It was supposed to be about business and economic issues – at least that’s the way CNBC billed it.
“[W]ell, we’re coming to you from the Ford Performing Arts Center,” co-moderator Maria Bartiromo said during the October 9 CNBC “Closing Bell.” “And there’s a lot of buzz and excitement around. We're just about an hour away from the debate and of course, this is the first national presidential debate focused only on economic issues. We'll be talking taxes, trade, housing, broad economy, foreign relations, protectionism.”
But it didn’t end up that way. While there were four questioners, co-moderator Chris Matthews was the most obvious in asking questions that had little to do with the economy. Out of his 49 questions, 28 were largely non-economic.
“Senator McCain, this is close to your heart – how would you catch bin Laden?” Matthews asked in one of the more memorable non-economic moments.
His questions ranged from the bin Laden to concerns about whether the candidates would support the GOP presidential nominee if they were not selected.
The other three journalists combined – Bartiromo, John Harwood and Jerry Seib – asked an almost identical number of questions, but only four of those questions weren’t about economic or business issues.
Matthews also strayed into more cultural issues – “[H]ow would you police the Internet, culturally? You know, the whole question is about the stuff going on – predators, that sort of thing. How we do it?” he asked Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
Even throughout the debate, the words “The Republicans, The Economy & You,” were flashed across the screen, but there Matthews questioning strayed into less-economic based question and into foreign policy questions like the Iraq War – talking points often used by the Democratic candidates.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Chris Matthews is admits to being a Paulbot
October 9, 2007 - 20:33 ET by blackrain4xmasAfter the debate, I'm watching Chris Matthews....he's got on Ron Paul,
and at the end he says something that sounded like he was admitting or
wanted to admit to being a Paulbot! Later, I checked back, and he had
Stephen Hayes and some others on, and he flat out said that he agreed
with a lot of what Ron Paul was saying about foreign wars etc.
Couldn't believe it, Chris Matthews...not a moonbat, but a Paulbot.
Not really surprised, just surprised that he was so crass as to let it
out.
Check the tapes or watch the post-debate replay tonight
I also saw the Paulbot
October 9, 2007 - 21:05 ET by CTI heard Chrissy's interview with the lunatic and thought the same thing. If Chris weren’t a Clintonista he would be a full blown Libertarian Lunatic as long as that meant bashing Republicans.
The "lunatic" is the only fiscally-sane one up there
October 10, 2007 - 03:20 ET by sarcasmoOf course, how would one know that on an "economics" debate run by Matthews. And it's funny to me that you've both set upon the name-calling "Paulbot" in view of the massive intellectual -- if not physical -- diversity in the Ron Paul campaign. Keep it up -- whine more about libertarians -- it means what we're doing to clean up this fiscal and foreign policy mess is finally working.
Does all this name-calling mean I get to call the RINO candidates CFR-bots? And is anyone else a bit disturbed that the first thirty seconds of this video do a better job of covering the CFR's pervasive and bipartisan influence than ANY news-media story I've seen this year or ever? (But keep listening at least 'till Cheney's election-admission between songs, just for the unintentional admission entertainment-factor!)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Foreign Affairs
October 10, 2007 - 04:24 ET by UnsaneWhat on earth do you have against Foreign Affairs magazine?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Why answer again?
October 10, 2007 - 04:48 ET by sarcasmoYou'll just ignore it again. Go read about the CFR if you're curious.
And for that matter, why do you think CFR membership should be a qualification for the Presidency? And if it's such a great qualification politically, how come Cheney said what he said in one of those rare moments of honesty between the 2 songs?? :) Isn't Dick proud to tell voters he's a CFR insider just like Hillary and the rest? If not, why not?? And why, as I asked without answer above, can the first 20 seconds of a damn music video do a better job of covering this secretive (but ostensibly open) group than the entire news media???
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Nobody seems to be
October 10, 2007 - 06:37 ET by KevroyNobody seems to be mentioning the one thing that bothered me most.
Chris tried a 'Got ya' question on Fred that I thought was a really cheap shot.
He asked a question about the PM of Cananda, then before Fred could answer, he added, "What's his name?"
Fred, said "Harper, his name is Harper". Chris really hoped he could trip Fred up and there would be headlines tomw, "Thompson didn't know name of Canadadian PM".
Didn't work, Matthews....
Thompson: Harper, Harper is
October 10, 2007 - 08:48 ET by Senior ChiefThompson: Harper, Harper is his name...How about you Chris, who's your mom's boyfriend? Who's the King of Thailand? Who's Hugo Chavez VP? Who's the Prince of Brunie?
Matthews: Say what? I am suppose to ask questions here?
Thompson: You're right fool. Stay on economics, you leftoid nitwit!
Chris Matthews...
October 9, 2007 - 20:40 ET by m4ster chiefWhat would a Liberal, biased, hateful, unpatriotic, disrespectful, foaming-at-the-mouth goofball know about the economy? There are very few members of the House and/or Senate who have demonstrated a theoretical, or a working knowledge of the U. S. economy. If they fully understood the subject, they would be committed to preventing the economic disaster that we face in just a decade or two.
Explain To Me Again
October 9, 2007 - 20:45 ET by BourbeauExactly why the GOP would feel obligated to have MSNBC host a debate, especially with the likes of a Chris Matthews and Maria Bartiromo on the panel. I understand they're looking for a cross section of voters, but why is MSNBC their forum of choice. It seems to me the RNC needs to work with the candidates to ensure they get the best possible sponsors; and that includes any and all organizations willing to step forward. However, they should also feel empowered to turn their backs on a cable network that is dedicated to besmirching our President, or country, and our conservative values.
bourbeau
October 9, 2007 - 20:50 ET by botgbecause not all viewers at MSNBC are kool aid drinkers and some may discern a difference in the abilities of the Reps to answere questions while the Dems play T-ball
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Well, Maria Bartiromo is
October 9, 2007 - 20:51 ET by motherbeltWell, Maria Bartiromo is their financial reporter (or one of them). She was there because it was supposed to be a debate on "economics." Apparently no one told Chris Matthews. If Matthews can't formulate questions on economics, he should have shut up and let Bartiromo do the talking.
On the other hand, she may have just been "window dressing" so they could call it an economics debate.
Mom, haven't you been
October 10, 2007 - 12:09 ET by MikeBMom, haven't you been paying attention to the libs? Their grasp of economics is so abyssmal, Chrissy probably thought his questions were on matters economic. Of course, from what I've seen coming out of the public schools, their grasp of science, mathematics, English, and grammar are equally abyssmal.
You should also give Chrissy credit for trying (forgive me, but that was a sarcastic reference to Outcomes Based Education and the idea du jour in education about nurturing self esteem even [or, especially] when not warranted). Chrissy is so used to uttering spittle enhanced opinions, that he has a most difficult time formulating (or, perhaps even recognizing) questions.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Great Chris "the liberal" Matthews line interviewing Coulter
October 9, 2007 - 21:08 ET by mgerardnYou are a controversial lady. You write beautifully. You have a brilliant brain.
Was that before the call
October 9, 2007 - 22:43 ET by well99Was that before the call from Mrs Edwards?Gotta love ambush journalism.
Hey, kids! Know 'em when you spot 'em!
October 10, 2007 - 01:33 ET by mastersofdeceitHey, kids! Know 'em when you spot 'em!
Low light
October 9, 2007 - 21:50 ET by Jerry MackThe low light for myself was when Chris asked Fred Thompson if he knew the name of the Canadian Prime Minister. What a dweeb!
I'm surprised he didn't
October 9, 2007 - 22:32 ET by motherbeltI'm surprised he didn't have a list.
Christopher
October 9, 2007 - 22:38 ET by d1carterI am very disappointed in the debate. I was just hoping that Christopher was going to have an on-air breakdown, but no. Fred sounded like my Mom used to do when I had done something really stupid, "Christopher Matthews, go to your room." heh
Your Mom called you
October 10, 2007 - 12:11 ET by MikeBYour Mom called you "Christopher Matthews" when you did stupid stuff? Man, you must have done some really stupid stuff and made her extremely angry with you. ;-)
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Fred and My Mom
October 10, 2007 - 15:20 ET by d1carterTe he
-
October 9, 2007 - 22:47 ET by dahliatraversMatthews was co-moderating with Bartiromo? The only pertinent question is, did they remember to station a mop near Matthews for the drooling.
My 2 cents worth: I
October 9, 2007 - 23:27 ET by USA4freedomMy 2 cents worth:
I believe that it was all a plan. We will tell them its
about economics but ask them all
other questions.
But I don’t think it hurt. I think they all did quite well.
Well, except Ron Paul he looked a little unhinged.
I like the idea of going on MSMBC, (at first I did not like
the idea) but when I saw they did a good job, as well as let some of the (hopeful)
“Regan Democrats” see us I think it was ok.
The cheep shot of the night was Chrissie asking Fred the
Prime Minister of Canada was. I bet Chrissie had to look up the answer himself.
Fred stuck it back up his ass with the: that’s your opinion.. line.
I do believe in a lot of Liberian ideas I wish Ron Paul
sounded better. He comes across as a goof ball.
But.. hopefully there will be a lot of Democrats that see
this debate and think to themselves, I have more in common with these guys over
the Looney left that has taken over the Democrat party.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
I do believe in a lot of
October 10, 2007 - 07:38 ET by fosstenI do believe in a lot of Liberian ideas I wish Ron Paul
sounded better. He comes across as a goof ball.
That says it all. People, including conservatives, are generally sheeple who will be swayed by someone's appearance or demeanor instead of the information that they put forth. Frankly, I am more interested in a man's ideas than I am his facial expressions. Moreover, I didn't think Paul came across as a goofball, I thought he sounded very earnest and sincere, unlike Romney, who sounded scripted, and McCain, who sounded like he was searching for the answers he had memorized.
I especially enjoyed the moment when Romney was asked if a president should have to go to Congress to take military action against a target or country, and he danced around the question by saying that's a question for the lawyers. Then Paul pounced on the question: "This is preposterous!...You don't have to ask the lawyers, we can just open the Constitution and read it!" That gave me a good laugh.
If my theory is right, though, just about anybody with a decent voice and manner can defeat Shrillary.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
Hair
October 10, 2007 - 08:23 ET by taterOn today's Morning Joe (which I listen to very little) Joe was talking about how Mitt looked more presidental because he didn't have a wet hair look. No no no let's not talk about issues or values or ideas, he looked presidental. Sorry I vote based on what a candidate's views are, not if they look like a model.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan* may have been wrong...
October 10, 2007 - 09:15 ET by sarcasmoWe like to think that we're rational-not-emotional, and I sure hope so, but take a look at this article about a recent Yale study. I'm not sure about all the conclusions, but I can confidently say as a poker player that humans often are irrational regarding risk & reward.
JMR
*Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Mrs. Rodham-Clinton
October 10, 2007 - 08:28 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsIf my theory is right, though, just about anybody with a decent voice and manner can defeat Shrillary.
The problem with that thinking is you forget that Mrs. Rodham-Clinton appeals to the great unwashed in that she is offering them a bribe (free healthcare, $5000 per baby (maybe not, but the idea is still floating out there), $1000 per year in your 401K, for example). The people Mrs. Rodham-Clinton wants to vote for her don't read the papers, don't watch the news and don't surf the net for news, but they WILL hear about these freebies (MTV, word of mouth, free concerts, etc.) and will see that as a good thing and many will vote for her because of this. I, personally, think her plan will (sadly) work (she gets the uninformed vote, the dead vote, and so on) because there are so many uninformed out there.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
"...generally sheeple who
October 10, 2007 - 12:26 ET by MikeB"...generally sheeple who will be swayed by someone's appearance or demeanor instead of the information they put forth." Yet, this has been happening since the first televised Presidential debate. Richard Nixon outperformed John Kennedy on their debates, but Jack was "so handsome", and people voted for Kennedy. As for sounding earnest and sincere, every conman sounds earnest and sincere, otherwise they couldn't pull off their cons.
It is also funny that people complain that one candidate sounded "scripted", yet complain when another (Thompson) doesn't sound like he's memorized a script.
Frankly, I think the debates should be completely ignored. What we should look at is the votes and speeches those candidates made when (if) they were in the House or the Senate, and statements made after one left Congress and before they decided to run for President. It may be cynical of me, but except for Ron Paul (and I won't vote for him) it seems that every one of the candidates, Democratics and Republicans alike, are up there telling the "sheeple" what the pol thinks they want to hear, not what the pol actually believes.
And, don't forget: the President really has severely limited power. Most everything that the candidate wants to do has to be approved by Congress. So, any candidate who says, "I'm going to do thus-and-so is blowing smoke. All he (or she) can do is introduce a bill before Congress.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Mathews
October 10, 2007 - 05:11 ET by rushfan1467I think he was concered about the answers he would get about the answers he would get about the economy. The questions about the war are hard to answer questions about any war. They are trying to get right wing candidates to make a slip so they will have [good] news to report and make Hillary look like a godess.
rushfan1467
That's because Matthews is biased.
October 10, 2007 - 12:43 ET by c5thenHe didn't want the Republican candidates to get questions on the issue that they are the strongest on. He wanted to put them on the spot with questions that are hypothetical and impossible to answer in a debate vacuume.
If he had his complete and unfettered way, he would have asked questions like:
"When did you stop beating your wife?"
"Have you completely given up drugs yet?"
"Do you still hate musslims, or have you changed your mind?"
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com