3/21/09 11:50 PM

'He Has Been in the Tank From Day One'

J$P Audio! Terry McAuliffe unloads on Chris Matthews:




From The John Gibson Show, April 23 2008




Mike Chimeri
Attaboy, Terry!
April 23, 2008, 9:20:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply


On the Mark
What irony that the Clintons' media bedmates are FNC and Scaife! The Clintons seem shocked and angry that their next door neighbors took offense at the Clintons crashing their annual Memorial Day barbecue and urinating in the pool. Maybe Clinton can do an hour on Limbaugh next.
April 23, 2008, 10:05:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olbysucks
Yes, it's the 'conspiracy theory' theory. Right 'on the mark!'
April 23, 2008, 11:08:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Grammie
I'm confused.
 
What does Bill and Hill peeing in their neighbor's pool have to do with Terry McAuliffe pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that Chris [Tingling Leg] Mathews is in the tank for Obama?
April 23, 2008, 11:27:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olbysucks
"Keith Olbermann: Worst Person--and Biggest Damn Hypocrite--in the World!"
 
J"Keith Olbermann: Worst Person--and Biggest Damn Hypocrite--in the World!" J$ Great recap, tonight!nbsp;
 
Great recap, tonight!
April 24, 2008, 1:33:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
It's a metaphor for goodness sakes. I wasn't saying the Clintons were literally urinating in a swimming pool.
 
The neighbors are loyal friends and supporters, and the pool, prior to its contamination, is the established press/media supporting the Clintons through the good times and the difficult times of the Bill years; McAuliffe, individually and as a symbol of the Clinton machine, is fouling the pool; the contaminated pool is Gibson (and Scaife and other members or the ultra-rightwing attack press). The offended neighbors took offense because their pool was fouled and because the Clintons expect them to be pleased with a foul pool. As for Matthews, he was pleased to swim with the Clintons in the sparkling pool, it is only when the pool became polluted that he sought clearer and cleaner waters, a logical and appropriate thing to do.  
 
It doesn't seem that perplexing to me, but, perhaps it was a strained metaphor or I was being clumsy, for which I should and do apologize.
April 24, 2008, 8:04:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Steve L
A big time RACEST
 
Listening to Mathews last night I was struck at how fixated he is on race. No matter what the topic was it always came back to his perception that every decision, every vote, every act is motivated by the color of your skin. For example (one of many) , He claims the Clinton voters are in his mind in completion with blacks moving into their neighborhoods so they vote against Obama, innuendo after innuendo. His statements are really rank speculation and absurd projection of his own racist attitudes. It’s time to call a spade a spade. Chris Mathews sees a person race first and everything else second, that colors his attitude toward the person. This is stereotyping at its worst. There is no other way to describe Mathews other than as a big time RACEST. He should be ashamed.
April 24, 2008, 8:41:01 AM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
Is it possible, Steve, that Matthews is being a realist and not a racist? Is it possible he is simply dealing with issues which have racial implications without being racist?  
 
I think that the term "racist" is far too easily flung about. I am not at all sure I see racism at work in any of the cable news networks. Perhaps, MSNBC personalities are more sensitive to racist attitudes with regards to African-Americans, and FNC personalities deal a bit more in "reverse racism," but are any of these personalities racist, at least in their on-air personae? I think not.  
 
And, as if to emphasize that point, we have a rather clear example of 21st century racism at work in the NC Republican party's Obama ad being run tonight during the early evening news. Despicable. A throw back to Helms. To his credit, McCain has (at least in a lip service fashion, perhaps even authentically) condemned the ad.
 
I think we have fallen into an interesting pattern with reference to this racial issue now. I am convinced that we have 12-15% of all Americans who would never vote for an African-American for president, regardless of the candidate. I am also convinced that we have 3-5% of all Americans who will tell a pollster they will vote for the African-American candidate when they either have no intention of doing so, or who change their minds when they get to the polls. Obviously, this is a more acute problems in Altoona, Arkadelphia and Ardmore than it is in Alhambra, Ashville and Austin, but it exists to some degree everywhere, much as there are bright rays of light everywhere.
 
Are you claiming it is racist to acknowledge that small, but important phenomenon of our political and social life? If Matthews didn't do this, I think he wouldn't be doing his job. Is the degree to which he dwells on this topic disproportionate? I suppose we can rationally disagree on that. Should he counter-balance this uncomfortable reality with news of advances in civil rights? Not all the newsworthy, but why not? I know I am pleased that 85% of all Americans would at least consider voting for an African-American candidate.
 
Race is the third rail of American politics, and it will remain so for many, many years to come. I see no value and much harm in Matthews and others denying that.
April 24, 2008, 9:25:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Well, of course Steve L has accused Matthews of doing something far worse than OTM acknowledges here in all this blather (blather designed chiefly to term as "racist" the ad calling Obama an "extremist", while denouncing flinging the term "racist" about...)
 
If what Steve L. says is true, Matthews has explicitly or implicitly accused Clinton supporters of championing her because they can't bear the idea of an African-American moving in next door, let alone into the White House.
 
Now THAT is the sort of rhetoric that should be condemned by any honest broker, let alone one who thinks that such appellations of racism are used superfluously.
 
But then we aren't talking about this Steve L's acutal thoughts or even about Chris Matthews here are we. THEY are just props for quite another show...
April 24, 2008, 9:55:52 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Steve L
To On The Mark
 
Thanks for your thoughtful comments and I appreciate your point of view. I agree that the word racist is used to freely but I choose it carefully because of Mathews repeated behavior.  
 
If as you say, only a small percentage 12% of the population will vote based on Race, why do you condone Mathews ascribing this scourge to the population that votes for Clinton? Unlike Chris, I don’t look at a person’s race as something that defines their motivations potential or character. That is racism and that is what Chris does every night on almost evey segment. It’s a discuting condescension and elitist attitude that somehow without any evidence or examples he knows what is in other peoples heart and minds. The vast majority of people know that racism is wrong/ unfair and avoid even the thought as if were a plague. Mathew’s chronic practice of seeing race as part of every story (when it’s not there, and no evidence is provided) is destructive and has the unintended but real consequence of holding people back. It reinforces and is the practice of racism almost as much as the hateful David Dukes and Rev Wrights of the world. Yes, we can discuss race and the world is not perfect but people like Mathews need to start projecting race into everything and start crediting individuals for their achievements or actions instead of race. I’m sick of his stereotyping of individuals and it is wrong.
April 24, 2008, 10:03:43 AM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
Steve:
 
You raise two (2) very important points: Matthew's assigning racist motivation to Clinton supporters, as a class, and Matthew's assumption that he has special knowledge of the hearts and minds of people about whom he speaks.
 
As to racist motivations of Clinton supporters, you may have more of a point than I originally thought. Matthews is pompous and arrogant. He does paint with a broad brush, and he is terribly, terribly petty. It is that pettiness that may be the basis of what disturbs you most. While I may be uncomfortable applying the racist label to Matthews, I am not uncomfortable saying that he may be misapplying it to others. I could very well see Matthews going to an arsenal and pulling out any weapon, even the racist condemnation, to slap an opponent, to feel vindicated. That does make Matthews truly despicable.
 
As for his knowing the hearts and minds of all, that goes back to his arrogance. He does see himself as omniscient. In that regard, he fools only himself, but he uses that faith in himself, that devotion to himself, in some very ugly ways, indeed.
 
I read a gossipy piece about the NBC people, Russert, in particular, but also Brokaw, finding Olbermann funny, pleasant, but dumb, and Matthews, unpleasant and dumb. They may be onto something.  
 
Thanks for some really provocative thoughts.
April 24, 2008, 10:29:57 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince
It's interesting how the only people who obsess over race are those who claim to be beyond racism.
April 24, 2008, 2:18:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Rob
Hey Terry, it sucks when the media turns on you, huh? LOL
April 24, 2008, 11:28:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply