Chris Matthews: Chamber of Commerce Causing Unemployment, Hurting Economy
The White House thinks its got a great campaign issue in falsely accusing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of funneling foreign dollars to Republicans, and MSNBC's Chris Matthews is making it clear he's willing to assist the administration in making its case.
Who cares that there's absolutely no factual basis in what President Obama and the "Hardball" host are saying?
So hell-bent on making this a serious election issue is Matthews that on Wednesday he accused the Chamber of intentionally increasing unemployment in this nation while harming the economy (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Let me finish tonight by addressing the challenge Bob Schieffer of CBS News issued to the White House this Sunday. Is that the best that you can do?
Bob was challenging David Axelrod on the White House charge that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was using money it raises from overseas to finance Republican political campaigns.
So, why is it so darn important to the average voter out there, that multinational corporations, some of them based outside of the United States, have their fingers in this election?
How about this -- it`s the central economic issue of our times. Look at how the giant corporations get their profit margins up these days. Are they out there selling hot, new products every consumer wants to get their hands on? Or are they doing the job by cost-cutting, cutting down the number of employees for whom they have to pay those tiresome health packages, those costly pensions and 401 plans? Are they doing it through those highly celebrated productivity gains by substituting robotics for people, by outsourcing the cheaper vendors overseas, over where the price of labor is dirt cheap?

No wonder the multinationals want to gift candidates who love to deregulate, love so-called free markets, love tax structures that lead them as free as possible to continue doing what they`re doing -- the kind of free-willing, cost-cutting that meets the quarterly bottom line.
No wonder the U.S. Chamber`s such a popular lobbying body for the multinational operation, in whatever country, it happens to currently find the best haven.
So, the right answer, is this is best that we can do is, is: is this the best America can do? It`s about jobs, and if all of the American people can talk about this election season as this, I say, keep on talking. You`ve finally got your finger on the pulse of this country. It`s about the economy.
So let's get this straight: the country's largest business federation, representing over 3 million companies whose dues its dependent on, is assisting in the elimination of American jobs.
This is the level of insanity Matthews has reached as the midterm elections near and his beloved Democrat Party is about to get routed.
Never mind the number of left-leaning publications that have said these accusations are total nonsense - Matthews sees this as "the central economic issue of our times."
So focused on trying to create some issue - ANY issue - that could help his Party, Matthews is missing the underlying fallacy in his argument irrespective of its lack of factual basis: if all the jobs were shipped overseas, the Chamber would cease to exist.
Its goal is - and always has been - to assist American companies to grow their businesses. If they all contract to zero employees in the United States, the Chamber of Commerce would become extinct.
Unfortunately, Matthews is so fixated on helping the White House and his Party that he can't possibly understand this.
Makes you wonder if he's looking at Keith Olbermann's ratings and coming to the conclusion that vacuous hyperbole sell much better than facts on MSNBC.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Follow the money
Submitted by Perry Waters on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:10pm.
The problem here is that there is no way to prove one way or the other whether foreign interests are paying for political advertisement. So the dems can make the claim, and there's no way to disprove it except through full disclosure of the source of the funding.
I'm all for free speech. But when it comes to our political process, I would prefer to know who's paying for it.
Hmmm...... somehow it doesn't seem like we should call it free speech if you have to pay for it.
In the name of altruism, let the Democrats make . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:04pm.
. . . the first move.
The DNC should make full disclosures of all the campaign contributions they have received and their sources.
And they can start with the 2008 contributions to Obama's own campaign. Despite an agreement to reveal all contributors under $250 (the law didn't require it, but McCain and Obama said they would), Obama stopped reporting them.
If the Dems do it and challenge the GOP to reciprocate, and the GOP declines, the Dems ought to get a lot of political mileage out of it.
But they won't, because the Sierra Club, SEIU, and the AFL-CIO will have to reveal their foreign contributors.
Nice socialist rant.
Submitted by NeoKong on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:16pm.
From the multi- millionaire celebrity. The next time CNN needs to trim it's staff to save money I'm sure that Chris Matthews will offer to take a pay cut to save those jobs.
Not a Socialist,
Submitted by Mestilf on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:21pm.
Just a moron. Mathew's is one of those people who just needs to go away already.
You wouldn't know a socialist if one stole your blow-up doll...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:51pm.
...right out from under you. As for Prissy Tingles, he ran past being a mere socialist a long time ago, and is now flirting with outright communism. -DaveVote for the American in November
Haha
Submitted by Mestilf on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:59pm.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I like words to actually mean something. I don't just throw around words like Socialist, Communist, or Fascists like Jonah Goldberg to look cool in front of all my friends.
scorecard
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:03am.
Dave: 2
Troll: 0
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
That presupposes that you
Submitted by fitzfong on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:08am.
That presupposes that you could ever look cool or have friends...you can't and you don't.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
That's because you went to government school...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:43am.
...and were never taught what those words actually mean. If you had been, you wouldn't have posted the comment I just responded to. -DaveVote for the American in November
Except...
Submitted by Mestilf on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:20pm.
That the CoC has had over 885k donated from foreign businesses, to the same 501(c)(6) that it uses to run attack ads against the democrats.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/13/chamber-foreign-funded-media/
Personally I think the citizens united ruling was one of the dumbest rulings in recent memory. Why do corporations deserve freedom of speech to donate anonymously to whoever they want with 0 disclosure? Corporations aren't people, they're borg.
Posting ThinkRegress.dum BS on this site isn't going to win you
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:42pm.
...very many friends here. And you had better hope - no, make that PRAY that the repubs don't get control of the House come January, as there are going to be all kinds of inquiries into just how much foreign cash helped put this former community pisser-offer into the most powerful elected office on Earth. -DaveVote for the American in November
Check it out
Submitted by Mestilf on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:50pm.
I'm not here to make friends, and regardless of what you think of thinkprogress you might want to check out the link. They source all their information from the CoC itself. They've recieved almost 900k from foreign busniesses directly into the same arm they use to throw their attack ads. Granted this is the same organization that sent a letter to Obama saying the best way to create jobs is to open our national parks to resource mining and logging and to take off any taxes on outsourced jobs.
It's the confiscatory taxes on domestic jobs that is the reason
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:29am.
...they have gone overseas. And until those taxes are sharply reduced, or better yet, done away with altogether, most all of those jobs will remain overseas. And some won't be returning no matter what, as the dynamics of our economy have changed. -DaveVote for the American in November
Corporations aren't people?
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:43pm.
Wouldn't you say that corporations are every bit the sum of their parts (shareholders) as unions (members)?
No
Submitted by Mestilf on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:56pm.
I don't think Frankenstein qualifies as a human, regardless of how efficient it is. And I think the same rules should apply to Unions. NO ONE organization should be able to anonymously dump unlimited amounts of funds into any election they want. It's bad for our democracy. Not to mention corporate money is supposed to be used for investment or paying the shareholders, not supporting political candidates.
Mestilf---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:19am.
You might want to consider a career in mathematics.
That way you could be sure that adding two minuses together will give you the positive answer you are striving for.
You won't find that approach working well in the field of politics or when debating conservatives who live in the real world as opposed to your castle for rent in the sky.
MD
How about,
Submitted by Mestilf on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:26am.
Actually discussing the topic instead of acting like a smug douche bag? If I'm so wrong then explain to me why a corporation deserves the exact same speech rights as a human? Why should corporations be using their capital for the whole sale buying of politicians instead of investing in their businesses?
Don't get me wrong, Corporations deserve the right to donate to political campaigns and groups, but they shouldn't be able to donate whatever they want without any disclosure what-so-ever.
Mestilf---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:39am.
I realize how difficult it is for a progressive such as yourself to make any cogent argument about any subject; having been knocked off your high-horse so many times and landing squarely on your pumpkin head.
I will point out, assmunch, that you have proposed discussing nothing, suggested in no way shape or form debating the "subject" you are whining about, and while presenting absolutely nothing more than your progressive opinion in any of your posts, still manage to pretend you have taken the high road by talking down to people.
You demonstrate only that you are a typical progressive putz.
MD
Don't get me wrong,
Submitted by fitzfong on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:52pm.
Don't get me wrong, Corporations deserve the right to donate to political campaigns and groups, but they shouldn't be able to donate whatever they want without any disclosure what-so-ever.
Well, at least not until they launder their donations through a series of penniless dishwashers like Soros/Clinton do.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Ah, but you posted a TP link
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:30am.
Ah, but you posted a TP link about the Chamber; you didn't indicate that you're for campaign finance reform that involves... what... in the way of financial contributions?
If unions and corporations are not allowed to contribute to political campaigns, what's the bar? I'm currently running a business as an LLC. I have zero employees, and make considerably less than the "rich" threshold of $200k. Should I be barred from contributing to my local mayoral race simply because I am a business (an apparently not people)?
Should it be that any conglomerate of [former] people -once grouped as a legal entity- are forbidden from contributing to a political campaign or from buying air time on television, radio, or the internet? Like, say, Code Pink for example? I think they contributed to the Obama campaign.
How about public endorsements by newspapers? Periodicals? They're legal entities, aren't they. Isn't an endorsement an attempt to shape the outcome of an election? I'd bet the NYT wouldn't want their freedom of speech infringed upon.
*Sigh*
Submitted by Mestilf on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:40am.
I always feel like a douche quoting myself but, "Don't get me wrong, Corporations deserve the right to donate to political campaigns and groups, but they shouldn't be able to donate whatever they want without any disclosure what-so-ever."
Right now corporations are basically throwing money into campaigns and we can't tell who's bought and who's not. It's one thing for businesses to donate to people and for us to be aware of who got the money and be able to factor that into our decision on who to vote for. That's completely reasonable. But it's ridiculous to make the argument that any business or corporation can just pump money into an ad campaign without us knowing and then trying to make it look all "grassroots" when it's not.
Mestilf---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:51am.
Your first paragraph shows you don't like the law governing donations.
You can't argue, with the law on your side, because you don't like the law.
You can't argue the facts because the fact is the law exists.
You have reverted to the third option, which is banging on the table.
Good thing you are using your head to do the banging.
Hard to damage that kind of bone density.
MD
MD, I'm starting to get the feeling that the "l" in his SN...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:55am.
...was a typo. I think it was meant to be another "f." -DaveVote for the American in November
Dave---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:58am.
Indeed.
Mestiff. (twixt ears)
Damned appropriate.
MD
MD
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:59am.
For me, Mes-TILF is more like a .... LILF.
Liberal I'd Love to Forget.
- Shylf
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:03am.
I like it!
How about:
Mestilf = Man elf savoring the idiot liberation front.
MDlf
MD
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 2:27am.
:p
I like MDlf, btw :)
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Sorry for you re-typing your
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 10:22am.
Sorry for you re-typing your response to MD (above). My comment came out after that, but I was in the editor when you posted and didn't see it before my comment went out.
The issue in my view is: What is the line that can't be crossed?
Clearly businesses lobby politicians that are in office and we never know the details about that. I'm not saying I like it, but it is a legal operation. What the SCOTUS did was simply enforce the Constitution; you can't have freedom of speech protected for some and not all. Would you advocate banning a mosque just because some deem it too close to a sacred spot? -Look, blaming the Court is just sour grapes disguised as populist upheaval and used for political gain. If this had happened at a time when Wall Street wasn't being lambasted by the POTUS every time he wants to rile up stronger union support, the decision wouldn't have been nearly as notable.
These businesses are acting within the law. Both sides. Calling out one side when your's is losing is a flawed argument. You want real change? Well, then you shouldn't support a hand puppet with no leadership experience. Change in Washington will NEVER originate from a Harvard Law graduate.
By the way- there's very little "grassroots" about TV ads or minute-long, full-production internet ads. I don't think that a financier of such a message needs to say "This ad was funded by a person or persons with considerable financial means" for the average person to realize that fact.
You had me at "I always feel
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:34pm.
You had me at "I always feel like a douche."
LEFTISM is stuck on stoopid
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:16pm.
It's bad for our democracy.
Sorry, try again. It's a constitutional republic.
Not to mention corporate money is supposed to be used for investment or paying the shareholders, not supporting political candidates.
Really? Where on earth did you learn that? So you're saying corporations have no self-interest, oh, say, in having input into the regulatory environment in which they operate. Like that?
Grow up, LEFTISM. You're arguing like a child. It's not up to you to say what other people, or corporations do.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, I'm wondering how
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:18pm.
Blonde, I'm wondering how this idiot feels about labor unions contributing to political candidates. That's not their mandate either, but they do a hell of a lot of it.
We need some new troll spray, rad.
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:24pm.
We've become infested again, lately.
The parade of idiots continues, unabated here.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
is that you, brettard?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:24am.
It's hard to tell. You all look alike to me.
We are watching the death of
Submitted by d1carter on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:56pm.
We are watching the death of elite media before our very eyes...God Speed.
So now I know where the 30 grand went...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:37am.
Walter E. WilliamsMichelle Malkin Kathryn Jean Lopez Emmett Tyrre... All 1 week and 2 days.. Hummm oh and a 5 year and a 12 week guy... Brent Bozell Sarc/ Glad you all are here... EDIT: Dang wrong thread...
You Didn't Build That.
UCW
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:40am.
I think we'll all have our "30 Grand Conspiracies".... :)
- Shy Vibes
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy, LOL - So just how much of the 30 grand went for beer?
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:47am.
:-^) -DaveVote for the American in November
I stand corrected. Looks like some that money went into tracking
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 11/01/2010 - 5:59pm.
Wooha, some hot keys remain ( I didn't want to post this post just yet)
Press Del. in the subject line ( when it's overlapping and touching a thumbnail photo..., press it twice your post,posts?
You Didn't Build That.
Dave
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:52am.
Oh, haha.... I got 0 of that 30,000 .... and I don't drink beer, anyway. I'm a snooty, martini-drinking Manhattanite, keep in mind.
:)
- Shy Vodka
EDIT: The 30K was for all the post-redesign stuff, btw (whatever that "stuff" was :))
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy, My bad
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:54am.
LOL - I should have said "adult beverages." -DaveVote for the American in November
Chris Matthews -- clueless,
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 8:44am.
Chris Matthews -- clueless, classless AND a liar.
I am beginning to think that Matthews is now try to show himself to be a great Obama shill once the Obama regime finally gets rid of "Baghdad Bob" Gibbs.
@ Mestlif comment 9
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 8:59am.
Corporations get freedom from the 1st amendment, The right to assembly. I am a shareholder in numerous corporations as way to gain wealth.I trust the management to look after my concerns . Who are you to take away my voice of me and my like minded citizens?