Matthews Interviews Ted Cruz on 'Hardball', Presses Him on Chuck Hagel Scrutiny, Bush v. Gore[trun]

NewsBusters ^ | July 8, 2015 | Ken Shepherd

[SoConPubbie]

From distorting his voting record to calling the junior senator from Texas a latter-day McCarthy and a "balloon head" demagogue to, yes, even questioning his patriotism, MSNBC host Chris Matthews has made pretty clear over the past few years his visceral disdain for Tea Party conservative and Republican presidential aspirant Ted Cruz.

Tonight, Cruz entered into the lion's den itself, sitting down with Matthews for an interview on Hardball.

As with Rick Santorum the other night, Matthews was civil, putting aside his most extreme ad hominems which he apparently won't say to his targets' faces. What's more, early in the interview, Matthews asked Cruz about his family's history of being persecuted by the Castro regime, and even admitted that there were some things in Cruz's new book that, he, as a liberal, might agree with, albeit perhaps arriving there by a different rationale.

That said, Matthews did play hardball and the most heated moments came in an extended back-and-forth about an instance when Cruz wondered what foreign governments may have paid then-Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel -- Matthews even hinted that Cruz's question in a committee hearing may have amounted to "libel" -- and another exchange involving the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore, which Matthews trashed as a partisan ruling by Republican justices awarding the presidency to a Republican.

I've excerpted those portions below (emphases mine):  

MSNBC
Hardball
July 8, 2015

7:10 p.m. Eastern

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You went after Chuck Hagel when he went up for nomination on the issue of disclosure. And you said you want to know where his money came from. And then, in the book here, another reason to read the book, you said it was a mistake to say he may have gotten the money from North Korea. I mean, that's a Communist government, and he did fight the Communists in Vietnam and he had two Purple Hearts for fighting the Communists and you're saying he took money from the Communists, which was a pretty strong charge, you've said it was a mistake.

Sen. TED CRUZ: I didn't say that. But I do talk about a number of things. I did say that I thought it was a mistake to mention North Korea. 

MATTHEWS: Of course! Have you apologized to him for that? Have you ever said, "Chuck, I'm sorry for calling you on the take with the communists?" 

CRUZ: Well, but I didn't. One of the things I walk through in the book. 

MATTHEWS: I read the book! I've got it underlined. You said, look, by the way, under libel laws, you can't just say did you take the money from the Communists. You can't do that. 

CRUZ: You know, John Adams famously said facts are stubborn things. What this book does is describe the facts. And the background with Hagel, and I didn't know Hagel, most of my colleagues--

MATTHEWS: Well, let's look at what you said at his King's [sic] confirmation hearing, here it is, when he's up for secretary of defense. 

CRUZ from Feb. 12, 2013: I will point out that right now this committee knows absolutely nothing about the personal compensation Chuck Hagel received in 2008, in 2009, or 2010. It is at a minimum relevant to know  vanity to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea. 

MATTHEWS: From North Korea. Here's what you wrote in your book. "In hindsight I made a mistake when I uttered the words north Korea. There was no credible reason that anyone would believe Hagel received funds from North Korea." 

CRUZ: But there was credible reason to believe he may have received funds from a foreign government. And the reason is I along with 25 other senators sent him a letter asking him to disclose his income. Now, I'll point out that's the same question that was asked of Hillary Clinton and she willingly gave over seven years. It's the same question Harry Reid asked Henry Kissinger. 

MATTHEWS:  But they didn't accuse someone of taking money from a Communist government. 

CRUZ: But the difference -- 

MATTHEWS: That's different!

CRUZ: But, Chris, what you never mentioned on your TV shows when you were blasting me for that. 

MATTHEWS: Yeah. 

CRUZ: Is that Hagel responded in writing, there were seven funds, seven checks he'd received. Six of them he said I can represent they didn't come from a foreign government. The seventh, for $200,000, he said I cannot tell you -- 

MATTHEWS: That's in the book too. 

CRUZ: --if they came from a foreign government. 

MATTHEWS: OK, we agree. You shouldn't have said North Korea, let's move on. Do you agree?!

CRUZ: It was a tactical mistake because it enabled Democrats to change the subject. Look, I still think it's ridiculous that senators and the media did not care that a nominee for secretary of defense said in writing he may have received money from a foreign government and nobody cared to at least ask. Did you in fact - 

MATTHEWS: But your reputation preceded you there because everyone knows you're a very, very zealous anti-Communist, which is good. And when you mentioned North Korea, people said, sounds like accused him of being on the take for the Communists. This is serious business, putting that together. Don't you agree?

CRUZ: I'll mention the excerpt you showed. What I said in full is I said, listen, in writing he has raised the inference that he may have received money from a foreign country. I said, look, there are contexts in which no one would care. If he received money from Canada for a lumber dispute, nobody would care. That would not be an issue, and then I said on the other hand, if he received money from some other countries, and I mentioned Saudi Arabia, and foolishly, the reason I mentioned North Korea--

MATTHEWS: I know, it's in the book.

CRUZ: -- it was news then. But that was a mistake because it let Democrats change the subject and so I admit that was a mistake. 

MATTHEWS: I don't think it changed the subject, I think it is the subject. 

Anyway, let's talk about the election. 2000 election you had a big role in the recount. We covered it here. It was the best thing I ever covered. I never liked covering anything like the recount. But you bring the Supreme Court in, which you were happy as a lover of the Supreme Court then. You brought them in. They basically said the state lost its rights to recount and keep running because of equal protection.

Now, now on the issue of marriage equality, you say no equal protection, leave the states alone. So how do you be consistent there? Are you consistent or inconsistent on equal protection? 

CRUZ: Listen, I believe I'm very, very consistent. One of the things I describe in the book is how I've spent my entire adult life fighting to defend the Constitution. It's been a passion -- 

MATTHEWS: And the Court! And the Supreme Court. You've always been pro-Supreme Court, until now.

CRUZ: Well -- 

MATTHEWS: Until now! 

CRUZ: I revere the Court, as you know. I was a law clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist. 

MATTHEWS: As you would say it's in the book. This is the book, by the way, it's A Time for Truth. I really think it's important to read it, now you're for retention elections. You've had to raise a ton of money to run for president. And you're definitely in the running. You'll be in the debates and everything. Should judges have to go out and raise $37 billion to run for reelection? How can you put judges out there and make them politicians? There won't be an independent judiciary?

CRUZ: I am reluctant to call for retention elections --

MATTHEWS: But you've done it!

CRUZ: --but I have done it because I believe that a majority of the justices are not honoring their judicial oaths. 

MATTHEWS:  Is that the solution, elections? 

CRUZ: Look, if unelected judges are going to seize every major policy issue in this country. You know, there was a time -- 

MATTHEWS: They seized the presidency in 2000 and you did not complain. The Supreme Court said no to the State of Florida. You can't recount even though it's a close election. You are not allowed to recount! We're giving this to our guy, 5-4 Republican vote in the Supreme Court. If there was ever a case of partisanship or ideology getting out of hand, it was 2000 and you loved it! You loved it! You were cheering you said in the book.

CRUZ: Those are great talking points. 

MATTHEWS: But they're true. 

CRUZ: How many times did they count the ballots in Florida? 

MATTHEWS: Four. 

CRUZ:  How many times did Bush win? 

MATTHEWS: Four times. They wanted to try it one more time. Aren't states allowed to do that?!

CRUZ: The Democrats' strategy was we're going to keep counting and counting and counting and counting and eventually maybe enough people will cheat and somehow our guy will win. 

MATTHEWS: Cheat? How do you know they're going to cheat? 

CRUZ: After four times -- 

MATTHEWS: Okay. I just think it's a case of states' rights, which you usually champion and equal protection, which for the first time in history, Republicans championed equal protection and then have lost interest in it now that that question of marriage equality.

CRUZ: I describe how the first time the Supreme Court unanimously vacated what the Florida Supreme Court did when it came down, you know what the Florida Supreme Court did? It told the U.S. Supreme court go jump in a lake. Didn't even cite its opinion. 

It was an example.

MATTHEWS: They wanted to continue with the recount under the decision of the legislature. 

CRUZ: It was partisan defiance of the court, and frankly what the Florida Supreme Court did in the Bush v. Gore recount is the same thing the U.S. Supreme Court did with ObamaCare and marriage.

Cruz capably handled himself, but I would like to add Matthews needs to bone up on his history, as it was Republicans who authored, championed, and submitted for ratification to the states the 14th Amendment. As to more recent history, Matthews would do well to be reminded that there were TWO issues in the Bush v. Gore case, and one of them was decided on a 7-2 vote. Legal website Oyez.org explains (emphasis mine):

Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held, 5 to 4, that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5).

Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.

So, surprise, surprise, the legal and practical issues at play were a lot more complex than a "partisan" court stealing the election for Bush and from Gore. What's more, as has been noted repeatedly at NewsBusters and numerous other websites since 2001, a media "recount" of the ballots found that had the Gore team's recounting standard been applied, George W. Bush STILL would have won Florida's electoral votes, and, with them, the presidency.

[One last thing. Matthews's -- and my -- home state of Maryland has retention elections for judges, who first get placed on the bench via guberntorial appointments that are confirmed by the state senate. Maryland judges may be, no, in fact, often they are, rather liberal, but the retention-election scheme has by no means rendered the state judiciary devoid of its independence.]

[outofsalt]

"Can’t stand Matthews but just a little gentle advice to Ted, don’t be critisizing a veteren with 2 purple hearts when you’ve never served yourself."

John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerry has three purple hearts. Does that make him above reproach?

[SoConPubbie]

Can’t stand Matthews but just a little gentle advice to Ted, don’t be critisizing a veteren with 2 purple hearts when you’ve never served yourself.

B.S.!

Honor their service, but they are NOT immune to correct and honest criticism NOW just because they served.

Military service, even war-time service, does not mean you are untouchable, just that that service should be honored.

Same crap reasoning was used to shield a shameful man, McCain, on many occasion from RIGHTEOUS condemnation for his crappy actions, including his umpteen attempts at Amnesty.

[elhombrelibre]

I agree. Even a military hero cannot cash in at the public's expense. If private people want give money to a military hero without any expectation of a government benefit, fine.

I read CLINTON CASH. The case is obvious and compelling that the Clinton's used Hillary's position as Secretary of State for personal enrichment. They're disgusting, but the media will only cover the subject to imply that Republicans are not fair to Hillary. Remember when they left the White House and stole things from there? They're twisted power hungry freaks.

[WHBates]

Hagel is a putz no matter the number of purple hearts he has and a crook is a crook.

[SumProVita]

“... just a little gentle advice to Ted, don’t be critisizing (sic) a veteren (sic) with 2 purple hearts when you’ve never served yourself.”

___________________________

As a military wife, I applaud Senator Cruz for going after Hagel. My husband is equally in favor. Bless him for his service but, for the rest, the guy is ridiculously out of his league and lacks basic wisdom. Anyone who tows the line for Mr. Obama deserves to be criticized, particularly if he is a veteran.

[jimwatx]

I dislike traitor Hagel as much if not more than I do RINO McCain, but I’m looking at this from a political perspective. Among my circle of conservative friends (including several vets) whenever I’ve enthused about Ted Cruz I sometimes only get a lukewarm response. One doesn’t like the fact that he’s from Canada and until last year held dual citizenship. Another made some snarky response about what’s a Cuban doing in Canada, why isn’t he in South Florida like the rest of them. Then notes that Cruz’s father was a supporter of Fidel. And both of these guys are stalwart Republicans. Somehow I doubt either one of them is going to be thrilled with Cruz attacking Hagel, much as Hagel might deserved to be attacked, it’s more of an emotional reaction with them. Personally I’m more interested in policy than the other stuff, but not everyone necessarily sees things the way I do. Just saying.

[CSM]

I feel sorry for Ted having to deal with the spittle.

[SumProVita]

It’s not wisdom to view things from a mere political perspective, particularly in these times. In addition, there are several bits of misinformation that some people (even of a conservative bent...like the Republicans you mentioned) are naively or purposefully latching onto regarding Senator Cruz and his father. In my opinion, both parties are pretty much useless these days, with the exception of a small few.

To be honest, at this point, I find myself wondering if we will even have elections as usual...particularly given the historical instability of the world financial systems, the most corrupt and inept government situation in our history, the ideological division, immorality and ignorance of over half of our population, the manipulated weakness of our military readiness, and the vast global unrest and spirit of lawlessness. It does not bode well as the saying goes.

I wonder when larger numbers of us are going to finally realize that we need to return to God and His ways...much like the Israelites of old. Will we learn our lessons more readily than they did? God IS the solution.

By the way, from what I have seen so far, Senator Cruz has spoken of this more forcefully than all other candidates. Thus, he is the first choice for my husband and I and many military and other hard-working and intelligent friends of ours.

Let us continue to pray for our nation with great urgency and sincerity.

[CaptainK]

It’s disappointing that Cruz isn’t picking up more steam. I hope the debates will get him more notice and support.

And Chris Mathews is an ass.

[ozzymandus]

John Kerry has 2 Purple Hearts. Is he also above criticism?