…is another man’s regime:
Perhaps Matthews missed all of those references. If he did, he still might have heard the phrase the many times it was uttered on his own network, MSNBC. For example, on January 8 of this year, Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak said that, “In George Bush’s regime, only one million jobs had been created…” On August 21, 2009, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz referred to something that happened in 2006, when “the Bush regime was still in power.” On October 8, 2007, Democratic strategist Steve McMahon said that “the middle class has not fared quite as well under Bush regime as…” On August 10, 2007, MSNBC played a clip of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan referring to “the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been tragically harmed by the Bush regime.” On September 21, 2006, a guest referred to liberals “expressing their dissatisfaction with the Bush regime.” On July 7, 2004, Ralph Nader — appearing with Matthews on “Hardball” — discussed how he would “take apart the Bush regime.” On May 26, 2003, Joe Scarborough noted a left-wing website that “has published a deck of Bush regime playing cards.” A September 26, 2002 program featured a viewer email that said, “The Bush regime rhetoric gets goofier and more desperate every day.”
Finally — you knew this was coming — on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror. “Let’s go to the Reverend Al Sharpton,” Matthews said. “Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?”
But, but…that was Bush! It’s only a sign of the degeneracy of our politics when Rush Limbaugh does it! Against The One!
I can never figure out if Chris Matthews is really stupid, or he just thinks that we are. And you’d think that these idiot journalists would have figured out by now that the Internet makes it impossible for them to put things down the memory hole.
[Monday morning update]
Heh. Moe Lane says that this proves that even Chris Matthews doesn’t listen to Chris Matthews. I wonder if Olbermann ever listens to Olbermann? I sure wouldn’t, if I were him. And it would explain MSNBC’s ratings. Or lack thereof.
I wouldn’t refer to elected offices as regimes. Bureaucracies, on the other hand…
Matthews is stupid. But like most libs, he doesn’t get it, AND he thinks everybody NOT him, or who doesn’t think LIKE him is stupid. And no amount of dialogue on Earth will change his or their mind(s).
Given the fact that the Democrat Party had five appointed senators in office (the Republicans had one) when the health care vote was taken, I think it’s appropriate to say we were under a regime when it passed…
“Regime” isn’t as pejorative a term as Matthews seems to think. Which is why I like to refer to the current administration as a junta.
He’s an idiot.
He’s smart enough to get a gig where he’s paid a lot of money to spout nonsense to a small audience. Other than that, he’s an idiot.
I can never figure out if Chris Matthews is really stupid, or he just thinks that we are.
How about both?
MSNBC is still on the air?
MSNBC is still on the air?
Yes, but only by those of us needing the comic relief. We need to stop that.
“I can never figure out if Chris Matthews is really stupid, or he just thinks that we are.”
How about neither? I think that in many ways, Chris Matthews is actually a lot like you Rand: quite bright, full of heartfelt sentiment, reactionary, inconsistent at times, entertaining, totally sincere even when utterly wrong. He differs from you in that he showers compliments instead of scorn…
For what it’s worth, I consider that a gross insult, Bob.
I wonder if you’ve watched the Chris Mathews show much? It is quite different from anything else offered by MSNBC, although back when Tucker Carlson was on, the two shows nicely complemented each other. The rest of MSNBC’s non-news offerings are distinctly more close-minded. I disagree with Matthews quite often, but I think he tries hard to listen and think (as did Carlson).
“I disagree with Matthews quite often, but I think he tries hard to listen and think (as did Carlson).”
I would have responed sooner but I had to clean up the iced tea I spit out after reading this. How many example, Bob, would you like of Chris Matthews insulting those with whom he disagrees? Here’s what he said on Friday about Limbaugh:
“And this guy, this walrus underwater, makes fun of this administration, calling it a ‘regime.'”
The drugs must be good in your alternate universe.
Limbaugh, like MSNBC’s Ed Henry, has a bombastic style, and no doubt about it, Matthews is more likely to criticize people using that style if he also disagrees with him (so Henry, a Limbaugh-of-the-left escapes criticism even though he deserves it). But Matthews is pretty respectful of people he doesn’t agree with, including Republicans and conservatives of various sorts, if they engage in thoughtful discussions of policy. In particular, Republican members of Congress are on the show very frequently and get a chance to explain their positions at length. Matthews editorializes (and as this “regieme” gaffe illustrates, he is frequently wrong), but unlike much of MSNBC’s line-up, he has journalistic instincts, and it appears that both conservative pundits and Republican officeholders enjoy the give-and-take that occurs during an interview.
Tingly Legs has long since tainted whatever alleged good has resulted from his work as a “journalist.”
Oh please, Bob-1, Chris Matthews has a terrible history of being an egregious windbag. He routinely cuts people off when they are trying to answer and is the master of asking long questions full of opinionated fluff. I can’t find the clip right at the moment but there is a video out there of Matthews asking a 2:30 minute question. Sir Tingles is nothing more than a useful idiot for the Obama regime.
I agree with you Josh (except for the last sentence). Your description would accurately characterize a lot of interesting and fair-minded people. You can ask leading questions, cut peple off, bloviate, etc, and still engage in an intellectual conversation as long as you stop and listen and converse as well. I’m reminded of many university professors — clearly biased, full of themselves, etc, but still capable of engaging in an interesting conversation. I think Republicans & conservatives keep coming back to Matthews because the overall experience remains intellectual.
Hey Bobster, try naming three well-known conservative commentators who do that on a regular basis.
I still remember when tingle-boy kept verbally walking all over Michelle Malkin without even letting her finish a sentence. Not to long after that he made the mistake of aggravating Zell Miller during the GOP 2004 convention. Remember that one, Bobby? The episode where Matthews ended up apologizing to Miller in a very servile manner?
I think Republicans and conservatives keep coming back to Matthews is that he’s an a$$hat (see above linked article), and he’s more fun to pick on than Olbermann, who is just pathetic.
Casey, just three? How am I going to narrow it down to just three? I mentioned Tucker Carlson. MSNBC also has Joe Scarborough, who regularly cuts off whoever he talking to, etc. In addition, MSNBC regular Pat Buchanan has become an MSNBC regular who “does that” when he is given the appropriate platform. Buchanan has beliefs I find completely odious, but I really enjoy listening to him, probably because he is rather similar to Matthews. (By the way, I find Rachel Maddow too sarcastic, but when paired with Buchanan, a fun conversation results). Speaking of Buchanan, before the web, I used to enjoy watching The McLaughlin group, which was full of conservatives who acted like Chris Matthews, or who out-did him in obnoxiousness. There was John McLaughlin himself, but there was also Freddy ‘The Beetle’ Barnes and his partner in crime Morton Kondracke (and others on the show as well. The late Robert Novak comes to mind. And there was Tony Blankley…) We’re going to get into the problem of defining “conservative”, but I’ve seen Christopher Hitchens act quite haughty and obnoxious, and certainly he is one sort of conservative. On the other hand, there is Dick Morris, another sort of conservative, but equally obnoxious. I could keep going — this sort of personality is on tv quite a bit. I’ll finish with one of my favorite conservatives: William Kristol, who is often wrong, who won’t hesitate to cut someone off and tell them why they are wrong, but will also stop and actually listen to what they have to say.
Bob, you’re the one who said Matthews isn’t the way he is and then criticize others in an attempt to defend him. He’s a buffoon, a poltroon and an ideologue. He maintains no pretense to be a journalist anymore.
I only listed conservatives I enjoy listening to.
Yeah, Bob, I saw him being so nice to Malkin that a democrat wanted to pop him in the nose.
I listened to about ten minutes of Rush last Friday while running errands, heard him repeatedly use the phrase “Obama regime” in deliberate fashion, and knew instantly what he was up to: tweaking the left into having yet another indignant fit.
It worked.
Say what you will about Limbaugh, but he definitely knows his opponents’ character and behavior.
Didn’t the Democrats’ 2004 campaign talk a lot about America needing “regime change”…?
Come to think of it, I seem to remember that the phrase “regime change” first came to my attention after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. And weren’t there Dem calls for “regime change” in America by 1992?
Rush is a rhetorical genius. It is a fact which must be acknowledged regardless of one’s politics. He’s to AM radio what Mozart was to classical music.
Bob-1 is right about the obnoxious habits of TV and radio personalities, both left and right. All my favorites are obnoxious at one time or another. Even Ellen Degeneris, the least obnoxious of all broadcast personalities sometimes takes her self-deprecating style to obnoxious levels.
Yours,
Tom
I just heard Rush defend his “regime” remark a little while ago.
ObamaCare imposes certain costs on businesses. Corporations are required to report those costs, because of the laws passed in response to the Enron scandal. (Evidently he means Sarbanes-Oxley – which, I’ll add, Henry Waxman voted for.) Waxman seeks to punish those firms because their compliance with the law embarrasses the Party.
Rush says that earns the “regime” badge. I’m not sure about that – a simple “tyrant” will do.
“if Chris Matthews is really stupid, or he just thinks that we are”
Both. 🙁