<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=e46Ueu6USU" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=e46Ueu6USU" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object> OTLM.
I watch Morning Joe. He's a former conservative congressman...don't always agree with him, but he's consistent in his beliefs and is always up for a lively argument. That is not the entire clip. I agree that it sounded dumb, and then the other commentator added that no one should be immune to journalistic interrogation, but that this particular story has not merit, no substance, no real practical value other than gossip, so it shouldn't be a story. And then Chris Matthews said he agreed with that statement. I personally have no problem criticizing the baffoons on the left and the right, but when you make an argument, you should be fair and tell the whole story. Election season is over, so there's no more reason to be spewing half truths.
I think Matthews was just tired of Scarborugh's nit picking question which seemed like it was a contrived part of the daily gotcha from the campaign. Give it a rest for a day or two.
You know how the press makes a president successful? They critically review his actions & proposals and hold him accountable for them to the American people. It doesn't guarantee success, but its the only way they can contribute. Being a lap-dog press only courts failure.
Agreed. This does indeed need a successful presidency. As a journalist you do that by shedding light and aiding the citizens in holding govt accountable.
There's a fine line between a journalist practicing due dilligence in trying to report the issues and a journalist creating a controversy where none truly exists. I think Matthews was trying to do that very thing: by not speculating on a persons motives for their decisions, you avoid painting them as some villain instead of a person with their own reasons for doing the things they do. And, to a certain extent, Matthews is right: as Americans, the success of our country is our obligation. That doesn't mean following unconditionally or turning a blind eye, but it does mean supporting your govt unless you have a good reason not to do so.
i don't think that's how most of the press, or the opposition, has acted over the past 8 years. quite the opposite in fact, but now that the shoe is on the other foot...
you mean when the admistration said there were wmd in Iraq and that saddam was developing nuclear capabilities? or when there was an in depth investigation on what bush knew or was warned about before 9-11 you mean that press?
Chris Mathews on Bush's Mission Accomplished Moment- MATTHEWS: What's the importance of the president's amazing display of leadership tonight? [...] MATTHEWS: What do you make of the actual visual that people will see on TV and probably, as you know, as well as I, will remember a lot longer than words spoken tonight? And that's the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously. What does that image mean to the American people, a guy who can actually get into a supersonic plane and actually fly in an unpressurized cabin like an actual jet pilot? [...] MATTHEWS: Do you think this role, and I want to talk politically [...], the president deserves everything he's doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. Do you think he is defining the office of the presidency, at least for this time, as basically that of commander in chief? That [...] if you're going to run against him, you'd better be ready to take [that] away from him. [...] MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Bob Dornan, you were a congressman all those years. Here's a president who's really nonverbal. He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West. I remember him standing at that fence with Colin Powell. Was [that] the best picture in the 2000 campaign? [...] MATTHEWS: The president there -- look at this guy! We're watching him. He looks like he flew the plane. He only flew it as a passenger, but he's flown -- CADDELL: He looks like a fighter pilot. MATTHEWS: He looks for real. What is it about the commander in chief role, the hat that he does wear, that makes him -- I mean, he seems like -- he didn't fight in a war, but he looks like he does. CADDELL: Yes. It's a -- I don't know. You know, it's an internal thing. I don't know if you can put it into words. [...] You can see it with him and the troops, the ease with which he talks to them. I was amazed by that, frankly, because as I said, I was originally appalled, particularly when I heard he was going in an F-18. But -- on there -- but the -- but you know, that was -- MATTHEWS: Look at this guy! CADDELL: -- was hard not to be moved by their reaction to him and his reaction to them and -- CADDELL: -- you know, they -- it's a quality. It's an innate quality. It's a real quality. MATTHEWS: I know. I think you're right. Later that day, on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Matthews said: MATTHEWS: We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like [former President Bill] Clinton or even like [former Democratic presidential candidates Michael] Dukakis or [Walter] Mondale, all those guys, [George] McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. We don't want an indoor prime minister type, or the Danes or the Dutch or the Italians, or a [Russian Federation President Vladimir] Putin. Can you imagine Putin getting elected here? We want a guy as president. http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270005
