flinty.”

“Don’t take us for granted,” host Joe Scarborough interjected.

“Right. And a lot of the vote up here is often rejectionist…getting rid of the old left-right division that bothers people,” Matthews added, saying that the state respects national service, especially in cases of those serving the other party. Eventually, Matthews admitted:

“If I were voting, I’d vote for Huntsman. Because he’s American. He’s the kind of guy who says ‘I’m an American, dammit, I’m not one of these stupid ideologues. And I’m not a phony.’ He is what he is.”

Matthews listed many of the upsets occurring the state’s primary history, including John McCain beating George W. Bush. “There’s a rejectionism of the boring and the stupid in politics, the people up here are proud to be American, they’re flinty!” Matthews exclaimed. “It tells me Huntsman, Huntsman, Huntsman. If this state picks Huntsman tonight in second place — a strong second place, which is really first place, [because Romney]‘s a regional guy, (it’s) a statement that New Hampshire’s still alive.”

Watch Matthews extol the independent values of the Granite State and say he would support Huntsman below, via MSNBC:

Romney Surrogate Blasts Chris Matthews: ‘You Guys Have An Agenda’

Alex Alvarez — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:57:09 +0000

Former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, acting as a surrogate for Mitt Romney, had some choice words for MSNBC’s Chris Matthews when asked whether candidates should be held responsible for ads “put on the air by their former staffers and friends in their interest.”

“Look,” he weighed in, “you guys are reveling and wallowing in [a] ridiculous perception of what’s going on. There’s a law out there that defines what can and can’t be done by those PACs, and all the candidates are following the law. And to suggest that Governor Romney shouldn’t know what’s in that ad, with all the clippings that have been out describing it. Come on! Stop being ridiculous and get to the point.”

“Stop being ridiculous,” he reiterated after informing Matthews and his panel that they don’t know much about New Hampshire politics, “and talk about the issues!”

“Repeating the word ‘ridiculous’ doesn’t make it so,” Matthews shot back, adding that, when in Iowa, he couldn’t seem to get away from Romney’s ads, “saturating with negativity.” He then reiterated his question: Is the candidate responsible for the content of such ads?

“He’s not responsible!” Sununu repeated. “Do you know what the law is?”

“I know what the law is,” said Matthews. “I’m talking about how laws can be used.”

Sununu seemed, in the parlance of today’s youth, to be over it. “You guys have an agenda that you wanna drive,” he said, “and you have no idea what the rules and regulations are and the fact that all these candidates are following them.”

When asked why Romney said he hasn’t seen the ads in question when he “obviously had,” Sununu said he’s clips of the ads before advising the panel to not “be silly.”

“I have no idea whether he sees the ads, but I know he sees the news clips,” Sununu continued. “I don’t know whether he watched the ads, but I’m telling you, everything that he talked about has been described in the news clips. And if you guys aren’t smart enough to understand that, you got a real problem.”

Have a look at their shouting match (and more tempered discussion that followed), via MSNBC:

Chris Matthews Compares Ron Paul To Ross Perot, Sizes Up Paul’s Chances As Third-Party Candidate

Josh Feldman — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 19:07:34 +0000

Chris Matthews took notice of Ron Paul‘s presidential campaign today, and wondered how long it would be before the libertarian congressman would finally give up his bid to get the Republican party nomination and run as a third-party candidate. Matthews recalled another fiscally conservative independent who did very well against two establishment figures: Ross Perot, almost twenty years ago. Matthews compared the two candidates and discussed with the panel whether Paul could be just as successful running as an independent.

John Heilemann noted that Paul’s campaign rhetoric already sounds like that of an independent candidate, but if he runs and gets as much support as Perot, there is a chance he could split the anti-incumbent vote and President Obama would easily win reelection. Andrea Mitchell couldn’t imagine Paul not taking the opportunity to do so, especially considering the kind of support he gets from independents and Democrats already, but one of the deciding factors may be whether or not it adversely affects the future political career of his son Rand Paul.

Perot was only able to participate in the presidential debate way back when because he had enough national support to warrant himself a spot on the stage, but would Paul be able to garner that same support? Nia-Malika Henderson believed he could, citing his “rabid” and passionate supporters. And certainly his independent campaign would get a boost if Romney was the GOP nominee and voters believed the two major party nominees are too engrained with the establishment, as Howard Fineman put it.

Watch the video below, courtesy of NBC:

Chris Matthews On Inevitable Romney Nomination: ‘Pretty Sad, But I Do Think It’s Interesting’

Josh Feldman — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 14:25:54 +0000

Chris Matthews descended from his Hardball perch to appear on Rachel Maddow‘s program tonight to preview next week’s New Hampshire primary and size up the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. Matthews’ observations of the New Hampshire primary, and possibly the other northeastern Republican primaries, was that there’s really nothing interesting that’s going to happen. In that region of the country, Matthews argued, Romney is pretty much guaranteed a victory over his GOP rivals.

Matthews seemed to think this election just wasn’t as exciting as past ones (like in the days of JFK), and Republican voters aren’t as inspired by their candidates as the party would like them to be. Maddow noted that contrary to what she heard about Rick Santorum bringing in large, excited crowds, she thought the room looked “bummed out” and in fact, one of the more newsworthy items to come from a Santorum event this week was that he got booed by members of a crowd when answering someone’s question on gay marriage.

Going back four years, Matthews brought up his now-infamous “thrill up my leg” comment he made after listening to Barack Obama speak, and defended it as the result of hearing a candidate so passionately about the United States. Matthews thought the journey the president made was an inspiring one, and a truly American one, and he didn’t see any candidate being as inspiring this time around.

Matthews addressed Mitt Romney‘s almost inevitable path to the GOP nomination by basically admitting he will win not because of his ideas, but because it’s his turn to be president.

“Romney is just the guy whose turn it is. And I hear the editor of… the Concord paper talk about ‘You could have predicted this election in your sleep.’ That this was going to be Romney for regional reasons, he’s the local guy. Like, what else is new? And I think that’s pretty sad, but I do think it’s interesting.”

Matthews pointed out part of Romney’s electoral strategy was to claim all sorts of conservative credentials that his past political ambitions and positions have not necessarily lined up with. However, despite how uninspiring the race has become at this point, Matthews still had hope for the “phenomenon of politics” to jolt our collective conscience once again, and Romney may find the coming months to be a great challenge to winning the nomination.

Watch the video below, courtesy of MSNBC:

Newt Gingrich And Chris Matthews Go Head-To-Head During Hardball Interview

James Crugnale — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:42:45 +0000

On MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews went head-to-head with flailing Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Gingrich had strong words for fellow GOP opponent Mitt Romney. “He’s not going to be the nominee,” Gingrich boldly declared.

In the interview, Matthews mentioned that Gingrich had snarked Romney with an SNL jab.

Matthews: You called him a Saturday Night Live joke.

Gingrich: Well, that ad was a SNL joke – for a Massachusetts moderate to put out an ad questioning my credentials as a conservative, it’s the kind of chutzpah that you don’t really quite expect to find in someone like Romney.

Matthews: Let’s talk about Tampa. I have always thought, watching this thing from the other side, I could see it from the middle sometimes and sometimes sympathetically. I look at this tea party phenomenon – how do these people and their representatives go to Tampa at the end of this summer when it’s sweltering down there. I always like to the get the atmosphere in there – it’s hot, the humidity is 105 degrees, and they sit around and cheer Mitt Romney? How does that work?

Gingrich: It won’t. He’s not going to be the nominee.

Matthews: Could it work if he were the nominee? Would [the tea party] ever be able to cheer him on there?

Gingrich: They would never cheer him. Why would they cheer someone – if you were a Tea Party person, why would you cheer someone who raised taxes, created the prototype of Obama care – appointed liberal judges to appease the Democrats – that’s his line, not mine – and put in taxes paid abortions, took care of Planned Parenthood… here’s any easy question for you to answer — – name one conservative accomplishment or public policy of Romney’s.

Watch Matthews and Matthews go mano-a-mano on Hardball below via MSNBC:

HuffPo’s Howard Fineman Says Michele Bachmann’s ‘Inner Circle About To Tell Her To Call It Quits’

James Crugnale — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 02:57:02 +0000

During MSNBC’s Iowa Caucus coverage, The Huffington Post‘s Howard Fineman divulged to Chris Matthews that Michele Bachmann‘s “inner circle is in the process of telling her it’s time for her to drop out.”

The cable networks are projecting that Bachmann will finish in 6th place ahead of Jon Huntsman.

“I think as the numbers are beginning to trickle in, I think reality is beginning to dawn on some of the candidates and one of them may be Michele Bachmann who put such a big effort in here. Could not get the full backing of the evangelical pastors in part because of her gender — her staffers are saying privately,” Fineman explained. “They don’t want to sound like they’re complaining but that’s part of it.”

“Some of them said so publicly. She is now about to be told by her inner circle that she should call it quits, and that conversation my understanding has not quite taken place yet but is about to take place. She is supposed to go to South Carolina tomorrow. She may or may not go but I think there is a very — I just know her top people are telling her or getting ready to tell her that it’s time for her to drop out.”

“Do you think she might endorse Santorum?” Matthews asked.

“I think she’ll wait on whatever she does. I do think her endorsement is valuable and that she has a passionate group of supporters. Other than Ron Paul, I would say the most personally passionate supporters of all the voters taking part in the caucuses tonight were Michele Bachmann ‘s — there just ended up not being very many of them.”

Watch Fineman report on the future of Bachmann’s campaign below via MSNBC:

Chris Matthews Trashes Mitt Romney PAC’s Attack Ads Against Newt Gingrich: ‘Newt Was Wronged’

James Crugnale — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:27:29 +0000

Appearing on MSNBC’s NewsNation with Tamron Hall, Hardball host Chris Matthews called out Mitt Romney for relying on the unaffliated Super PAC Restore Our Future to politically cripple Newt Gingrich in Iowa.

“It’s been a bombing campaign by the Romney people. They destroyed their nationwide competition. Newt Gingrich is lucky to come in fourth or fifth after this relentless ad campaign that is 100% negative and run by the Romney people unofficially. It’s called Restore Our Future. It has relentlessly 24-7 destroyed Newt Gingrich. I can only compare it to the Allied bombing of Dresden in World War II. It left nothing standing.”

Hall asked Matthews why Gingrich didn’t see this attack coming.

“What he’s not used to is under this new court ruling, Citizens United, your opponent can run a terrible campaign and relentlessly destroy your reputation without putting your fingerprints on the ad. You don’t have to say I’m Mitt Romney and I paid for this ad. So now in Iowa, where the people don’t like negative campaigning, you can run the bombing campaign or destroy your opponent without having your face or voice associated with it. That’s what Newt wasn’t aware of. it’s his fault that conservatives like them have gone along with these court decisions, that have allowed big contributors, wealthy people to put unlimited amounts of money into negative campaigns without putting the name of their favorite candidate in the ad. it destroyed gingrich. it’s an amazing thing to watch out here. The destruction of a front-runner by someone in second place and now doesn’t have an opponent because his wealthy friends destroyed that person you are looking at right now.”

“My love is for democracy, Matthews continued. My sympathy is not for Newt. It’s for democracy. Newt was wronged. That’s hard for me to say this, but he was wronged by the system. I’m trying to be fair even to people I don’t normally agree with.”

Watch Matthews surprising heartfelt defense of Newt Gingrich from Mitt Romney-sympathetic PACs

Matthews To Panel: Is There A Sense That Obama Is Headed Towards Defeat?

James Crugnale — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:10:53 +0000

During a panel discussion on his Sunday talk show, Chris Matthews questioned whether — faced with lingering economic problems — President Obama was on a path towards defeat. “No matter who the Republicans choose ultimately, voters will have to decide whether to trust Barack Obama with four more years,” Matthews noted. “His low poll numbers and his people say that he must begin to tear down the opposition. So it stands to be a historically negative year… How negative is this going to get?”

“President Obama doesn’t seem to be focused on the journey so far, just don’t reverse,” Major Garrett surmised.

“How can you run on a campaign slogan of ‘This is as good as it gets’?” Matthews asked. “Is there a mood that this President is probably going to lose as events take their course? Is he headed towards defeat?”

“‘You think this is bad, this could be worse’ — that is not actually a positive optimistic, hopeful ‘Morning in America’ kind of message,” observed CNN political correspondent Gloria Borger. “So I think Barack Obama has his work cut out for him.”

“The question is, do they feel like that?” Matthews asked. “Do you have a sense that there is a feeling out there that the Obama people know they’re going to face a very uphill battle this year?”

“I think they’re worried,” said Washington Post columnist David Ignatius they have been worried. it’s Obama’s way to play defense. That’s just how he has conducted himself as President. This year is his last chance to define himself for the American people in a clear way as a leader so that people might join him. I know one thing, Obama is the only candidate in this race who can say to the American public, I killed Osama Bin Laden. I took down America’s biggest enemy. I made the country safer. That could be powerful.”

Watch Matthews’ panel debate whether President Obama can overcome political obstacles to win a second term below via NBC:

Chris Matthews Excuses Newt Gingrich’s Tears: Politics ‘Is A Brutal Business’

Frances Martel — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:47:34 +0000

With the Iowa caucuses on the horizon for Tuesday, the strain started to show today on some of the few people in America putting in 100% at work today: the Republican presidential candidates. This is particularly true for Newt Gingrich, who started crying during a talk when prompted to talk about his mother, but his breaking up was excused today on Hardball, where Chris Matthews broke down the “brutal” dynamics of the political game and gave Gingrich the benefit of the doubt.

Matthews repeated the moment and added a warm analysis to the bit, noting that “politicians when they lose elections or have trouble, cry,” and that it was a phenomenon that crossed party lines. He argued that this was due to the nature of the business. “Politics is the only business where you ask everybody to like you, and you get a verdict from everybody. And they all tell you, in most cases, ‘we don’t like you,’” Matthews explained. “And every once in a while, they say they like you, and then they tell them they don’t like them… it’s a brutal business,” he concluded. Matthews has certainly not been easy on Gingrich in the past, but he refused to go after him for the tears.

Howard Fineman was not as sympathetic as Matthews, however, and instead took Gingrich on for being “in terrible shape” and too old for the race. “He looked like he’d taken on more than he could handle,” he argued, and “thinks he can go like he went thirty years ago.”

The segment via MSNBC below:

Chris Matthews And Panel: What Was President Obama’s ‘Best Move’ Of 2011?

Josh Feldman — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:55:13 +0000

Today’s edition of The Chris Matthews Show featured a small little awards ceremony to honor the most important political moments of the year. Chris Matthews dedicated the first award to President Obama for his “Best Move” of the year. The nominees for the category were the death of Osama bin Laden, the Libyan invasion, the fulfilled promise to withdraw from Iraq, and his unifying speech to the nation following the Arizona shootings and critical injury of Gabrielle Giffords.

Chuck Todd decided on Libya and the toppling of Moammar Gaddafi‘s regime for the top spot because of how risky a move it was to take. Katty Kay disagreed because of how long the conflict took and how costly it was for the United States to enter into, and decided on the death of bin Laden as Obama’s best move.

“It was a kind of nothing-but-good-news moment for the president… competent execution, but it also inoculates him against any criticism, we’ve seen him use it, that he is in any way soft on terrorism.”

Kathleen Parker found herself stuck in a three-way tie between bin Laden, Iraq, and Libya, because she argued they were all part of Obama’s overall foreign policy agenda, which she described as “lacking of chestbeating.” Richard Stengel acknowledged the death of bin Laden was the easy choice to make, and argued that the withdrawal from Iraq was such a “colossal campaign promise” that to actually have accomplished it is a big victory for the president.

Matthews ended up agreeing and going with the Iraq withdrawal as well. The next category involved the Republican race for the presidency and which was the biggest turning point in the race. The nominees: Rick Perry‘s infamous “oops” moment, Chris Christie‘s decision to stay out of the race, Herman Cain‘s awkward moment of silence on Libya, or Mitt Romney starting to be more aggressive in his campaign, particularly in his battle with Newt Gingrich.

Parker gave it to Perry because of how defining a moment his verbal brain fart was in the campaign. Kay went with Romney instead because if Gingrich maintains the solid lead he’s built for himself, Romney’s attacks on him will become a major issue of the campaign as it progresses. Stengel agreed, and gave Gingrich credit for his impeccable timing in the race. Todd decided on Perry too, because he could have easily cornered the anti-establishment vote were it not for his verbal gaffes.

Update: NBC News Brass Reportedly Furious Over Handling Of Romney KKK Slogan Story

Tommy Christopher — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:02:26 +0000

As if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney didn’t have enough problems already, a story that connects him to the Ku Klux Klan has now entered the cable news bloodstream. AmericaBlog noticed that a phrase Romney has used, “Keep America American,” was also a rallying cry of the Klan in the 1920s. Now, MSNBC has reported on the story, which may prove hard for the cable news punditocracy to resist. However, there’s much less than meets the eye here.

The fact that the Klan used such a phrase isn’t surprising. “Keep America American” does have an unmistakable nativist ring to it, and on that basis, perhaps Romney has earned some criticism. He and his fellow candidates have turned immigration into a third rail with a nuclear reactor on it, mercilessly attacking any candidate who shows a scintilla of reason on the subject.

However, the AmericaBlog piece, entitled “Romney adopts KKK slogan: ‘Keep America American,’” is a bit of a stretch, and it’s kind of meant to be:

He’s said it repeatedly for over a year now. Here is Romney a year ago, using the Klan slogan in a campaign ad.

Romney said it again four days ago.

In an era in which it’s apparently okay for Republicans to accuse President Obama of being a socialist, I guess we now need to ask if Mitt Romney is a Ku Klux Klansman. Not whether Romney inadvertently is using the KKK’s number one slogan from the 1920s on the stump, no, the Republicans would say, if this were a Democrat, that clearly the candidate was a closet member of the KKK. So, is Mitt Romney a closet member of the KKK? Keep in mind, that even Romney is now claiming, between the lines, that President Obama is a socialist. So why shouldnt’ America be asking if Mitt Romney is a Klansman?

First of all, there are only two examples of Romney using the phrase given, and I couldn’t find any others. That hardly constitutes “adoption” of a phrase, and the headline also implies that Romney has adopted it as a slogan, rather than that it’s a slogan that he has taken to saying. As far as that goes, I’d prefer almost anything to Romney’s actual slogan, Believe in America, as if our country is the Tooth Fairy, or a leprechaun, or science.

Also, the “campaign ad” they embed in the story doesn’t appear to be anything of the sort. It’s definitely not a Romney ad, and it doesn’t even look like a PAC ad, but rather, a homemade video by a supporter. It’s a small point, perhaps, because Romney did actually say “Keep America American” in that clip from CPAC, but it’s worth noting.

The blog post itself is intended more as a way to call Romney (and other “mainstream” Republicans) out for leveling the ridiculous charge of “socialism” at President Obama than it is about actually making the case that Romney is a kloset Klansman.

From there, though, the narrative has graduated to MSNBC’s dayside news programming, although briefly. Anchor Thomas Roberts followed news of Christine O’Donnell‘s endorsement of Romney by saying, “So you may not hear Mitt Romney say ‘Keep America American’ anymore. That’s because it was a central theme of the KKK in the 1920s, it was a rallying cry for the group’s campaign of violence and intimidation against blacks, gays and Jews. The progressive blog AmericaBlog was the first to catch on to that.”

Here’s the video of Roberts’ brief report, followed by the “campaign ad” cited in the AmericaBlog report:

Update: Inside Cable News points out that, according to Robert Sickels‘ The 1940s, Republic Steel encouraged the use of the phrase in a GI-themed ad campaign, although Sickels doesn’t say whether it ever caught on.

Update 2: An NBC insider tells Mediaite that NBC News President Steve Capus addressed this story this morning at an editorial meeting, and stressed the need for accuracy, fairness, and caution before proceeding. Capus is reportedly furious at the way the story was handled, and MSNBC is in the process of apologizing to the Romney campaign.

Update 3: On Hardball tonight, host Chris Matthews issued a public apology to the Romney campaign for the “appalling judgment” used in reporting this story.

“During the 11AM hour on MSNBC,” Mathhews said, “we reported on a blog item that compared a phrase used by the Romney campaign to one used by the KKK in the 1920s. It was irresponsible and incendiary of us to do this and showed an appalling lack of judgment. We apologize to the Romney campaign.”

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC:

Update 4: Rev. Al Sharpton reinforced the apology on Politics Nation, agreeing that MSNBC “did the right thing” by apologizing:

Chris Matthews Rants: Anybody Who Puts Newt Gingrich In The White House ‘Has This On Their Conscience’

Nando Di Fino — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:56:08 +0000

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews isn’t doing a good job of hiding any biases he might have against Newt Gingrich. On Tuesday night, he went off on the GOP front-runner, slamming Gingrich for his excuses for infidelity and calling comments he made to The National Review last year, “complete racist crap.”

Matthews aired what he deemed to be Gingrich’s five most-despicable moments in a reverse countdown with Nia-Malika Henderson and Dana Milbank, both of The Washington Post. At one point, he managed to slam both Gingrich and website commenters, touching on remarks Gingrich made at a church this year about his grandchildren growing up in a, “secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists”:

“You go down below the surface of the earth, the ground level — you meet people down there, bloggers — way down in the sub-basements. They talk like this. This is the kind of comments you get on a column when you write in the comment list.”

Some other choice quotes from Matthews:

-”I think it’s absolute B.S. It’s B.S.” — on Gingrich saying his adultery, in an interpretation of comments by Matthews, was a result of his patriotism.
-”Anybody who defends this has a problem with this country.” — on Gingrich’s comments to The National Review in 2010, suggesting President Obama played a wonderful con on the American people, and intimating that he had a Kenyan anti-colonial mindset.
-”You are not really American yourself” — to Gingrich, on his comments about both President Obama and earlier comments on Susan Smith‘s early-90s murder of her children.

Matthews eventually wrapped up the segment by raising his voice and passionately blasting Gingrich:

“How many nuclear weapons would you put in this guy’s hands? It’s not common sense, it’s not even American. I don’t know what it is. And you’ve got to add these up. And, by the way, those who vote for this, guys, are responsible for him. You can’t just say I was angry that day, or I didn’t like Obama. Anybody who puts this guy in the White House has this on their conscience… He scares me.”

Watch the full clip of Matthews’ anti-Gingrich rant below, courtesy of MSNBC:

Gesundheit! Despite Sneezing Fit, Chris Matthews Maintains Composure

James Crugnale — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:13:54 +0000

MSNBC host Chris Matthews showed courage under fire after being overcome by multiple sneezes on the air — any anchor’s worst nightmare — and trudged on with nary a flinch. “I don’t know what that’s about!” quipped Matthews.

Matthews was discussing troop withdrawals from Iraq when — “… ahh …. ahhh … achoo!”– he was hit by a natural human phenomenon that a lesser news anchor would’ve turned into a catastrophe. Instead, Matthews made a quick joke and continued undeterred with an interview with Richard Engel. What a pro!

The team at Mediaite all wishes you the best of health during flu season, Chris!

Watch Matthews’s sneeze fit below and his well-maintained composure in the aftermath below: