A week ago I was mystified when Chris Matthews went out of his way to butter up Ed Rendell when the Dem Pennsylvania governor appeared on Hardball, and described the schmoozing here. Now, call it mystery likely solved. According to one account, Matthews has approached Rendell for help in a possible 2010 U.S. Senate run. That seems an ever-more-likely scenario, given Matthews's decidely non-Shermanesque response to a suggestion that he's well-positioned to make a run against Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) in 2010.
The "Hardball" host's intriguing comments came in response to Philly-based radio talk show host Michael Smerconish who speculated on Wednesday's show about the possibility of a Matthews Senate campaign.
Unexpectedly, the former Tip O'Neill aide declined to tamp down the rumor:
MICHAEL SMERCONISH: Hey Chris, may I make another observation about the shifting registrations?Philly radio host E. Steven Collins tried to get in a word edgewise, but Matthews cut him off. That to me was a tip-off that Chris was excited by Smerconish's theorizing. If Matthews had wanted to squelch the speculation, this would have been the time to do it. But to the contrary, Matthews' only regret was that he couldn't count on Stone's support.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Sure.
SMERCONISH: Because there is a long-term implication here for the Republicans. There has been an exodus of the more moderate or liberal Republicans to the Democratic race, which I think is going to come back to haunt, potentially, a guy like United States Senator Arlen Specter. I mean, here's Specter, he narrowly defeated Pat Toomey in that GOP primary.
MATTHEWS: Right.
SMERCONISH: He's already announced--and you know the blogosphere is hot today with speculation about you! I hope you don't mind me saying that.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
SMERCONISH: But Roger Stone, Roger Stone's got something online today that says Chris Matthews, the thing is perfectly positioned for you. Those individuals have got to come back to the GOP or it's going to be a reconstituted Republican party, long-term implication.
MATTHEWS: The day when Roger Stone supports my positions on things and me personally will be the day that heaven comes to earth. But thank you Michael for that thought; it's always possible.In his blog, Stone says that:
Matthews has been quietly sounding out Democrats across Pennsylvania about seeking the Democratic nomination to oppose Senator Arlen Specter, who shows no signs of slowing down or retiring, in 2010.Matthews ran for the House long ago, so why not the Senate now? That NYT magazine article Stone referred to [by Mark Leibovich] is already online. I found it so petty and mean-spirited that, yes, it had me feeling a bit sorry for Matthews. But then again, the fact that Matthews consented to--or sought out--such attention suggests he might be seeking to raise his profile with a run in mind.
Matthews has pondered a Senate bid in Pennsylvania before but deemed the water too cold. Matthews has been meeting with former Philadelphia City Comptroller Tommy Leonard and has approached Governor Ed Rendell to inquire about recruiting campaign personnel.
Unfortunately, like Pat Buchanan before him, Chris Matthews has hours and hours of television tape going back 20 years and thousands of words in columns written in the same time period. His Senate bid will die of his own words.
The New York Times Magazine will publish story by Mark Leibovich this Sunday which will illustrate the point.
Question: at what point would it be appropriate for Matthews to take a leave of absence? How can he provide anything resembling fair coverage of politics and personalities if he is simultaneously trying to curry favor with officials and journalists in a position to assist his campaign?
Aside: Collins, the African-American radio host of "Philly Speaks," has been getting considerable TV air time in the run-up to the PA primary. Keep your eye on him: FWIW, I find him smart and solid.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What, Chris running against
April 9, 2008 - 19:58 ET by gopsteveWhat, Chris running against the GOP in an election...you mean he's a, a...Democrat?!
I am just shocked.
(Well, he does run against the GOP each night on his show anyways)
Not only no, but Hell no!
April 9, 2008 - 20:07 ET by IamTinmanKeep Chrissy exactly where he is, an embarrassment to MSNBC and the moveon.org crowd he is cemented to.
He (Mathews) is a freakin
April 9, 2008 - 20:52 ET by lotrHe (Mathews) is a freakin loser. As my father used to say, he should be out sweeping the streets. Sorry I don't have anything more profound to say -- I'm just tired and have zero tolerance for this narcissist's nonsense tonight.
lotr...Did you feel that
April 9, 2008 - 21:25 ET by Jerlotr...Did you feel that way about Matthews back when he was voting for Bush?
You can wait and answer after a good night's sleep.
Jer
Mathews for Bush
April 9, 2008 - 21:32 ET by Jerry MackJer: I must have missed this. When did Mathews vote for Bush?
Jerry Mack...He claims he
April 9, 2008 - 21:43 ET by JerJerry Mack...He claims he voted for Bush "at least once". He did not specify which election. Obviously, Matthews made the statement sometime after '04 but I don't remember when. However, I have seen what was purported to be a reprint of the transcript. I'll look for it tomorrow, and will link it if I can find it.
Believe me, the left hasn't been all that crazy about Chrissie either.
Jer
Jer,You mean Matthews once
April 10, 2008 - 10:22 ET by Chris NormanJer, you mean Matthews once voted for Bush?!! Oh, my goodness! I must take back everything I've ever said against him. Once voting for Bush makes up for all his liberal rantings. Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention. It makes all the difference.
Glad to be of service, Chris...
April 10, 2008 - 11:46 ET by JerJer, you mean Matthews once voted for Bush?
Unless he's lying.
I must take back everything I've ever said against him.
Well, probably not everything.
Once voting for Bush makes up for all his liberal rantings.
Your words...not mine.
Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention. It makes all the difference.
You're welcome...and the pleasure is all mine. It's nice to make a difference.
Jer
Huh.
April 10, 2008 - 18:59 ET by Chris NormanHuh. A point by point refutation of sarcasm.
Just some clarification
April 10, 2008 - 19:08 ET by JerJust some clarification and explanation, with a little return sarcasm tossed in...all in good fun. I didn't realize you would take it that seriously.
Jer
I didn't.
April 10, 2008 - 19:14 ET by Chris NormanI didn't.
Okay.
April 10, 2008 - 19:17 ET by JerOkay.
Truce on this one? :)
April 10, 2008 - 19:24 ET by Chris NormanTruce on this one? :)
Whew!...Thanks for the
April 10, 2008 - 19:38 ET by JerWhew!...Thanks for the proposal. Sure.
Jer
By the way, after ten months here, I still haven't learned all of the little symbols for "just kidding", "sarcasm", etc. I begged RJ to explain them to me one time--because he was always using them--but he demurred. Speaking of RJ, where did he go? Was he upset about taking shots on Romney, or the Patriots, or both?
Well, it was either that or
April 10, 2008 - 19:45 ET by Chris NormanWell, it was either that or replying with half of a word. :)
I don't use the symbols myself. I just rely on people knowing me well enough to know when I'm being snide. As for RJ, maybe he's on vacation?
Me either...primarily
April 10, 2008 - 20:11 ET by JerMe either...primarily because I was concerned there were precise symbols--i.e. a specific combination for "just kidding" and another for one of the many ways of saying "up yours". I feared unintentionally typing the wrong one.
No matter how sharply tuned one's sarc detector may be, there are times when identical words can be interpreted differently. And I'll go back and read something I said in intended jest, and realize it might not have come across that way, or that the attempted humor may not have been as obvious as I thought.
Jer
The way Chrissie prattles on
April 10, 2008 - 12:59 ET by fitzfongThe way Chrissie prattles on like a little school girl about JFK and Obama, it seems he's more concerned about that oh-so-intangible charisma than he is about policy. In that respect I could understand him voting for Bush in either 2000 or 2004 despite his obvious policy differences with the Republican. After all, GWB ran against two remarkably limp, uninspiring opponents. And since Chrissie had to write speeches for that corpse Jimmy Carter, he sees the value in "nothing spoken well" vs. "substance spoken in monotone"...or in Carter's case nothing spoken in monotone. With Chrissie, it's not about the message, it's about the delivery.
Jer,
April 10, 2008 - 14:54 ET by IamTinmanDid Mathews mention exactly which Bush he voted for? Did he get that tingle then too?
IamTin...
April 10, 2008 - 17:41 ET by JerIamTin...
Did Matthews mention exactly which Bush he voted for?
George W...the current Prez.
Did he get that tingle then too?
I believe he did experience an odd sensation. But it turned out to be indigestion.
Jer
Jer
April 10, 2008 - 11:37 ET by lotrYea yea. My apologies for my lapse into a juvenile rant last night. It is my MO to avoid personal attacks against anyone (including HRC), but ever since his groveling before Her Royal Clintonista, this guy Mathews has just been getting on my nerves... <sigh>
And based on his praise for Obama, I have a tough time believing he voted for Bush.
lotr...
April 10, 2008 - 12:01 ET by JerNo apology necessary, lotr...you didn't lash out at me, and we've probably all called various public figures much worse than "loser" at one time or another. You certainly didn't damage your very high 'civility standing' at NB.
I just logged on a few minutes ago. Let me see if I can find a link for Matthews' Bush vote claim.
Jer
Thanks -- yes, I'd be
April 10, 2008 - 16:03 ET by lotrThanks -- yes, I'd be interested in seeing that if you find it. It isn't the first time I've heard this (there have been others testifying to it here), but good luck, as he may have had it struck from the record...
lotr...Here is the link.
April 10, 2008 - 16:34 ET by Jerlotr...
Here is the link. It is an audio of an NPR interview with Matthews about his book on politics. Click on "Listen Here" at top of page, slide forward to about the 13 min. mark where, during the next three minutes or so, he mentions his Bush vote and summarizes his political philosophy.
Jer
BTW, I tried to post this a couple of hours ago and lost site access until just a few minutes ago.
Perfect match
April 9, 2008 - 21:00 ET by ScrapironChrissie is a perfect match for the 260 or so democrats in congress. With him on the team they can form a committee and learn how to pour piss out of a boot. That would beat what is there now.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Matthews
April 9, 2008 - 21:06 ET by JohnCJust what we need in Pennsylvania, another lib senator. I voted for Pat Toomey and Rick Santorum. What's happenin' to my state? Pardon me, Commonwealth?
How does he know
April 9, 2008 - 21:12 ET by Jerry MackHow does Smerconish know that the Republicans signing up in the Dimocrat party are liberal and moderate? Was his source the msm? I have heard rumors that some kind of operation is taking place in Pennsylvania.
I'm sure MSDNC will really
April 9, 2008 - 22:01 ET by fitzfongI'm sure MSDNC will really miss the ratings "winner" that is Chrissy Matthews. What will they replace him with...another hot air balloon?
Wouldn't surprise me if the
April 9, 2008 - 22:52 ET by RESTLESS 1Wouldn't surprise me if the head honchos at msnbc are are donating for a run as we speak. Hell, a hamster on a wheel would bring in more ratings, and insight.
For sure and there's plenty
April 10, 2008 - 09:56 ET by mjgFor sure and there's plenty of hot air in MSDNC.
Doubtful
April 9, 2008 - 22:02 ET by doug1950Matthews would be willing to give up his chair in the spotlight for a seat among so many others. Don't get me wrong, he loves to hear someone tell him he should run so he can grin like a jackass eating briars and bask in the thought of it but I don't think his ego will let him give up his salary and the opportunity to both ask and answer every question. In the Senate he might have to share the microphone.
He'll probably need to
April 9, 2008 - 22:14 ET by fitzfongHe'll probably need to secure at least 10 times more voters in one state than he gets viewers in all 50 States just to have a shot. And I haven't heard any forecasts predicting a cooling trend in Hell.
Ann Coulter Hit the Nail on the Head...
April 9, 2008 - 22:11 ET by babooAnyone recall this?
(from this article: http://www.humaneven...)
"What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian
campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two
front-runners happen to be the media's picks! It's uncanny -- almost as
if by design! (Can I stop now, or do you people get sarcasm?)
By
prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have
vastly magnified the power of the media -- which, by the way, are
wholly exempt from speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws. The
New York Times doesn't have to buy ad time to promote a politician; it
just has to call McCain a "maverick" 1 billion times a year.
It
is because of campaign-finance laws like McCain-Feingold that big men
don't run for office anymore. Little men do. And John McCain is the
head homunculus.
You want Reagan back? Restore the right to free speech, and you will have created the conditions that allowed Reagan to run."
McCain has (through McCain-Feingold) reduced the power of free speech of the citizens of this nation to nothing, and handed it over to the first organization able to fill that gap, i.e., the MSM.
Is it really that surprising that they've started nominating their own for public office?
Once you disqualify people of merit from contributing their opinion to the national political discourse, you're left with the people who have figured out that Flaming Rhetoric Sells. They're no better than monkeys dancing to an organ grinder.
He won't but if he did
April 9, 2008 - 22:21 ET by VonuWhat an election that would be - a rin-o and an ass-o.
Matthews For U. S. Senate
April 10, 2008 - 04:49 ET by NKurucChris would be a perfect addition to the other Democrat do nothing blowhard bufoons already in power.....Biden, Levin, Rockefeller, Boxer, Shumer, and on, and on, and on. Oh yeh, I forgot to add Obama, and Clinton.
I don't know of any TV commentator who has made more blatently stupid statements over the years. He fits in perfectly with the current "lineup" in the majority. What the h@$&?
It's got to be 5 o'clock somehwere!!!!!
Would Chris be any more of a loon...
April 10, 2008 - 07:51 ET by ThalpyWould Chris be any more of a loon than many who occupy the senate now?
Thalpy...heck he'd fit
April 10, 2008 - 17:00 ET by bigtimerThalpy...heck he'd fit right in with a lot of them...and just think of the filibusters he could do.
By the way, I think I just heard him today say he thinks we know everything about the candidates we need to know anyway we should just vote... now.
I think not Chrissie...you just do not want more that may come out down the road about the guy who runs a thrill up your leg coming out, which the msm knows full well there is more to come down the road.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Well, to be fair....
April 10, 2008 - 07:56 ET by c5thenMatthews is only slightly more liberal than Arlen Specter, so it wouldn't be that much of a noticable change other then the extra seat the Democrats would be able to trumpet in the Senate.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Most Senators are...
April 10, 2008 - 08:39 ET by mattm...ego centric, buffons, morons and charlatans. Matthews would fit right in.
BTW Did you know Governor The Body was toying with a Senate run? Ha! Maybe I'll run for something...
Matthews in the Senate
April 10, 2008 - 09:53 ET by iveseenitallConsidering the kind of fools ( Democrats ans Republicans) who are there now, he would be a perfect fit. I'm sure people in Pennsylvania would find no difference between him and Specter. I don't either.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
He's the Bill O'Reilly of
April 10, 2008 - 10:04 ET by marpelHe's the Bill O'Reilly of MSNBC. Maybe both he and O'Reilly can run for office. Get them both off the air!
They're both an embarassment.
After one of last night's
April 10, 2008 - 10:29 ET by Chris NormanAfter one of last night's segments, I'm beginning to think O'Reilly's auditioning for host of "Girls Gone Wild". He's stuck on the subject of college partying (preferably on beaches) - "Isn't this terrible? Let's see that clip again".
Chris, as I said in an
April 10, 2008 - 11:33 ET by marpelChris, as I said in an earlier post this week, O'Reilly is striking me as so creepy lately. With all the sexually explicit features he has on the show, I can't forget the "falafel and loofah" incident a few years back with one of his assistants. Sort of skeevey... If I wanted to watch something of a sexual nature, I can turn my TV on HBO on Demand or the Playboy channel or rent a DVD.