Matthews Panel Only Sees 'Big, Gutsy' Decisions from Liberal POV
As the weekend's syndicated Chris Matthews Show concluded, the entire panel chose political figures echoing sentiments either from the left or at least in criticism of conservatives to answer host Matthews's "Big Question" of who has "made a big, gutsy decision so far this year."
Below is a complete transcript of the "Big Question" segment from the July 1 weekend's syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: And that brings us to this week's "Big Question." Name an American politician you think has made a big, gutsy decision so far this year. Pete Williams?
PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS: Nothing of that magnitude comes to mind, but I do think that the Obama administration's decision to fast track the health care case, bypass the big court of appeals and move it to the Supreme Court is very bold.
MATTHEWS: Fast and furious. Go ahead.
KATTY KAY, BBC WORLD NEWS AMERICA: Okay, when you asked this question yesterday, I was surprised at how long it took me to come up with - it's depressing how long it took me to come up with somebody who's made a very gutsy move. I'm tempted to say Jeb Bush, but actually I'm going to go with Olympia Snowe and her decision when she resigned to call it as it is and say you cannot function in this partisan atmosphere.
MATTHEWS: And Jeb Bush had said recently that this party's moved to far right for him.
KAY: Actually similar turns from both of them.
JOAN BISKUPIC: Well, I was going to say either Jeb or Olympia Snowe, but instead, I'll fall back on a member of the Court, Justice John Paul Stephens, who, at age 92, is still out there making big speeches against Citizens United and yesterday was in the courtroom when he saw the liberal majority prevail.
JOHN HEILEMANN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: You know, I live in New York City, right, and the mayor, Mayor Bloomberg, has just banned the sale of huge cups of sugary-
MATTHEWS: Greater than 16 ounces.
HEILEMANN: Greater than 16 ounces of sugary soft drinks. And the boldness there. You don't know what kind of bravery it takes to stand between a really fat person and their Big Gulp.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Interesting choice of words, Tingles
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:42am.
MATTHEWS: Fast and furious. Go ahead.
How about the gutsy move of Eric Holder to hide documents proving complicity in Fast & Furious all the way to the Oval Office. Oh, am I wrong? Then prove it.
Obama could rape a 4 year old
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:49am.
Obama could rape a 4 year old live on TV and they would call it gutsy.
Well....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:53am.
...NAMBLA votes too...
Emblematic of our national crisis
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:12pm.
Their weak examples of so-called "gutsy" politicians is indicative of our leadership void.
A 92 year-old Supreme Court justice who continues to rant about an old decision, openly displaying his bias.
A mayor of NYC who was bold enough to ban Big Gulps in the name of public health.
A former Republican governor who criticizes the 'direction' his party his going.
A Republican senator who is quitting the Senate because the once-congenial atmosphere that led to a $14 trillion national debt is getting more hostile.
Yet, we're still mired in a stagnant economy that some economists fear is on the verge of getting worse. Where's the real gutsy leadership?
Where's the real gutsy
Submitted by Jimbo on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:38pm.
Where's the real gutsy leadership?
Buried about 6 feet deep in Simi Valley California under a headstone that reads "Ronald Reagan".
Here's my contribution...
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:24pm.
"Name an American politician you think has made a big, gutsy decision so far this year."
Any one of the 17 democrats who voted to cite Holder with contempt. That is definitely a gutsy move during an election year. I can only imagine how the DNC will "reward" those democrats.
Here's my contribution as to which American politician didn't make a big, gutsy decision so far this year: Any one of the democrats who walked out of the vote. Running away isn't "gutsy," it's cowardly.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 5:10pm.
Any one of the 17 democrats who voted to cite Holder with contempt.
Indeed, especially when my House rep, who rode to victory on the push of the TEA party, was one of only two Republicans who voted against criminal contempt. He did vote for civil contempt, and has publicly called for (with)Holder's resignation, but still.
He's "explained" his vote on the criminal contempt action as his being in favor of what he calls "progressive discipline."
“In the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, there is built-in tension among the three branches of our federal government. This tension was reflected in two votes that came to the House floor this afternoon. “I believe in progressive discipline. Accordingly, and after a careful review of the facts, I voted against a bill to hold the Attorney General in criminal contempt of Congress,” Rigell wrote.
If I don't have a better choice I guess I'll have to vote for him again in November but I won't like it. This isn't the first time he's betrayed the sentiments of those who put him in office.
Rigell said ... he can no longer abide by the Americans for Tax Reform pledge to oppose any effort to raise income tax rates or to reduce or eliminate any tax deductions or credits unless those increases are matched dollar for dollar with tax cuts in other areas.
So short a time in office and already he's morphing into a RINO.
The gutsy calls the president
Submitted by JeffC... on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:45pm.
The gutsy calls the president made to his big donors from 2008 to ask for more money.
Blast form the past
Submitted by Jimbo on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:55pm.
Here's a gutsy move and a blast from the past -
Sandy Berger, national security adviser for Clinton, walks into the National Archives and steals documents relating to the Clinton administration's prior knowledge of the potential of a 9/11 type attack.
and our Repub politicians refuse...
Submitted by seen the light on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 7:33pm.
to call them out on it....
John Heilemann's answer was the most amusing...
Submitted by Conservator on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 1:51pm.
...answer from this elite group of progressives; "Greater than 16 ounces of sugary soft drinks. And the boldness there. You don't know what kind of bravery it takes to stand between a really fat person and their Big Gulp."
However, NYC's ban on sugary soft drinks is limited:
*Not on the ban list are Milk-Based products. So while you won't be able to walk into Burger King in NYC and get a soda over 16oz. (150 Calories, 0 fat, 39 grams of sugar) anyone can get a 20 oz. Chocolate Milk shake that packs 980 Calories, 24 Grams of fat, and 150 grams of sugar. To come close to that milkshake in calories, one would need about 100oz. of soda, while 64 oz. of soda would be needed to match the all-evil sugar content.
*It doesn't ban refills! You might only get a 16oz. cup, but dining in means unlimited refills and all the soda one can desire. People who drive through will be limited to a 16oz. soda (or, 5 if they choose to order them), but dining in is a fat and diabetes-inducing free-for-all. Rather than prevent people from drinking too much soda, isn't it possible that more people will choose to eat inside now to ensure they have enough drink to wash down there 2,000 calorie-but-not-banned mean?
Source: http://usconservatives.about.com/b/2012/06/19/food-bans-yes.htm
So to all my NYC friends, enjoy those 980 calories Chocolate Milk shakes and make sure to buy only refill soda cups at those fast food restaurants.
"but dining in is a fat and
Submitted by Jimbo on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:11pm.
"but dining in is a fat and diabetes-inducing free-for-all"
I literally choked on my Pepsi when I read that.