Posted on 03/07/2005 8:28:00 PM PST by Zivasmate
How to prop up a senile Senator, by Chris Matthews
While clearing off Tivo this morning, I ran across last Friday's edition of Hardball on MSNBC. Since we do movies on the show with Emmett of the Unblinking Eye right around the same time, it's rare that I get to see if Chris did something stupid until after the weekend is over. This is one of those occurrances. Here's the transcript between Chris, Republican strategist Charlie Black, and Democratic strategist Steve McMahon...with my two cents thrown in along the way.
CM: I saw that picture, gentlemen, and I saw a staffer about to get fired for suggesting he (Byrd) use a comparison to Hitler, when arguing about the nuclear option, which is basically to say no more filibusters. Steve, are the Democrats right here? Are you guys right in saying this is a big issue? That he did something really wrong here?
So Chris, before he even gets his first question out, is laying responsibility for anything wrong Byrd said onto a staffer who wrote the speech. Byrd, it seems, is the innocent victim here because he didn't recognize what his staffers had done to him. So step number one is to deflect blame, if something bad was said. Step two is coming up.
SM: Well, listen. I think he did something that was in poor judgment and poor taste. I can't imagine what Jimmy Carter would have done if he'd been handed a speech like that, but he probably wouldn't have read it.
He's right. Carter would have probably waited until he was on foreign soil to read a speech like that.
SM: I don't think, though, that Senator Byrd had a malevolent intent. He was making an historical reference. He normally, Senator Byrd, quotes Cicero and Socrates and no one understands him. This time, he makes a metaphor, an unfortunate use of a metaphor, that I think he probably wouldn't have used again today or tomorrow. And I don't think you'll see much of that...
Remember the last question. Did Byrd do something really wrong here? Steve's answer? Yes, without saying yes, then no, because he didn't mean to do it in the first place, but without saying no, because we can't upset the Jewish vote, then kind of, because he probably won't make that same reference again. Good answer, Steve.
CM: Charles Black, do you share that view? That it was a modest, venial sin here?
CB: No, I think it was a terrible thing. And I agree with Abe Foxman of the ADL, who said Senator Byrd should apologize to the American people...
CM: What did he do that offended them? Who gets hurt by this comment that he said the Republicans here are using muscle tactics...they're coming in...they're getting rid of the filibuster rule to deny us of unlimited debate. And they're using this tough, hardball technique here. What's wrong with saying this is what Hitler did back in thirty-something?
I realize, Chris, you are playing devil's advocate, but watching the video, it doesn't seem very apparent that you think Byrd did anything wrong. Step number two. After deflecting blame to staffers, question whether the offense was really an offense or not.
It's wrong to make that comparison, Chris, because Hitler was a supremely evil individual, with supremely evil intentions in his heart, at the time he made his maneuvers to gain power. You are comparing evil to evil, Chris, which I don't think is the case you want to make about current Senate Republicans.
In addition, the harm in making comparisons to Hitler chips away at the magnitude of the evil committed by the Nazis. In case you have forgotten, Chris, that was as dark a period of world history as we've faced in a very long time. I'm in no hurry to repeat it. But using Hitler references, when they clearly do not apply, waters the evil down to the point that future generations won't have the same appreciation of his evil. When someone else in the future mass murders his or her way to world dominance, history should be clear in warning people. Efforts by Byrd, Matthews and others just makes history that much more cloudy.
CB: Well, to Jews, the holocaust is the most uniqe thing in history, and Hitler is the worst guy in history. So, as Abe Foxman said, it is a complete misunderstanding of who Hitler was to compare that to changing the rules of the Senate. And by the way, it's the Democrats who have changed the rules by beginning for the first time in history to filibusters judges, to block judges who have a majority in committee and on the floor...
CM: So any comparison to the holocaust, in any other reference, is bad...offensive.
Good job, Chris. Can't let something like the fact that filibustering judicial nominees is unprecedented in this country's history get out without talking over it. Make sure that fact is talked over. Instead, you want to water down the Hitler reference by baiting Charlie into a trap.
CB: Well, I think so, unless there is something...
CM: Remember the Pope? Remember the Cardinal from New York used to do this? He'd say the amount of babies, or pre-born children, or fetuses, or whatever you want to say, whatever language you use, are being killed every year in abortion. That's like the holocaust? Was he wrong to do that? You going to go after the Pope now?
CB: I wouldn't do it. I think if...
CM: You wouldn't do it is not the same as saying something's wrong.
CB: Well, I also think the murder of millions of unborn babies is more comparable than is changing the rules of the Senate. But I wouldn't use metaphors about Hitler...
CM: But he was talking particularly, Charlie, he was talking particularly about a parliamentary maneuver that would change the name of the game. And he compared it to Hitler's use of parliamentary tactics to get the law changed, so he could be a dictator.
CB: Well, there's...nobody's trying to be a dictator here...
CM: He's not saying they're gassing people, or killing people, or even penalizing...
CB: Then why did he bring Hitler up then? What is Hitler known for in history?
CM: He's known for being a tyrant as well as other things.
CB: It's inappropriate, it's offensive, he should apologize for it. If he apologizes, I'll get off his case.
Step number three. After blaming offensive remarks on staffers, then challenging whether the offensive comments were really offensive or not, come out and defend the offensive comments as being technically correct.
Chris, allegedly a practicing Catholic, can see the comparison between Hitler and Frist, but can't see the comparison between the extermination of six million Jews and the extermination of countless millions of babies in this country? How depraved can a person get?
Black rightly countered that there is much more of a link between abortion and Hitler than changing of the Senate rules. But he also said, to be consistent, that he personally wouldn't make that reference. Chris' answer floored me.
You wouldn't do it is not the same as saying something's wrong.
Go back and read the first question to Steve McMahon, and then his full answer. Did Byrd do something wrong. Then a yes, no, maybe diatribe that doesn't answer the question. Does Chris throw in this magic line? Nope. He gives him a pass, and starts throwing hammers at Charlie Black. Fair and balanced.
Much of the back and forth between Black and Matthews was hard to hear, but after repeated plays, here again is the key passage.
CB: Then why did he bring Hitler up then? What is Hitler known for in history?
CM: He's known for being a tyrant as well as other things.
Now I ask all of you. What is Hitler known for in history? Do you agree with Chris Matthews that Hitler was a tryant, as well as other things?
To me, when the "other things" include the torture and murder of over six million human souls, the tyrant part gets kind of lost in the shuffle. Matthews doesn't have a firm grasp on the history of the most evil human being in the last century. He was a tyrant? That's outrageous. I wonder if Matthews has ever been to the holocaust museum?
Next, Matthews seized on a press release by Matt Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who cited Byrd's KKK background.
CM: He's (Brooks) saying he's (Byrd) wrong on a number of accounts. One, he was calling the kettle black, I guess, by using tactics against a fellow right winger, I guess he's saying here, because he used to be in the KKK.
SM: Well, listen. I'm not surprised the Republicans are coming out and attacking Senator Byrd and taking this, I think, a little out of context, blowing it up. Next thing you know, they'll be calling it a crisis and saying he has weapons of mass destruction, and calling in the army. Look, the guy made an unfortunate reference to Hitler, and you're right. He was talking about a parliamentary maneuver. And what the Republicans don't want to talk about is the assault on the filibuster, which has been a tradition in the Senate, there's 22 standing rules. You know, when Bill Clinton was president, the Republicans had the opportunity to use the filibuster. They chose not to. Charlie's right. Democrats are now accelerating their opposition to some of the president's appointees, but you know, the president, after they're turned down one time, just brings them back.
So all KKK members are right wingers, Chris? I'm a right winger, and I loathe everything the Klan stands for. I know lots of Republicans, Chris. Lots of them. The Republicans I know are not racists.
As for McMahon's answer, aside from the cheap shot on Iraq thrown in at the beginning, he's putting the Hitler reference aside and accusing the Republicans of assaulting the Democrats' right to filibuster. Factually wrong. There is no Constitutional language authorizing the filibuster to be used in this way, when it has never been done so before now.
There is also no mention of the fact that Byrd, while majority leader, changed the Senate rules on a parliamentary procedure, four times to keep the Republicans from being able to filibuster. Somehow, according to Matthews and McMahon, that was just fine, and doesn't need to be mentioned here.
Then McMahon says the Republicans are just stupid, because they could have pulled the same stunt when Clinton was president. Yes, Steve, they could have, but they didn't because it's un-Constitutional!
Lastly, McMahon blames this on Bush for bringing up judges already turned down by the Senate. Again, factually incorrect. There isn't one judge that was voted down by the full Senate. Stalling, Steve, is not the same thing as declining. Consult a dictionary.
CM: Can we get back to Earth here? This guy, Senator Byrd, may be a bit out of date. He may be anachronistic, and as you point out, he's always quoting Cicero. He's been in the Senate...it's been his life since the mid-50's. His life. And he believes dearly, almost in a religious sense, in these rules. He believes dearly in the rules of the Senate, which say any member can filibuster. Now when that sacred thing to him, the filibuster, is threatened, is it wrong for him as a human being to use over the top language? Don't you cut him a little slack? To Bobby Byrd, the filibuster is almost religious. And to have it broken by a bunch of new members in the Senate who bascially come in and say, "We're here, and we want to get this done, let's get rid of the old rule." To him, that is sacrilegious, if you want to understand Byrd. If you don't want to understand Byrd, why argue about it?
The theology of the filibuster? Robert Byrd is the high priest of the Senate rules? Changing the rule is sacrilege? And if an old guy believes that strongly in "his religion," can't you excuse his over the top language? That's step number four, by the way.
To summarize, here is what "neutral" TV personality Chris Matthews, former aide to liberal Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, does on his show, a week after a damaging speech on the floor of the Senate, when the story won't just go away.
1. The offensive comparison wasn't Byrd's fault. It was the fault of an overzealous staffer who should be fired.
2. How offensive could the comment really be? Who really gets hurt?
3. Technically speaking, the comment was right.
4. Even if it was offensive, he's an old man who's devoted his life to the Senate. Cut him some slack.
Now for Chris' big close.
Are we now in an era where the only purpose of politics or journalism, is to wait for someone to say something, and then jump on him for two or three weeks? Is that what it's about? So the guys...the nobody's on Capitol...the bureaucrats, the politicians who never say a word on any issue of any importance, the nobody's, the 400 of them on the Hill you never hear about on television, they're the winners. Because the guys who speak out like Byrd, they're the bad guys, because they might just offend. And in fact, I bet in West Virginia, he doesn't get a vote against him on this...I think this is a gotcha game.
Poor Chris. Don't we live in a dark era for journalists. People don't have the ability to stand up and say something stupid with no accountability anymore. Freedom of speech, according to Matthews I assume, includes freedom from criticism, as long as the intent was good.
I'm thinking this was an audition video for Chris Matthews. He, just in this ten minute segment, showed enough partisanship in this issue to fill the shoes of Dan Rather at CBS.
Posted at 2:33PM PST
Matthews forgot to mention that in the past Byrd himself has changed the Senate rules to prevent filibusters.
The theology of the filibuster. LOL.
Who expects far and balanced from Prissy.
I expect spittle and rudeness.
How many people watch him at any giving time? 100,000 ?
MSNBC is about to go under. Gates and NBC just need a way to bury the bodies as cheaply as possible
I don't mean by just republicans, it was an open secret that he was a long winded wind bag, who liked his voice, and wanted his pork and would do whatever as long as he got it.
I remember one story during the presidential campaign that came out about Kerry and Byrd. It seems a few years ago, the dems were trying to put together some kind of lefty enviornmental bill, and Senator Byrd kept trying to get coal (both soft and hard) listed as "clean fuels" and "alternative sources of energy" with the same rules and support given to solar and wind power.
Supposedly Kerry wanted to strangle him, and would become enranged. The only reason I remember reading about it and hearing about it, is that the GOP was noting how Kerry often went further to the left then most of his collegues, and some dems did talk about how Kerry flipped with Byrd over that particular incident that republicans were noting.
Of course, you're right. But just compare , for example, what got Trent Lott booted out as Majority leader with what Byrd said last week, and contrast Matthews indignance and repeated showing of the video clip of Lott's basically innocent remark to Thurmond with his aggressive and desperate defense of Byrd. It's amazing.
Hissy fair and balanced???
More like blare and maliced.
What about " hair and saliva?"
I posted the other day that I have this fantasy of approaching him, as he stands at the Senate podium and pontificates his nonsense, of throwing a pie in his face.
Congressman Billybob
You know how many different democrats have problably said or thought something similiar?
Good post and good points. This kind of critical listening/thinking is severely lacking in today'd dumbed-down factory educated kids. PJ Comix does a similar good job (with a justifiable smirk) about DU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.