Chris Matthews: 'There's a Difference Between the Press and the Democratic Party and the Press and the Republican Party'
"There’s a difference between the press and the Democratic Party and the press and the Republican Party."
So said Chris Matthews on the syndicated program bearing his name this weekend in the midst of a discussion about how the news media treat presidential candidates (video follows with transcript and commentary, file photo):
JOHN HARRIS, POLITICO: [Jon Huntsman’s] rationale is at the personal level, people that know him, and he’s well known within a certain set of Republican operatives, they find him impressive. Reporters that meet him tend to swoon over him. The cautionary note is the swoon primary does not typically lead to nominations.
[Laughter]
MAJOR GARRETT, NATIONAL JOURNAL: Check with President Bruce Babbitt on that.
HARRIS: Bruce Babbit in 1998. John McCain in 2000. There’s almost an inverse relationship between how much reporters gush about somebody – “Oh, he’s impressive” – and their actual chances.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I remember everybody gushed over McCain.
MICHELLE COTTLE, DAILY BEAST: But then you have Obama.
HARRIS: That’s true.
COTTLE: I mean, you’ve never seen anybody swoon.
MATTHEWS: But there’s a difference between the press and the Democratic Party and the press and the Republican Party. Wouldn’t you say?
COTTLE: Well yes, obviously.
MATTHEWS: Okay.
Well yes, obviously.
Of course, if it's so obvious, why is it tolerated?
Is there really no drive whatsoever for an impartial press that treat Democrats and Republicans the same?
Yes - that's a rhetorical question.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Yes, obviously
Submitted by Dave81 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 5:35pm.
but we're not biased...
Yes, Chris
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 5:35pm.
The difference is that the Republican Party doesn't sashay around with your drool all down their pants legs.
We noticed a long time ago,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 6:09pm.
Prissy, so glad you finally caught on.
The difference....
Submitted by tvhall on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 7:29pm.
The logo:
The democrats have the whole jackall
The MSM just the ass (except Fox) .
Why is it tolerated?
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 7:39pm.
It is tolerated because "moderates" and "mainstream Republicans" don't give a fig about haphazard and deliberately misleading reporting. They are so busy not making up their mind until the last minute that they don't notice they are being led around by the nose by the MSM. So conservatives have largely given up reading the rags from the major cities (for instance, few conservatives read the NY Times for their news) and even fewer watch the major network news (same study). But the main-line reps reflect the rest of the left-leaning boobs and eat up the manure served by these idiots on the major networks.
Dennis Prager
Chris really said that?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 7:46pm.
"I remember everybody gushed over McCain." - Chris Matthews
How could you possibly observe such a thing, Chris? Your Geyser was spurting all over the set at the mention of Obama.
The MSM did like McCain . . . until he ran against Obama
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:46am.
The pre-2008 media used to praise McCain for being the kind of Republican who would reach across the aisle to work with Democrats. They celebrated his war hero/former POW status as creds that made him wiser than other Republicans, labeling him a maverick for daring to buck the GOP and work with Dems.
But in the 2008 Presidential campaign, the MSM turned on him and his VP candidate, Palin. This had less to do with McCain himself and more to do with Dems v. Reps.
Immediately after his 2008 defeat, the MSM took a liking to McCain again. Bathed in the euphoria of its role in electing the first black President, the MSM was more than gracious toward rejuvenating likable-loser McCain, and predicted that he would abandon the conservative rhetoric of the campaign trail to return to reaching across the aisle again.
Instead, they turned the attention to the new GOP star, Palin, and have never let up on their relentless attacks against her, Palin as a conservative female icon -- mother, Governor, athletic, personable, self-confident, upbeat, etc. -- has drawn an inordinate amount of hostile fire. She's more dangerous to the feminist elites.
"Well yes, obviously. Of
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 8:22pm.
"Well yes, obviously.
Of course, if it's so obvious, why is it tolerated?"
This ties in neatly with Alan Colmes comment on NewsWatch yesterday, where he expressed exasperation of the "tired old complaints" against the "liberal press" - as though we should just give it up and accept it.
I noticed the other day
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 8:26pm.
that Chrissy and Alan have something in common, besides being liberals. Both foam and start spraying spittle all over if anyone disagrees with them. Colmes does the look down his nose, while stammering and spraying, whereas, Chrissy just sprays.
And, he employs the standad dem tactic, if he can't refute an argument, or point made by a conservative, he just goes with the meme of the "tired old complaints", sometimes throwing in an "unproven tired old complaints" for good measure.
Another resemblance is that
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 8:35pm.
Another resemblance is that both are smart asses, each with their own styles. Colmes sneers and Matthews - well, he just goes off on some incoherent tirade, laughing at his own nastiness.
Just because...
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 8:49pm.
Conservatives or more precisely those who still believe in the inherent greatness of America and what a difference it can and has made in this world no longer believe in the diatribes of the NYT and almost all other media and do not read them or subscribe to them or listen to them or view them except to learn what is being touted by them as "intellectually superior" and "politically correct" in 2011.
Difference?
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:29pm.
MATTHEWS: But there’s a difference between the press and the Democratic Party and the press and the Republican Party. Wouldn’t you say?
The difference is that there is no difference between the press and the Democratic Party.
The difference is that
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:47pm.
with the Republicans it's the press vs. Republican party.
Matthews
Submitted by jessieH on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:11pm.
The treasonous media is trying to push a RINO as our next President. I have news for the so-called-media. WE will elect our next President! You mean nothing, anymore. You are so two-faced, even a blind man can see the differance. Treason is a very strong accusation. I accuse the main stream media with TREASON against the American Citizens AND the United States of America!
Ya think???????
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:33pm.
Ya think???????