Posted on 10/01/2005 5:41:06 AM PDT by frankjr
I've criticized Chris Matthews several times this week, so it's only fair that I give him credit for doing the right thing tonight when liberal Mark Green went off on how corrupt the Bush administration is and started ticking off indictments:
MATTHEWS: Can you name a conviction, Mark?
GREEN: Hold it, hold it. What I said was —
MATTHEWS: Can you name a conviction?
GREEN: One second. What I said was that six people — three people have been indicted — by the way Chris, if you and I have been indicted, it doesn't mean we're guilty, but we wouldn't trade places —
MATTHEWS: No no no. I just want to know, when you call an administration has a, has a culture of corruption, I think you need one case of proven guilt, don't you? At least one case of proven guilt.
Green tried to bring up Jack Abramoff, but Matthews pointed out that Abramoff was not part of the administration and had gotten in trouble only after he worked for DeLay. Good for Matthews. I just wish he had shown a tenth of this aggressiveness with Cindy Sheehan. If you watch the video, stick around for Ben Ginsberg's point that all the Democrats can do is attack, because they have no positive agenda.
Video here
I always say I'm never going to watch Matthews but I did catch that when I got home yesterday. He let Green spew his BS and then tore him up.
FPL does the right thing ping.
Mark Green is a washed up old New York liberal loser. He was a one time Congressman who since then has lost elections for the Senate and Mayor, and now he's running for the dem nod for New York State Attorney General against Andrew Cuomo, another loser.
I must give Chris Matthews full credit for asking a tough question of an interviewee. Of course, what makes this stand out is a longstanding failure on Matthews' part as with his colleagues to do this in the past. The missed opportunities are legion. However, good behavior should be rewarded and encouraged. It may surprise Matthews to know that he would gain our respect if he did this consistently, regardless of the party of his guest. I don't mean gotcha questioning but rather tough questioning that shows prep-work in understanding the issue and being relevant with the followup.
The Dems are in DEEP trouble if he, former aide to Tip O'Neil, is not swallowing their talking points.
Either that or DeLay got hold of some FBI files.
good to hear.
LET EM STAY STUCK ON STUPID! ! ! ! !
The slow ratings speed talking conman must not feel threatened by a bigger loser than himself.
I agree. I used to like him when 42 was pres.
i did too.
Mathews is a two-bit, DNC press-titute... if he see's you're on to him... he'll change the subject
How refreshing it is to see a genuine lib who can stay on point and on the facts. But I wouldn't expect a conversion here. Sometimes it is tactical to retreat and pounce again later. Besides, it doesn't hurt him if it gives him an audience bump. Even NPR will throw family conservatives a bone every now and then, especially during fundraising season.
By way of comparison:
http://www.gargaro.com/clintonconvicts.html
http://prorev.com/legacy.htm
"CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
"Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice."
The unusual thing about Matthews is that what he followed up on is in fact unusual.
It's a start, let's see how long this unusual (but factual)questioning lasts.
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.