Ramona's picture

    Bravo, Chris Matthews. I will Never Call you "Tweety" Again

     

     I can't say for sure (because there's no definitive source that I could find), but calling Chris Matthews "Tweety" started about three years ago, probably on Twitter.  All I can say about it is that the first time I saw it in print I instantly understood the connection. Whether it refers to "Tweety Bird" in the cartoons, or the incessant tweeting some birds do just to drive you crazy on a quiet morning, it conjures up a kind of squeaky, never-ending cacaphony.  Tweets with no seeming function except to make sound.   Tweets and trills and calls and caws, over and over again, no matter when or where or what the occasion. Tweets that cannot be interrupted except maybe with the full force of a BB gun.

    I took a break from Matthews for a while after he remarked that Hillary Clinton won the NY Senatorial race solely because her husband publicly chased skirts and people felt sorry for poor Hil. He took some deserved flak for that one, but it didn't stop him from running his mouth over and over again.  He got Michelle Bachmann to say she thought congress should be investigated to see how many "anti-Americans" were lurking there, and even now he boasts about his role in Bachmann's rise to celebrity status--as if that's something anyone would be proud of.

    He reminded me of a certain aunt who verbalizes every tiny thought without slowing down for even a second to do the necessary mental editing.  If you're too fat or too thin or you're wearing your hair funny or you don't know how to pronounce "nucular" you and everyone within range will hear about it.   If you open your mouth to say something it becomes a contest to see who can talk over the other the loudest and the longest.  She always wins.

    It's that way with Matthews on Hardball, but then again it's his show.  Every guest who makes an appearance on Hardball knows the routine: They'll open their mouths to speak, words will start to come out, and something in those first few words will trigger a memory in Chris's head and he will not hear another word.  He'll be off and running and the invited guests will become the audience and all they can hope for is that the few words they did get out were good enough.

    But on the morning of the first day of the 2012 Republican Convention in Tampa, Matthews, a "Morning Joe" panelist, was surprisingly quiet.  Even when Republican chairman Reince Priebus began talking--not about the wonders of the convention and the virtues of the candidates within, but about the evils of President Obama's policies, Matthews kept his mouth shut.  If Priebus, poor man, had stuck to the truth, he might have finished the segment with his dignity intact.  Instead, he got into the already disabused lie about Obama getting ready to drop work requirements for welfare recipients.

    At this, Matthews sat up, talons out, ready to swoop.  "I have to call you on this, Mr. Chairman," he says politely, but within seconds we realize (with undisguised glee--at least in this house) that feathers will fly, blood will flow, and it ain't gonna be pretty. 

    But observe for yourself.  It must be seen to get the full effect. And watch the reactions of the other panelists.  It's as close to a free-for-all as you'll get outside of "The Housewives Of" shows. (I'm guessing Joe and Mika won't be inviting Chris back for Frappuccinos any time soon.)

     

     

     

     

     
    Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
     

    There are going to be times in the future of Hardball when Chris Matthews will annoy the hell out of most of us. He got where he is because he is who he is.  But one thing Matthews requires of the people who sit in front of the cameras is that they tell the truth.  Sometimes they forget that, and that's when it gets interesting.

    Something has happened to Matthews in the last year or so.  He is far from an Obamabot, but he knows unfairness when he sees it.  When the Republicans would not back down from the birther issue, it was as if a tiny sliver of his inner Murrow awakened and he hasn't let up since. 

    The old Tweety would seek and find a silly kind of shallow humor in almost everything political, and he wasn't above exploiting it.  The new Chris Matthews sees hurt where it exists and feels compelled to advocate for a fix.  His concern for the disenfranchised and dispossessed is palpable and sincere. 

    He still forgets his manners when he has guests at his table. He still loves the sound of his own voice.  But he has grown up.  Maybe now he deserves a real name.

    (Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices)

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Chris;

     

    your bias showed through today....I will never look to you for a neutral opinion as you cannot be....sad day for MNBC as they have lost a regular watcher.....and as a young independent looking for different points of views on the issues that plague our country...I am beginning to believe after unprofessional display that maybe a change is needed in the White House...


    A lot of billionaires and Wall Street titans think the country needs to get back on the trajectory we were on in 2008, after 8 years of George W. Bush. Wyatt, many like you feel the Republicans deserve another chance to plague the nation and the world.


    Well, you do have to admit that Wyatt's got a point that not only was Matthews over the line but that Matthews' comments are clearly Obama's fault…


    Of course it's Obama's fault. If a Republican were President we would be having a scary pre-election color coded terror alert, and 'reliable' intelligence that Osama bin Laden wanted Americans to vote for a Democrat, to make it easier for him to kill us.


    *Sigh* I've missed the snark.


    Making political choices on the basis of reactions to media figures who offend you rather than upon differences of policies cancels out your complaint that serious issues are being ignored by media figures.


    In case you don't know, Mr. Matthews does not blog at DAG, so he likely won't see your screed. But guess what, you were never voting for the President anyway, so you aren't fooling anyone. A young independent.. yes, yes, yes... of course.. umm hmm, sure.


    Jackson, I doubt if MSNBC will even notice your absence.  Sorry about that. 

    But can I give you a word of advice?  When deciding who would be the better leader of the country, it's probably best not to use MSNBC or Hardball as your bellwether.

    Dagblog is a much better choice.  This is the place for different points of view, and we understand disappointment.


    Yeah bias, cause a news person is supposed to just sit there and eat it when politicians come on and lie on their show. Preibus spouts the nonsense about how low, disgusting,  and negative Obama's campaign is, like Romney's some saint, and Matthews is supposed to shut up and play his straight man.

    Here's your Matthews bias

    Matthews: I have to call you on this Mr. Chairman. You’ve been suggesting that somehow Obama has been running a negative campaign and your guy is running a positive campaign, but that’s not accurate. They’ve both been negative.

    And here's Brokow's in the same clip. Is he biased too?

    BROKAW: I think it was a demonstration of his awkward sense of humor. But I do think, in fairness, that all during the Republican debates and the primaries that there was a lot of stuff aimed at the President that was not refuted by leaders of the party.

    BROKAW: I'm not talking about the birther thing, but as far as he's a Muslim, he's a socialist, he's not American. John Sununu had to apologize for saying he doesn't know what it's like to be an American. That was a pretty tough attack. Now, I think it comes the other way, by the way, from the Democrats to the Republicans as well.

    You see bias, I see a bit of balance coming back into the discussion. And its about time.


    I was shocked that Brokaw saw what Romney said about being born in Michigan as nothing more than "an awkward sense of humor".  It was clearly meant to cozy up to the birthers.  Even in his second paragraph he had to qualify it by saying the Dems do it, too.  I don't agree.  Nobody ever even accused GWB of being un-American.  Even when he was ignoring America's best interests to an astonishing degree.


    Yeah, I wish Brokow had been stronger too, but he was there covering Matthews back. He didn't let Matthews hang out there alone. I'll give him a 6 to Matthews 10.


    You're right about that.  He did come to Matthews' defense to some degree.  And for the first time, Joe shut up when he got talked down.  The whole thing was pretty amazing.


     I think he stepped in, not to take a side one way or the other, but rather to be a mediator. He was embarrassed that a very important person was getting embarrassed in front of him. I guess my analysis goes along with that of the good Dr. C.


    He's not the only one who's been raking the right over the coals.

    This has been getting quite a bit of attention as well on FB.

     


    Excellent.



    Sad. but true.

    People keep saying oh that position on immigration and personhood in the platform doesn't mean anything.  They've been in there for a long time and don't mean anything...

    On the contrary the unprecedented number of laws offered and passed to restricts women's rights in the past few years in the states and in congress are actions proving otherwise.

    Add to that the extreme laws on immigration... and its clear that those positions are no longer 'in platform only'... they are taking real action to realize their platform.

    So we do actually have every reason to take the republican platform very seriously.


    Yes, we do.  The smokescreeners have been all over the place today trying to convince everyone that it's just a platform, for God's sake.  Lots of people had a hand in drafting it, including the Fringies, so just don't pay attention to it. Nobody really believes that stuff.  C'mon people!  We wouldn't really do that!

    That tells me they would, indeed, do it.  And will if they get the chance.


    I was recording Morning Joe  this morning, and  Chris came on, it was early, but I was slowly getting ready for work. I  sat down, because unlike most people I really like Chris Matthews, he makes me laugh and he rips into idiots, always. Yes he is annoying sometimes, but for the most part, he really questions those people, unlike Joe and Mika who seem to just want their guests to come back, so they let them  say, whatever they want and never refute anything. Chris does make for excellent viral videos. Chris took it to Priebus. It was so awesome, no one was up, cause it was around 430 AM, but I was cheering, on the inside.  Finally, someone shut Priebus up, who has been playing the race card and foreigner card with frequency. It.Was.Beautiful.


    I was in the shower when it happened but my husband saw it and he couldn't believe it.  He was shouting when I came out and I could barely make out what he was talking about.  Then our daughter called from 350 miles away to talk about it.  I had to wait until it was up somewhere, but fortunately I didn't have to wait long!  Talk about going viral!

    But I have a question.  Is everybody seeing the clip on my post?  All I'm seeing is a blank, but it was there when I first posted it.


    Shows up for me OK.


    Thanks, Chris.  It's showing up for me again.  Don't know what happened.


    What impacted me about this event was how evident it was that CM was truly outraged. I didn't get the sense he was posturing for the cameras or even choosing to vent for the sake of blowing off steam.

    To me, he telegraphed emotions of righteous indignation and condemnation with fervor.  I was impressed that as legitimately angry as he was he still managed to be clear on the facts.  It was a moment of, 'Oh no, I'm not letting this go, not this time.'

    Meanwhile, Brokaw and Joe, et al. were obviously taken aback by the confrontation.  If only they had the fortitude to call out those who do nothing but spin, prevaricate and lie. 

    Why are any upset by Chris's actions?  Have we become so accepting of the bullshit they spew that somehow it's become  a bad thing to call any out who engage in repeating by rote the blatant falsehoods?  

    Until and unless we do continue to call them out, loudly and with vigor, each and every time - the lies will, to some, become truths and there will continue to only be chaos without end.

    Good post Ramona, truly.  Appreciate.


    I have a feeling this will energize a lot of people on our side.  We need to see more of this.  Maybe then the liars won't feel as safe when they gather up their talking points and go before the cameras.


    I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the show was over and Chris was gone and the rest were left to talk about what happened.  Tantrum time!


    Sadly, besides Rachel, I can't think of another media person who would call them out.  That said, I bet Bill Maher, late night hosts, not to forget Colbert and Stewart, will hopefully do their 'bit' about this.  With luck, SNL too.

     


    Because I'm so tired of Morning Joe, I've been watching Soledad O'Brien's show on CNN in the morning.  She is tough!  She doesn't let anyone get away with anything.  I'm really impressed.


    I think the "second half" where Priebus states that charge that Obama's programs were "European" in origin was even better than the bits on the "birther joke."

    There, they didn't have to argue about "whether" it was a joke or not. Priebus was making the ridiculous charge in real time and not making a joke about it. CM should have had more time to play that out.

    A good, real-time example of the intellectual poverty of the MSM was found in the attempts of the others to round off the edges and make everyone "the same." Joe THINKS of himself as "hard-hitting," but he was staring into his beer and his pay check, as was that intellectual nothing, Mika.

    I hear that later MSNBC called Priebus...perhaps to apologize?

    CM is a bit like Russian roulette...he keeps spinning and you know quite where he's going to land. His talking over his guests is insufferable. As I tell my wife often: CM interviews himself.


    Republicans didn't need a permission slip from France to save the world by Getting Saddam, and they don't need no damn permission slip from Chris Matthews to throw racist red meat to their mob of ignorant Fox News controlled bigots.


    Fox News is one thing, hut the other MSNBC/NBC reporters who watched the RNC chair blather and lie remained silent. Brokaw noted some of the racial junk the GOP had  used against the President, but took the both dudes do it escape route, which muted the message.


    I catch these TV news snippets from posts. I stopped watching any TV news show in March, 2003, with the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  It was clear by that point, with very few exceptions, that American TV news organizations were just mindlessly echoing Republican sourced propaganda. I recall with Afghanistan, the Tora Bora description:

    Tora Bora was variously described by the western media to be an impregnable cave fortress housing 2000 men complete with a hospital, a hydroelectric power plant, offices, a hotel, arms and ammunition stores, roads large enough to drive a tank into, and elaborate tunnel and ventilation systems....When presented with such plans in an NBC interview, the United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said "This is serious business, there's not one of those, there are many of those"

    Turned out there were none of them, in fact there are almost no caves at all in Afghanistan. Little or no limestone. This was reported in a Dallas newspaper and by National Geographic in October, 2001, but not TV News. TV News spreads the lies, that's their job. Most of the lies are GOP lies, of course.

    One can still get a pretty good idea of what is going on from text articles in various news outlets from the US or Britain.


    Facts don't seem to matter anymore. Unless Romney is caught dragging Allen West behind a the "General Lee" from the Dukes of Hazzard tv series, Romney will not be accused of racism. Even then, Brokaw still won't be sure if the flag was just a mere decoration and not an indication of any racial intent. 


    Both sides do do it. Now we could discuss which side does it more often or who does it more negatively and its likely we'd agree. But the bottom line is politicians lie and run negative campaigns.

    Most of the posters at dag didn't need to see Matthews to know what he's talking about. It didn't affect out vote. Sure it was exciting to see someone speaking our thoughts on national TV when that's so rare but it didn't change anything for us. And it didn't change anything for the faux news viewers or the tea party.

    If Matthews did any good he did it with those on the fence who might have been believing the Romney propaganda that Obama is running the most negative, slimiest, slanderous campaign in history and those who may be believing the welfare lies, the he's socialist lies, the he's European lies.

    For those on the fence Brokow didn't mute the message he validated it. People who don't already agree with everything Matthews said will think, if a reasonable man like Brokow mostly agrees with Matthews than maybe Matthews has a point too. its with those people on the fence that this election will be won or lost.

     


    I disagree that both sides do it. Do you see the same race baiting from the Obama team? The coordinated voter suppression is not something that both sides are doing. I'm sorry, I see false equivalence.


    If you're saying the only lies told in a campaign that matter are the lies used to race bait and the only negative campaigning we're going to consider is negative campaigning that's racially based then yes, only one side does that.


    I am saying that one party is so racist that they are willing to openly attempt to prevent certain minority groups from voting.


    TPM first reported a tweet from David Shuster that RNC attendees were "thrown out" because they threw nuts at a Black female cameraman for CNN. They taunted, "This is how we feed the animals". This story is now running through the Black blogosphere. It confirms impressions of the GOP rank and file. I doubt that we will see similar behavior at the DNC convention.

    When this behavior is noted, similar feelings about Latinos and Gays is often not far behind.


    Alan Clemmons, thee South Carolina GOP legislator who authored the state's voter ID bill, responded to an email that said blacks and poor voters would be "like a swarm of bees going after a watermelon" if any kind of reward were offered for obtaining voter IDs with  "Amen" and "Thank you for your support".

    The racism along with the "War on Women" is not something that both parties do.


    (sigh)  I've really said all I have to say on this subject but you seem to want to push it with repeated comments to me so I'll respond.

    We're talking about somewhat different things. I was very clear when I said both sides do it that I was talking about lies and negative campaigning. You want to discuss a subset of lies and negative campaigning, just playing the race card. OK, I'll discuss that.

    There are primary contests in local and state elections where conservative white democrats play the race card against black or liberal white democrats. But those are mostly small time races.

    There were times when when the Obama campaign claimed Hillary played the race card when she did not to tag her with the false charge of racism. This happens in other campaigns. But its not common and this reverse race baiting is far outweighed by the race baiting of the republicans.

    So with those caveats I agree that only republicans play the race card in their lying  and negative campaigning.

    To discuss the broader issue of lies and negative campaigning. I generally think that sometimes the republicans lie in worse ways. For example, I do believe that Romney's welfare lie is worse the Reid's lie about Romney's tax payments. A lie that plays on voters racism is more socially destructive than a lie designed to provoke Romney into releasing his tax returns. But they are both lies, they are both negative campaigning, and I don't like either of them.

    Nothing you have posted has addressed my comment that  both the republicans and democrats lie and run negative campaigns. Unless you redefine "lie" as solely   "race based lie" and "negative campaigning" as only "racially based negative campaigning" both sides do it.


    Taking away a persons right to vote is the ultimate negative campaign. The GOP is willing to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of elderly, minority, poor and college age voters. So when I think of negative campaigning, that is my image. Do you see these purges as something different?  Having people who have voted for 50 years denied access seems a bigger negative campaign than anything the Democrats are doing. There is no comparison between the two parties.

    For the political ads, I tend to go the a fact checking site for clarification, but I see negative campaigning as having transformed into something a great deal more ominous than a tv ad.

    I find it amazing that more people aren't focused on voter purges.


    I guess we are looking a different aspects of a political campaign.


    FWIW, I've always been under the impression that Matthews's nickname was purely based on his physical resemblance to Tweety Bird.  This Democratic Underground thread goes back to 2004, which is two years prior to the founding of Twitter.


    lol, that could be.  I realized after I published my post that I misspelled "Tweety" but it's out there now so there it is.  I may change it still, if it gets to bothering me.

    Love the comments on that link.  And I had forgotten that he voted for Bush in 2000.  Someone else noted it yesterday.  So he HAS changed.


    Okay, that didn't take long.  I had to change it.


    Thanks for posting this, Ramona. I heard about it but kept forgetting to look it up.

    I like Chris Matthews. I know he likes to hear himself talk, but for the most part, he seems to have his head screwed on right, and is genuine.

    I LOVED his outrage. Too many commentators don't have balls enough to call these people on their lies. They just sit there and provide a forum for them to spew whatever they want, and never call them on the lie. It was refreshing to here him get pissed about the blatant unfairness of it.

    Romney wasn't telling a clumsy joke.

    To show you how naive I am, I thought EVERYONE had to show their birth certificate to run for office. Imagine my SHOCK that Romney would stand there and say he never had to show his. I swear, when I heard it, I gasped out loud. Seriously. I gasped.

    I thought that was one of the rudest, most offensive comments I have EVER heard. The frickin' nerve of him to try to play that off as a joke. It was despicable, pure and simple.

    He might as well have stood there and said "we white folks don't have to show our birth certificates...just you n^%%#$s do."


    The telling sign was that the crowd cheered, not laughed and Romney basked in the cheers having made his point. This was not an ill-told joke, it was a birther comment.


    What was your take and the possible implication or use of the race card when VP Biden uttered his "chains" remark, even better what was Chris Mathews take?


    My take was that it was a dumb way for Biden to say what he meant, but since he was in a crowd of black folks who cheered after he said it, there's no way it could be misconstrued as racist.

    I think Matthews agrees with that.  And, for the record, I LOVE Joe Biden.


    In the broader scope of thing politic, I don’t think Biden’s remark was a horribly grievous one to make, but it was a remark that drew upon racial history with an intent to produce a feeling of antipathy towards the Republicans based on past racial crimes and suggesting that the Republicans hope to and intend to repeat those crimes. It was a way of calling the Republicans racists.

    My take was that it was a dumb way for Biden to say what he meant, but since he was in a crowd of black folks who cheered after he said it, there's no way it could be misconstrued as racist.

     No way? That's crazy. There is a way that a dog whistle comment could be racial in nature, could be racist in meaning and intent, could be whistling to a black crowd, and could be cheered by a black crowd, just as it could be so with a white crowd. We are all humans and so all subject to giving in to the same human instincts.


    I agree Lulu, clear and well argued comment.


    So you're saying Biden's remark was racist?  It might have been pandering, it might even have been designed to be inflammatory.  But racist?  In this particular situation?  How?


    I am saying, first, that Biden's remark was a dog-whistle of a pitch designed to be heard by a group with certain feelings and attitudes based on their ethnicity or race. [or whatever is the technically correct way to identify the overall characteristic being whistled to in that particular group]. It was spoken to a black audience in hopes that it would be heard and would encourage further animosity towards, and fear of, his Republican rivals based on the historical situation that blacks experienced do to their race.  It insinuated racism in his opponents without quite coming out and calling them 'racist'.
    I would not/did not say it was, in and of itself, a racist remark. I could have said that I see some truth in it as an analogy. I did  specifically say that I do not see the remark as horribly grievous and I would not have said that had I thought the remark went far enough to cross that  somewhat grey line.
     The point you made which prompted me to respond is the idea that if a black crowd responded favorably to a statement, implying 'any statement', that that statement could not possibly be racist. I maintain that to hold strictly to that idea is to employ faulty logic and is, indeed, crazy.


    Do you think Biden's comments are milder or more harsh than what is said about Republicans in Black barbershops and beauty parlors regularly? 

     


    I'm not implying any such thing.  I'm saying that taken in context it couldn't be construed as a racist statement.  He would have to mean it as a racist statement.  It doesn't count that "it could be taken" as a racist statement. 

    If I really cared to try, I could find a thousand statements that, taken out of context, could be considered something they're not.  I'm finding your logic faulty, indeed, but I would never call it crazy.


    That proves you're crazy. laugh


    I didn't find any problem with Biden's remark about removing chains from people. I wasn't offended by Romney's statement about removing chains from Wall Street. If you were offended by Biden, were you equally offended by Romney?


    I think we're talking about two different things.  Romney's offensive remark went like this: "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that I was born and raised."

    I don't know how "removing chains from Wall Street" fits with my post.


    Oh, my response was to Anonymous who posed a question about Biden's "chains" remark. Sorry about the confusion.


    Oops, sorry, rm.  I'm reading this, writing a blog, and watching a recap of the GOP convention lies on TV, all at the same time.  I should never, never do that.


    LOL

    No problem

     


    Latest Comments