Romney's race card and the GOP's new Southern Strategy

By Richard K. Barry

Chris Matthews can sometimes make me crazy, but I was proud of the man yesterday on Morning Joe when he called out RNC Chair Reince Priebus for the particular variant of the Southern Strategy being played out by the GOP with their lies about Obama's supposed changes to welfare rules and equally untrue statements about the reallocation of Medicare funding to Obamacare.

Nothing else is working for Romney, which is why he is playing the "race card," as Matthews correctly pointed out.

There is an excellent piece at The Atlantic Wire by Elspeth Reeve on this shift in strategy.

According to Reeve:

Romney's advisers believe Romney "needs a more combative footing against President Obama in order to appeal to white, working-class voters and to persuade them that he is the best answer to their economic frustrations," The New York Times' Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg reported. And as we pointed out on Friday, if Romney gets 61 percent of the white vote, he wins. If you have any doubt that Romney is playing the race card, check out his YouTube page. There are five ads falsely accusing Obama of gutting welfare reform. The Republican National Committee has put out its own welfare ad. And another three Romney ads say Obama is raiding Medicare to pay for Obamacare. The latter ads show white faces and say "you paid in" but now health care is going to somebody else.

Here's Matthews's exchange with Priebus:

(Cross-posted at Lippmann`s Ghost.)

Cage match: Matthews vs. Priebus

By Mustang Bobby

Okay, so I said I wasn't going to waste pixels on the GOP convention, but that didn't mean I wouldn't notice -- and post -- some of the sideshows.

Here's Chris Matthews during a live segment of Morning Joe yesterday opening a can on RNC Chair Reince Priebus for the birtherism and the foreignization of President Obama by the Romney campaign:

Yip yah.

And I love the way the bystanders like Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski are absolutely mortified by such incivility on their TV show. Much pearl clutching ensued. Half a kudo to Tom Brokaw for limply coming to Chris's defense.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The economic aspects of the Egyptian protests

Guest post by Dan Fejes 

Dan Fejes is a blogger at Pruning Shears. He lives in northeast Ohio.

(Ed. note: This is Dan's second guest post at The Reaction. You can find his first, on the Arizona shooting, a response to the stupidity of Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, here. -- MJWS)

**********

Conventional wisdom in Washington seems to have pretty quickly settled on an ideological basis for the unrest in Egypt. By doing so, it has ignored a more compelling -- and prosaic -- explanation.

There appears to be a yawning chasm between what is happening in Egypt and elite opinions in D.C. Consider this exchange between Chris Matthews and NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Richard Engel:

ENGEL: The Muslim Brotherhood is telling the army that it can be a reasonable, rational organization. I did an interview tonight with one of the senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was telling me to tell the American people that the Muslim Brotherhood can be reasoned with, wants to be a player, isn't a radical group. So you're trying -- you are seeing the Muslim Brotherhood legitimize itself, much in the same way you saw Hamas try and legitimize itself during the elections in Gaza.

MATTHEWS: Does that surprise you, as someone who really grew up over there as a journalist, living among the Muslim Brotherhood? Does it surprise you that they could be copacetic with the military?

ENGEL: Not at all. A lot of them are truly patriotic Egyptians. They don't necessarily want to overthrow the military regime. In the belief structure and the political structure that the Muslim Brotherhood has, which is common in Islamic moments, they believe in a strict hierarchy. There can be a ruler. There can be a military ruler. But as long as that military ruler doesn't impede on the ability of the Muslim people to worship, then they have no problem with that. So they could live very copacetically with the military. It's not that it is a Taliban kind of movement that wants to take over...

MATTHEWS: I get you.

ENGEL: ...and tell everyone what to do and how to do it. They're very patriotic. They have lot of supporters. You mentioned I lived with a lot of them. They were nice people. I mean, If you fell down in the street, they would come and help you out. If you didn't have enough money for the bus, they would give you money. There was a community feeling that a lot of people are nostalgic about in this country that is still present in the poorer, more Muslim -- more Islamic communities here.

What people are so upset about is prices have gotten so high, there's become this elite class of Egyptians that...

MATTHEWS: Right.

ENGEL: ...no longer reflects a lot of the traditional cultural values here. And the Muslim Brotherhood still does embrace those values very close to its chest.

Matthews comes across as somewhat surprised that the Muslim Brotherhood could play a legitimate role in a new Egyptian government. The assumption, apparently widespread in Washington, is that a populist Islamic movement is necessarily violent. (In fairness, they might just be extrapolating from America's own experience with religious extremists.)

In fact, he might even be something of an outlier in his mildness. Tom Friedman, who usually -- but not always! -- hides his anti-Islamic fervor well, had this to say: "For the last 20 years, President Mubarak has had all the leverage he could ever want to truly reform Egypt's economy and build a moderate, legitimate political center to fill the void between his authoritarian state and the Muslim Brotherhood."

He simply postulates that the Muslim Brotherhood is the opposite pole of an authoritarian state. He does not appear to have done any analysis to arrive at that conclusion. He has not spoken with anyone in the organization (my God man, are there no taxis in Cairo?) (Also see this, just because.) He just assumes that everyone intuitively grasps exactly what he does.

That seems to be roughly the center of conventional wisdom. To find the far edge of fear and loathing, see this from Richard Cohen: "The next Egyptian government -- or the one after -- might well be composed of Islamists. In that case, the peace with Israel will be abrogated and the mob currently in the streets will roar its approval." His entire misanthropic screed throbs with the message: these savages cannot govern themselves. It isn't even subtext at this point. It's right there on the surface.

There does not appear to be any appreciation that very ordinary concerns might be driving the protesters. What was touted as an economic miracle was disastrous for those on the lower end of the economic scale; Nomi Prins called this "the appearance of enhancement." Robust economic growth was outpaced by inflation, which lead to widespread hunger (I refuse to use the euphemism "food insecurity"). Food riots have killed people. The marvels of globalization have been decidedly less wonderful for many.

Do the anti-Islamic commentators in Washington have any sense that such workaday issues might just be front-and-center in the protester's minds? And that any party that begins to address them will thereby enjoy the consent of the governed?

**********

As a coda, those of us in the West might want to consider the following thoughts William Gamble shared about Tunisia:

All authoritarian governments everywhere, by definition, are not limited by any legal restraints. This allows elites to become rent seekers often through state-owned companies and monopolies. Without legal limits, the percentage of the GDP that they take for themselves will constantly increase.

[snip]

The main impact of an economy of corruption is on investment, the investments necessary to create jobs. For Tunisia and many other emerging and frontier markets, this is a major if not the issue. The unemployment rate in Tunisia is officially 13%, but it is probably twice this for younger people. Even university graduates face an unemployment rate of over 15%. This is not unusual for these markets where unemployment rates among younger workers can rise as high as 40%. According to the IMF, the Middle East needs to grow 2% faster every year to avoid its present chronic and high unemployment.

Worsening inequality, impunity for those at the top, reduced investment leading to high unemployment: a multi-party democracy in which a governing majority is persistently unresponsive to public opinion is functionally similar to a one-party state. And prone to similar expressions of dissatisfaction.

This is what Jon Stewart was talking about

By Edward Copeland

To paraphrase the old Clinton campaign battle cry, "It's the media, stupid."

When the whole TSA media explosion began, it was one of those rare stories where all sides of the political spectrum seemed to agree from the likes of Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake to an assortment of conservative talking heads. It even had its own variation of "Don't tase me, bro" with "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested" before true horror stories came out of passengers who had colostomy bags broken and urine collection bags ruptured, women who had their prosthetic breasts which they got after cancer surgery moved around as if they were puzzle pieces, etc. (Read Capt. Fogg's post for some of the examples.) It all pointed to improper training. Well, cable can't stand something like that, so they had to find political sides.

Suddenly, the left decided the whole issue was raised by neocons and the right to try to use racial profiling, even though days earlier they agreed with some of the ridiculousness of the system that still doesn't really add to protecting our skies nine years after 9/11. What makes this completely nonsensical and infuriating is that there is real news going on.

North Korea attacks a South Korean island in the most serious engagement between the two countries since 1953 in the same week we learn that North Korea has built another uranium enrichment facility. Do cable news shows want to discuss the serious implications of this? They could even put a political spin on it, if they wanted, as Jon Kyl continues to oppose the latest START treaty for no apparent reason.

I just watched Ed Schultz throwing a conniption fit about racial profiling and the TSA and Rush Limbaugh and I just couldn't take it anymore and I did what I do more and more when I need reasonable news coverage: I watched PBS' the NewsHour. They, of course, had in-depth coverage of the Korean situation as well as the fake Taliban negotiator, a promising drug that might actually prevent HIV infection and details of the financial reform. In fact, they went an entire hour without mentioning the TSA or what the cable channels would have you believe is today's other story of monumental importance: Prince William and Kate Middleton have set a wedding date!

Of course, I'm not even mentioning MSNBC's corporate synergy with NBC by using its nonstop coverage of the TSA imbroglio to play the Saturday Night Live skit about it from last weekend about it (which they do every time there is a new SNL on) as if it's an essential part of illustrating the story. Chris Matthews went as far as calling it the greatest SNL sketch ever. It aired on Olbermann, Maddow and O'Donnell last night and Morning Joe, Hardball and Schultz today.

Politico's Mike Allen had a funny tweet earlier today pointing out that Good Morning America actually did lead with the North Korean situation, but the Today show actually chose to go with the wedding date. As Fran Lebowitz said in the wonderful documentary about her that premiered on HBO last night, Public Speaking, I remember when news used to mean information.

It's like Jon Stewart said during his interview with Rachel Maddow. Was the Juan Williams story really as important as cable news made it out to be? No, but it fit their narrative and their template. There are far too many important things going on both domestically and overseas to waste our times on this nonsense anymore. Our "leaders" in D.C. can play politics, but they've lost the ability and the interest to govern and none of the talking heads on either side have any role in governance. Enough.

Somebody, please, help Tweety talk!

By J. Thomas Duffy

The past two nights, watching Tweety, on 'Hardball', has been, even more, excruciating, as to his reporting on the Haiti earthquake.

He has put on his "Super-Serious" suit, and looks, sternly, into the camera, with all his dramatic announcements.

And, biggest of all, he sounds like a total, Ted Baxter-like jackass, whenever he pronounces the name of Haiti's capital city, Port-au-Prince.



You can go out to 'Hardball' and pull up some of the videos, to check it out.

Even Atizine, on Twitter, noticed "Watching newscasters who pronounce almost nothing else properly, try their hardest 2 say 'Port Au Prince' like a local is absolutely weird..."

Almost overnight, Monty Python created a new "Ministry of Silly Talk", and Tweety is their first, gleaming star graduate.

Most normal people pronounce the name of Port-au-Prince, sounding as "Port-O-Prince".

Tweety has been pronouncing it, apparently, in the Francophile manner, as "Port-O-Prance" really dragging out the "Prance" part, making it sound like "Prawnce".

Much in the same behavior as being the only person, outside of the family secret bunker, that pronounces the name of the former Shadow President, as "Cheeny", versus the rest of the standing world, as "Cheney", or "Chay-ney"

Maybe the Darth Vader clan is okay with his mashing their name ...

But somebody needs to clue Tweety in, that he works for MSNBC, not Le Monde.

Bonus Tweety

Clooney: Wouldn’t Cast Matthews In A Daydream ,,,When Pressed, Matthews Admits Miffed Not Cast in Clooney Film ...“Forget This Zelig Mishmash, I Could Have Played McCarthy … And Played Him Damn Good”

MSNBC's Matthews Uninjured Pulling Head Out Of Judy Miller's Ass ...Hardball Host Fawns Over Former White House Stenographer; Stays Away From Tough Questions

Was Tweety Covering Morning Jokes' Back?




(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting

By J. Thomas Duffy

Oh boy, leave it to Tweety.

H/T to John Cole, over on Balloon Juice, for the catch;

This Chris Matthews quote is a Palinesque work of art:

MATTHEWS: And I think we have got to get serious about catching terrorists, not just catching weapons. I‘m waiting for the terrorist who knows kung fu or something that gets on an airplane without a weapon. God knows what that is going to be like.

Hey, Gerald, happy new year, even under this circumstance.

WTF!

We go from a kid, putting a bomb in his underwear, to sketching out a new Jackie Chan movie?

Steve Benen was also scratching his head;

Also note the context: Matthews is urging us to "get serious" about counterterrorism, and in the next sentence, warning us of the potentially deadly consequences of terrorists who know "kung fu or something."

Oh man ...

Was Tweety hitting the punch a little early this evening?

But, on another note, Tweety's wing-in-mouth solved our New Year's Eve music choice.

Everybody, get up and shake it!

Carl Douglas - Kung fu fighting(original)



Bonus Tweety Riffs

MSNBC's Matthews Uninjured Pulling Head Out Of Judy Miller's Ass ...Hardball Host Fawns Over Former White House Stenographer; Stays Away From Tough Questions

Clooney: Wouldn’t Cast Matthews In A Daydream ...When Pressed, Matthews Admits Miffed Not Cast in Clooney Film ...“Forget This Zelig Mishmash, I Could Have Played McCarthy … And Played Him Damn Good”

Was Tweety Covering Morning Jokes' Back?


(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

George Will goes gaga for Bachmann

By Mustang Bobby

In the past I've had a modicum of respect for George F. Will, even if he does come across as a humorless New England boarding school English teacher in need of a high colonic. I've even agreed with him on some occasions, even though he spends most of his time defending the old-guard country club ideals of elite Republicanism, and I've thought that he viewed the rantings of the new right wing -- the birthers, the deathers, and the oathers -- with a bit of sneer even as he defends some of their ideas if not their tactics. But today he rises to the defense of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), the highly entertaining whirling dervish of the far right, and makes it sound like she is yet another misunderstood beacon of truth, justice, and the American Way. His only concession to her nutsery is to admit that she is a "petite pistol that occasionally goes off half-cocked." Occasionally?

Mr. Will cites her appearance on Hardball last October where she "made the mistake of taking Chris Matthews's bait and speculating about whether Barack Obama and some other Democrats have 'anti-American' views." Of course it was Chris Matthews' fault that she answered his question. But he insists that she's well within the mainstream, citing her oft-viewed House floor speech where she labeled the federal takeover of General Motors as "gangster government" and says that millions of people have seen it. Hint: just because a video gets viewed 2 million times doesn't make it proof of intelligent discourse, and it's not always because they agree with her. (The dramatic prairie dog gets that many in a day.)

If that was Ms. Bachmann's only example of her "supposed excess," Mr. Will's defense of her would be understandable; after all, we've got a lot of examples of other far-right members of Congress making loony speeches that bring out the mockery and snark, and they don't garner the attention, more's the pity. But Ms. Bachmann is the gift that keeps on giving, from her call for keeping Americans "armed and dangerous," her denial of climate change (in which Mr. Will is her soulmate), and a number of other just downright nutty claims such as the FEMA concentration camps that will come from the renewal of Americorps. Mr. Will ignores the rest of these and, as is the wont of every mainstream pundit sucking up to to fringe, suggests that we are mocking and ignoring Ms. Bachmann at our peril.

In a way, I feel sorry for Mr. Will; I'm guessing he bet on the Dodgers to win the NLCS and this is his penance: having to defend one of the most divisive and extreme members of his party in print.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Do Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd have any shame?

By Creature

According to their new poll, the American people have bought--hook, line, and sinker--into the GOP's healthcare lies. Yet, these two act as if they played no role in that. It's Iraq all over again.

Woodward and bullshit

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Bob Woodward may, justifiably or not, be one of Washington's most eminent reporters, but this... this is just blatantly irresponsible:

Appearing on the Chris Matthews Show Sunday, Bob Woodward offered a rather cryptic prediction of scandal that will plague the Obama White House.

"This may be tantalizing but vague," said the Washington Post scribe. "I don't think the nanny or household tax problems and so forth are over for the Obama administration..."

Matthews pressed ever so slightly for more information, but Woodward did not oblige: "I say it's not over."

Right. Maybe it's not. Maybe Woodward knows something that most of the rest of us don't (as has often been the case in the past). But then why hint at it like this? Why so vague -- so annoying vague as to be not tantalizing. If he can't say anything more, or is unwilling to, that is, if he's not prepared to provide any details, any substance, then why say anything at all? Why not just comment if and when something more substantive actually comes out? He wasn't breaking any story on Matthews's show, after all, he was just, ever so coyly, as if reminding us all that he's the famous reporter, predicting a scandal to come?

Woodward has credibility as an insider to whom people are willing to spill the beans, I grant him that, and some of his books have been quite interesting, and, yes, he'll always have Watergate, but otherwise, and notably in his appearances on CNN with Larry King, he has pathetically little to offer in the way of substantive commentary or analysis. And now, it seems, he's resorting to... what? Gossip? Bullshit? Pre-emptive scandalmongering?

Watch for yourself. As usual, his colleagues "ooh" and "ahh" at his mysterious ways, kowtowing to the insider of insiders, to the man who knew Deep Throat and who must surely know so much.

Until he wants to do some actual reporting, though, he should just keep his mouth shut.

Doc Bloc Death Knock? ... MSNBC climbs into the Big Yellow Taxi

By J. Thomas Duffy

Okay, "Sticks nix hick pix" it isn't, but it appears MSNBC is looking to get out of the re-run business.

MSNBC Wants to Add a 3rd Prime-Time Show

Building on the momentum of its prime-time hours, MSNBC is developing a 10 p.m. program that would complement its left-leaning evening lineup, the cable news channel’s president said this week.

[Snip]

Unlike most major networks, MSNBC’s original programming ends at 10 each weeknight. The 8 p.m. program “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” is rerun at 10 p.m., where it usually ranks third.

[Snip]

But at 10 p.m., MSNBC replaced live programming with documentaries and repeats in 2006. It moved the reruns of “Countdown” there in March to capitalize on the political year. Reverting to tape at 10 p.m. puts the network at a disadvantage, especially on busy news nights. Meanwhile, CNN and Fox News are battling for first place in the hour. Last year, “Anderson Cooper 360” on CNN outperformed “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on Fox News among younger viewers, but the Fox program averaged a higher number of total viewers.

Hmmm ...

We once joked, at the height of the Missing White Woman bonanza, that MSNBC was going to launch a 24/7 Rita Cosby Channel, and, apparently, they are reluctant to plaster a Keith Olbermann Doc Bloc of sorts, endlessly replaying his Countdown program on the channel.

And, now, they want to cash in on their "left-leaning evening lineup."

Something seems to come to mind about that:

Don't it always seem to go
That you dont know what you've got
Til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

Perhaps this is an opportunity to make amends, for their boneheaded cowardness, for their capitulation to the Right Wing Freak Show, and the Bush Grindhouse, when they dumped anti-war proponent Phil Donahue from their line-up.

Exit Phil Donahue

Phil Donahue on his 2003 MSNBC firing: "We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."

MSNBC Sabotages Donahue

Then again, we haven't seen Rita Cosby pop up anywhere.

From this view, it would be nice if they came up with a second "progressive" program, and stop subjecting us to the Tweety rerun at 7:00 pm.

And don't you dare put Morning Joke back in Prime Time!

**********

Bonus MSNBC Riffs

MSNBC's Matthews Uninjured Pulling Head Out Of Judy Miller's Ass ... Hardball Host Fawns Over Former White House Stenographer; Stays Away From Tough Questions

Top Ten Cloves: Things Joe Scarborough Likes To Eat and Wear When Sitting At Computer

Developing Story - MSNBC Making Pitches To Become Eulogy Channel

Rachel Maddow: Hillary Apologist and Obama Basher


Bonus Bonus

Joni Mitchell Big Yellow Taxi



(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Chris Matthews, verbal diarrhea, and the Obama Inauguration

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I love a good takedown of a self-important media blowhard as much as anyone, even if it's a liberal-leaning enthusiast for "change," which is why I appreciate Jack Shafer's biting critique of the manure-spewing Chris Matthews:

Nobody in TV news stir-fries his ideas and serves them to the audience faster than MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Drawing from a larder filled with old anecdotes, unreliable metaphors, wacky intuition, and superficial observations, the always-animated Matthews steers whatever's handy into the hot wok that is his brain. The sizzling free-associations skitter through his limbic system, leap out his mouth, and look for a resting spot in the national conversation, where they steam like fresh lava in untouchable heaps.

Read the whole thing.

Shafer focuses on Matthews's Inauguration Day "cooking" -- one must pity Shafer for having to endure so much Matthews in so little time -- and, needless to say, there was a lot of material, much of it, as usual, pathetically self-referential, pretentiously self-absorbed, and arrogantly self-aggrandizing.

My favourite bit: Matthews declaring that the crowds were actually cheering for MSNBC as "the network of the 21st century," then later name-dropping all the celebrities he met (including quasi-celebrity Val Kilmer, to whom he gave a ride home). Awesome.

Chris Matthews and the velocity of sexism

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This morning, I referred to Chris Matthews's "egotism and sexism." Earlier this afternoon, Media Matters sent out this latest example of the former.

Matthews was interviewing CNBC financial reporter Dylan Ratigan. In this clip (see below), Ratigan discusses the movement of money in the economy, specifically the frequency of movement, or activity, or what is known as the velocity of money. In terms of economic stimulation, the key is not just to inject more money into the economy but to increase the velocity of money in the economy.

Now, Ratigan's a decent reporter, and he's talking here about a rather complicated subject. And you would think that any good interviewer, and any decent person, would engage him with similar gravitas.

Not Matthews, who, evidently in well over his head, pulls out a typically lame and predictably sexist comeback:

Well, maybe if husbands should pay their wives for cooking dinner tonight, we can move the money around.

There's Chris Matthews for you. As charming as ever.

No Senate bid for Chris Matthews

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What's worse:

a) Chris Matthews on TV (being a blowhard and making millions); or

b) Chris Matthews in the Senate (being a blowhard and wielding power)?

I'd say the latter, which is why it's a good thing that he's decided not to run for the Senate in 2010. I can't take much of him on TV, but at least I can turn the channel and ignore him.

Either way, though, he would have continued to provide a wealth of material to those of us in the commentariat, and we can all look forward to much more of the egotism and sexism to which we've grown so accustomed.

Yes, it bothers me that he'll continue to have a profitable platform from which to spew his nonsense, but at least he won't have his hands in the legislative cookie jar and the distinct honour of being a senator.

Then again, given that the Senate may soon include Roland Burris in its lofty ranks -- to go along with the likes of Joe Lieberman, Saxby Chambliss, Mitch McConnell, David Vitter, Jim Inhofe, Tom Coburn, and Jim DeMint -- well, I'm sure the appallingly low standards of that august body could accommodate someone like Matthews. He may not be an ideological extremist, after all, but he'd fit right in with the old boys.

When equivalence take a holiday

By Creature

Today on the Sunday talk shows I learned that Barack Obama and John McCain have both, equally, descended into the ugly world of negative campaigning. Funny, before today I was under the impression that trying to incite a race-religion-culture war was not quite the same as calling a guy erratic. I stand corrected. Thank you, Chris Matthews, you are right, both campaigns should be ashamed.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Drooling

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You know what's hilarious? The McCain-infatuated Weekly Standard complaining about Chris Matthews. And yesterday, Mary Katherine Ham responded to what she called Matthews' "post-debate drooling" over Obama.

"Barack Obama is gifted in birth by a wonderful smile," said Matthews last night on MSNBC. "John McCain, when he smiles, has a somewhat menacing quality. It may not be purposeful, but when he smiles, you wonder what he's really thinking. Barack Obama, for whatever reason, comes off as debonnaire, even under attack."

True, Matthews' isn't much of a political analyst. His punditry consists mostly of expressing his own often very personal observations. It's not so much what he thinks as what he feels, and he often seems to speak without thinking. Hence his all-too-common drooling.

The thing is, the most common object of his drooling over the years has been none other than John McCain, on whom he has long had a pretty obvious man-crush. Indeed, as David Brock and Paul Waldman point out in their book Free Ride: John McCain and the Media (which I've referenced often here), Matthews "may be the head of the McCain fan club among the establishment press." And he wasn't just a cheerleader eight years ago, during McCain's media-manipulative run for the Republican presidential nomination against Bush. In January 2007, to take but one more recent example, Matthews said on Hardball that McCain "deserves to be president in terms of all his service to the country."

Last night, Matthews just called it like he saw it, and he saw it like most of the pundits did and, according to the polls, like most of the people did. Was he drooling? Sure. But, for once, it wasn't over McCain.

Nattering nabobs of nonsense

By Edward Copeland

Sarah Palin owes Barack Obama and all African-Americans an apology. In her stump speech, she repeatedly boasts of putting a jet for sale on eBay. Obviously, since we all have ESP and the ability to break codes, Palin is really telling a tasteless, racist joke since Jet is a prominent African-American themed magazine and eBay is an online auction site that raises uncomfortable comparisons to slavery. Makes as much sense as finding sexism in using a common phrase in describing someone's policy statements, right?

As idiotic as it is that the McCain campaign has tried to make another issue out of thin air and trivialities since they know they lose if it it's about things that matter, they couldn't get away with it without their partners in stupidity: cable news.

Of course, Fox News always will be there for them, so it doesn't count, but what is the excuse of MSNBC and CNN for giving the lipstick lunacy more coverage than major hurricanes? Where's a mindless car chase when you need it?

MSNBC may be overly sensitive this week since they gave in to pressure and agreed not to let Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews anchor "news" events such as conventions any more because they give opinions. As much as I love Olbermann, I don't disagree with their idea that anchors of political events should be "unbiased." What annoyed me was that they were pushed into it by the likes of CNN and The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz who has whined for a long time about MSNBC's tilt to the left while pretending that Fox's anchors such as Brit Hume and Chris Wallace are fair and balanced.

CNN is such a muddle, who knows what to call it. They dumped shows such as Crossfire but just moved fighting pundits into different formats.

The cable networks seem to equate fairness with equal time and spin from both sides. They don't take the time to actually investigate candidates' claims or how their programs would really work: They just stick on spokesmen or surrogates to put the best possible shine on each side's view and those who might seek actual answers are shit out of luck.

The equal time has been particularly pointless since Palin arrived. They'll show an Obama event which, more often than not, is something new. Then they have to show McCain-Palin where they literally repeat the same stump speech, word for word, day after day. You hear the bridge to nowhere lie again, the luxury jet bit again, the executive chef lie again, etc. They usually cut away before McCain gets too far into his spiel.

The news media needs to return to their most important role: That of gatekeeper. Just because you get a press release doesn't mean you have to report it as news. Get out of the damn broadcast center.

One personal note: Palin botched her joke at the RNC. The difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull isn't lipstick, it's that the pit bull is better suited to ascend to the presidency if something happens to the president.

White House fed talking points to Fox News

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It wasn't so long ago that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, fresh memoir in hand, was all over the media with his allegation -- and, let's face it, a supremely credible one -- that the Bush Administration had lied about Iraq and took a "permanent campaign approach" to governing and that there was a Rove-Libby conspiracy to cover up their roles in the outing of former CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Well, the ex-mouthpiece is back, telling Chris Matthews last night -- as Think Progress reports -- that the White House fed "script[s]" to certain Fox News hosts ("the nighttime guys," as Matthews described them), essentially using them as "spokespeople." Later, he told Keith Olbermann that "'it was done frequently, especially on high-profile issues' and that Fox often gave the White House 'its desired results.'"

As Olbermann put it, it's "one of those things you assumed to be true all along, yet you are shocked when the hard confirmation actually shows up on your door."

Well, no, we shouldn't be shocked by this. But it's nice to have the confirmation straight from the mouthpiece's mouth.

(Image from here.)

Chris Matthews, (racist?) moron

By Michael J.W. Stickings

We know he's a sexist, but it seems he's also something of a racist:

[Thursday] night on Hardball, host Chris Matthews sought to give Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) some "advice" on how to get white Americans to vote for him for president:

MATTHEWS: You got to talk like a firebrand because if you're carrying their fight for them, they're going to like you. You know, a lot of white people root for black athletes because they're winning for the home team. People are quite willing to pick up black heroes, if they'll win for their side.

So... a lot of whites are racists who root only for the blacks who play on their favourite sports teams?

So... whites in Chicago only liked Michael Jordan because he played for the Bulls, with homerism trumping racism?

So... these racists, what do they think of blacks who play for other teams? Let's say Jordan had been traded to the Lakers or the Celtics, would they then have gone all racist on him?

So... whites only put aside their racism for sports "heroes"? And so... blacks aren't good for anything other than playing for the hometown team?

I agree with Libby: "[H]ow does this jerk still have a job? I don't see any way to view this remark about Obama as anything but purely racist. Besides, even when he's not dishing out sexist and racist stereotypes, his political commentary never rises above inane gossip. It's ridiculous to pretend he's a serious analyst. He's a disgrace to the industry and should be taken off the air."

In the meantime, it seems to me he's got some explaining to do.

Why political pundits shouldn't predict Oscars

By Edward Copeland

While the consensus seems to clearly be that No Country for Old Men will win best picture at the Academy Awards tonight, that didn't stop the guests and hosts of The Chris Matthews Show to try out their award prognostication skills.

Norah O'Donnell: Juno
Dan Rather: No Country for Old Men should win, but There Will Be Blood will win
Gloria Borger: Juno
Howard Fineman: Michael Clayton
Chris Matthews: Michael Clayton

I have a surge in my pants

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Chris Matthews has a long history of hitting on his female guests, having man-crushes on the likes of Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, and attacking and denigrating strong women like Hillary Clinton.

See David Brock's open letter to NBC News president Steve Capus here.

I ask the question "What the hell's wrong with Chris Matthews?" here. -- I look at the sexist jerk here. -- I look at his problem with women here.

But what to do about it? Matthews sort of apologized for some of what he has said about Hillary, but it wasn't nearly enough. The fact remains that he is an unrepentant jackass. Sure, sure, there's free speech, but that doesn't mean all speech is thereby immune to criticism. And much of the responsibility rests with NBC, which continues to give him a prominent platform -- such as there is anything "prominent" about MSNBC other than Olbermann -- from which to hit on women, discuss his man-crushes, and attack and denigrate strong women. (Hence the recent blogswarm.)

Actually, I think Slate's Hart Seely has a good idea: "What [Matthews] needs to do is treat the guys equally." We know how he treats women, the women he doesn't perceive as a threat to him and his penis, but what we need is for him to be more open with his male guests.

Imagine what that would be like...

And read this. It's hilarious. Seely imagines what Matthew might say to some of his more prominent guests on the presidential campaign trail.

My favourite:

"To John McCain: Senator, I know why you pushed the surge. Because you give me the surge. I can barely sit. And don't expect me to set a timetable for withdrawal. I look at you, and I'm a prisoner. A prisoner of love!"