Matthews: Romney's a 'Dangerous' Unthinking Puppet for Neo-Cons, Religious Right and Grover Norquist
MSNBC's Chris Matthews is clearly scared to death Barack Obama won't be reelected in November.
On Monday's Hardball, the host upped the attacks on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney ending his program with a hate-filled monologue about how the former governor of Massachusetts is a "dangerous," unthinking puppet controlled by neo-cons, the religious right, and Grover Norquist (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this Romney character. I don’t think Romney cares all that much about the presidency except that he wants it. If he weren’t running, you think he’d be watching this show or any other show on politics? Forget about it. Mitt cares about three things: his faith, his family, his business. Right now, his business is running for president. That’s why he’s interested in the presidency. It’s his business to be interested.
I guess Matthews forgot that Romney's been running for president since 2007. That's a long time for a type A, extremely successful business person to be going after something he doesn't care about.
But I digress:
MATTHEWS: Listen to him answer questions. If the interviewer doesn’t ask the most obvious thing, something that Mitt’s briefers have been over and over with him, he seems stunned. He doesn’t have an answer. Why? Because he never thought of that one. Fact is he hasn’t thought about many things outside his zone of interest which again includes his faith, his family, his business.
Really? So what was he thinking about when he was the governor of Massachusetts for four years? Or when he ran the Olympics in 2002?
Seems Romney's "zone of interest" goes well beyond faith, family, and business.
On the other hand, what would be so wrong with someone being exclusively interested in those three important things? Seems to me America would be a far better country if more people had such lofty priorities.
But I once again digress:
MATTHEWS: And this is the most dangerous thing about this guy. Since he doesn’t have a foreign policy, he buys the foreign policies of the powers that be. So he sings the song of his neo-con so-called advisers. What they really are of course are people who advocate a point of view: the need for a new war with each new Republican president. And they need someone in the White House to push it for them. They need a president who speaks their language. So, they write his speeches. They want war with Iran? They just put that in the next speech.
This, as I said, is the dangerous part. We’ve had experience with a president who came to office with an empty head on foreign policy, and bought the entire neo-con pitch hook, line, and sinker. The result was the one war in this country’s history that truly deserves a dunce cap.
It's interesting that Matthews criticized Romney's so-called advisers for wanting to start wars when Obama increased our nation's presence in Afghanistan, approved military action in Libya, has increased the number of armed drone strikes in Pakistan, has continued with CIA renditions, and has kept Guantanamo Bay open.
Such a militaristic foreign policy only seems to bother the dovish Matthews when a Republican's in the White House.
But I once again digress:
MATTHEWS: Mitt won’t say a word about taxes that Grover Norquist might disapprove. He won't approve any deal that cuts spending that Grover won’t say okay to. That doesn’t make Mitt a leader. It makes him Grover’s Rover. Grover says, “Fetch,” Mitt fetches. Grover says, “Beg,” Mitt begs.
Same with the religious right. Mitt won’t say a word the Pat Robertson-Franklin Graham crowd hasn’t approved for his political prayer book. There he was down at Liberty University getting an honorary degree. Now I didn’t know they gave honorary degrees for pandering.
The scariest thing about Mitt Romney is that he really is open for bids. He’s sold his soul to every right-wing faction that’s out there: the neo-cons on foreign policy; the religious right on social policy; Grover on the tax issue.
Why have a brain if you don’t have to think? With this crowd around, his only job is to do exactly what he’s told. He’s done just that. Listen closely. Tell me if you’ve ever, ever heard Mitt Romney say something that’s not pluperfect, right-wing talking points, the exact words the pressure groups are telling him to say.
This guy isn’t a candidate. He’s a speaker system.
"Tell me if you’ve ever, ever heard Mitt Romney say something that’s not pluperfect, right-wing talking points, the exact words the pressure groups are telling him to say."
Well, how about "gaffes" Matthews and the liberal media savaged the Republican candidate for such as: "I like to be able to fire people"; "I'm not concerned about the very poor"; offering to bet Rick Perry $10,000 during a debate; "[My wife] drives a couple of Cadillacs," and; "I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much."
Were those all "pluperfect, right-wing talking points?"
Obviously not, but Matthews and all of the Obama-loving media are afraid, and it's beginning to show. The economy isn't going to rescue their Messiah, and it's looking more and more possible Romney can win this thing.
As NewsBusters has been correctly predicting, with Romney's rise in the polls, the attacks from Obama's minions in the press are becoming more virulent and absurd.
Look a little closer, and you'll notice that Matthews was actually following the Obama campaign playbook New York magazine's John Heilemann wrote about in May:
Though the Obamans certainly hit John McCain hard four years ago—running more negative ads than any campaign in history—what they intend to do to Romney is more savage. They will pummel him for being a vulture-vampire capitalist at Bain Capital. They will pound him for being a miserable failure as the governor of Massachusetts. They will mash him for being a water-carrier for Paul Ryan’s Social Darwinist fiscal program. They will maul him for being a combination of Jerry Falwell, Joe Arpaio, and John Galt on a range of issues that strike deep chords with the Obama coalition.
It's not at all surprising to see the Hardball host carrying this ball for the man that gives him a thrill up his leg despite the organization he works for having the unmitigated audacity to call itself a "news network."
To receive my articles hot off the presses follow me on Twitter ow.ly/btalc and Facebook ow.ly/btald.
— Noel Sheppard (@NoelSheppard) June 9, 2012
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments

















Comments
Wow.....I'm speechless.
Submitted by NeoKong on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:58pm.
That was quite the rant.
Where does he come up with that rubbish...?
He makes me long for the steady and unwavering sanity and reasoned thought that Keith Olbermann was famous for.
If Obamacare goes down next week they will have to medicate Matthews before each show and I will watch every delicious second of it.
Matthews proves the point
Submitted by ohio granny on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:00pm.
Matthews constantly proves the point that the democrats have to keep people dumb and dependent to keep winning elections. You would have to be brain dead to listen to the viitriol coming out of his mouth. What a pitiful excuse for a human.
Stop spitting frogface....
Submitted by James3 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:18pm.
Wow, could Matthews hate/fear Romney any more? Back in '08, the left was more or less mocking and laughing at the McCain~Palin ticket because they really didn't feel threatened by them. They felt fairly confident that Obama was going to win. This time around is a whole different ballgame. Romney has a real chance of beating Obama and Matthews knows it, thus the angry tone of voice, the hateful diatribe, the absolute loathing in his demeanor, and the non-stop spittle flying out of his frogmouth while he's hating on Romney.....and i'm lovin' it!
He
Submitted by grammajane on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:09pm.
claims Romney doesn't watch political shows like his? Hate to tell you tingles no one else does either. Did you notice your"show" rated last on the Drudge Report. Didn't some guy last week say msdnc is not bias and only reports fair and square
Well uh Chrissy
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:10pm.
He doesn’t have an answer. Why? Because he never thought of that one.
So tell us Chrissy Matt, how do you answer idiocy? Moron, liar, and bigtime creep.
I repeat
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:13pm.
Myself when I'm distressed.
Boudin
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 9:21pm.
Don't you mean "when under stress?" Indiscipline?
No Way, NS
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 8:45am.
You're just buyest. It's from all the smoking mirrors.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
On the upside, Tingles has about five months left on earth.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:23pm.
Prepay; it makes sense.
What an amusing argument from Tingles.
Submitted by Texndoc on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:48pm.
Romney doesn't care about the Presidency except that he wants it.
Rush Limbaugh argues that the happiest day for Obama will be when he loses. He keeps his celebrity status, but he doesn't have to do the hard stuff anymore.
Wrong.
Submitted by stratosaurus on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 11:23am.
He's never done the hard stuff anyway. He's been in "coast on your fake laurels" mode for fifteen years.
When we hear Chris ranting
Submitted by DeclinesToState on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 9:16pm.
When we hear Chris ranting and edgy in need of the night's shots of Jack to calm him, it really reveals more about him than the subject he is trying to mold into some narrative he wants to project, If news were young boys, Chris is the Jerry Sandusky of journalism willing molest the subjects until they are ready for their close ups,,,
Keep it up, Chrissy!
Submitted by Morganfrost on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 9:30pm.
For all his millions, Romney couldn't possibly buy the kind of attestation of his virtue that comes from being roundly condemned by this bottom-dwelling pant load.
Romney Vs Obama in the eyes of the leg humper
Submitted by djwolf12 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 9:47pm.
Neocons, Religious Right and Grover Norquist: DANGEROUS
Socialists, Athiesm Leftists and George Soros: I GET THRILLS UP MY LEG!
Chris Matthews is like a Joe Biden joke gone awry. It's just plain sad.
Chris, here's what I was wondering...
Submitted by wahappened on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 10:16pm.
...a few weeks ago when I saw you on Jeopardy.
"Why have a brain if you don’t have to think?"
Somewhere even Keith Olbermann is...
Submitted by mac88 on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 2:15am.
Somewhere, even Keith Olbermann is watching his former newtwork in embarrasssment.
"Mitt cares about three things: his faith, his family, his business."
How horrible! How could someone with such skewed priorities possibly be this close to the Presidency!
Cwissy minus well have said, "All Mitt cares about is the future of his children, his grandchildren, and the future generations of this nation."
And we are only in the middle of June. Imagine how much more unhinged Tingles will become. By the time the election rolls around, the most radical leftist bloggers at the DailyKos will be trying to disavow themselves from this truly sick indivudual.
Chris
Submitted by panzerakc on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 3:11am.
Sit down, shut up, and wipe that spit off your face.
Wow
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 3:28am.
It's like a MAD LIB - I just kept thinking O fit this template, not Romney.
Ronald Reagan
Chris Matthews?
Submitted by Arlen Cooper on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 5:01am.
How does an imbecil like Matthews garner enough viewers to benefit his sponsers? I would not even know of Matthews or his lunacy, if not for Newsbuters. If I ever see the show I will boycott his sponsers.
People who live in glass houses...
Submitted by dimar on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 7:37am.
I don't believe I have ever heard Chris speak with a real knowledge of his subject. According to him his research is dependent on the NY Times and other really truthful and well researched articles. But I do want to thank him for bringing to light Lyndon Johnson forcing our participation into the Viet Nam war with the untrue story of the attack on the US in the Gulf of Tonkin (spelling?) by saying, "The result was the one war in this country’s history that truly deserves a dunce cap". Now please, Chris stop ridiculing others when you have not had an original idea in your lifetime, and thinking is totally beyond your scope of expertise...
History
Submitted by stratosaurus on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 6:55pm.
Chrissie has no grasp of history as it really happened. He seems to forget that the demoncraps were in charge of both troughs of the congress-sty when the escalations started in the early 60s. He also seems to have overlooked the fact that JFK got the CIA directly involved in the assassination of a legally-elected president of Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, in '63. I think JFK was pissed about not being able to pull a 007 against Castro in '61 and '62.
Seems that CM forgets that demoncraps get us involved in wars (Wilson, FDR, JFK/LBJ) then decided that they don't really want to fight them. I notice that CM did, at least, do something to demonstrate an inkling that he puts the welfare of the society above personal welfare -- he DID serve in the Peace Corps from '68-70 in Africa. I believe that was merely a ploy to avoid serving in the military at a time when casualties were running 2,000+ per month.
CM is a bully, with a bully pulpit, and like all bullies, he is, at heart, a coward. He slings his outrageous ideas because he knows that no one will be able to offer a dissenting opinion. I'm sure that if someone were to confront him on the street, he'd yell for a police officer and run away. I'd like to have ten minutes alone with him for a discussion sometime.....
Your grasp of history
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 10:32pm.
drives the conclusions Wilson got us involved in World War I--without any assistance from the Germans and the Zimmerman telegram--and that twenty years later FDR should have what?...ignored the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler's ensuing declaration of war? What books are you reading? And surely your accusation that neither favored the vigorous prosecution of either of those conflicts is simply a flippant aside to see if we're paying attention, right? Because it flies in the face of the historical record.
True, there was indeed an escalation of our intervention in southeast Asia during the early 60's, expanding the US role in Vietnam which had begun under Truman and was continued by Eisenhower. But the implication that JFK got the CIA directly involved in the assassination of the legally-elected Diem is a patent distortion of reality. His election was "legal" only if one includes massive voting fraud within the definition of electoral propriety. Furthermore, the linking of JFK with the murders of Diem and his brother was long ago proved to be the result of a malicious fraud perpetrated by Chuck Colson who literally cut and pasted and produced a completely fake high-level cable to discredit Kennedy.
But then fables such as the Colson/JFK destructive smear are the inevitable consequence of relying upon historical 'evidence' fabricated by crooks.
Jer
Seems your interpretation of history always tends to favor ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 11:50pm.
the left side of the political spectrum.
How odd.
MD
You're invited to correct any factual errors,
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 11:56pm.
unwarranted assertions, or unsupportable opinion.
Jer
You have GOT to be joking, Jer. You're a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 12:32am.
lefty who a few days ago was crowing about conservatives in the KKK.
You may be a history buff; but you are a lefty history buff - why bother trying to show you the error of your ways?
You definitely remind me of the Black Knight in Monte Python's treatise on the Holy Grail - in other words, it doesn't matter what actually happened; you are bound and determined, and will, push your views as being the exact explanation of who, what, where, when, why, and how, relative history.
MD
Please don't distort my words, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 1:10am.
This is what I stated over a year ago, and it still reflects my views:
"....There is no denying the virtually exclusive relationship between the KKK and the Democratic party which endured for generations in the South. But the ideological contours of that Democratic party bear little resemblance to those of the modern and far more "liberal" party of the past half-century. Examine the platform of the Knights (which is just another iteration of the contemporary Klan). Out of about fifty principle statements, there are only two or three which could be readily and reasonably associated with progressive philosophy.
The present-day Klan is fractured, effete and generally despised. I am sure among its dwindling ranks are Democrats, Republicans, misguided zealots, racists, nihilists, kooks, and a crazy quilt of assorted political affiliations and beliefs. Broad and gratuitous generalizations designed to smear either major party with KKK slime are inflammatory and unfair."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/06/07/stephanopoulos-combat...
And a "few days ago" I explicitly reaffirmed the Democratic roots of the Klan and the party's historical dominance in the composition of Klan membership. I also specifically disavowed the notion that the kooks in the Klan were mainstream conservatives. What I did assert was an opinion that the current platforms and statements of principles of present-day Klan affiliated organizations would coincide in more respects with right-wing and conservative ideology than they would with left/liberal philosophy. And I stand by that opinion. But, again, you and anyone else are certainly entitled to disagree with and challenge that view.
Jer
More, Jer, of your slipping, sliding, gliding and ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 2:55am.
bull roar.
Read your words again ---
"What I did assert was an opinion that the current platforms and statements of principles of present-day Klan affiliated organizations would coincide in more respects with right-wing and conservative ideology than they would with left/liberal philosophy."
--- and tell me how it is that I "distorted" them.
You were just looking for some words for your subject line to make your adversary look as though he were being untruthful.
Fail.
Your own words shoot you down.
MD
MD...a lesson in critical thought:
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 5:21am.
Suppose I were a dedicated, traditional big-spending/big-government/wealth distributionist liberal, the adherence to such philosophy having been made abundantly clear during the course of my posting literally hundreds of comments at NewsBusters.
Would you not then agree that my ideology would be more aligned with the principles typically associated with communism rather than with free market capitalism?--at least where the options are limited to those two competing politico/socioeconomic models: communism and capitalism?
If so, and you subsequently stated as much--in the identical context of my preceding suppositions--and posted it on a relevant thread, would you, by doing so, have in fact labeled me a "communist" or a member of the "Communist Party"?
Not in my book. Nor in the book of logic and common sense.
Jer
You are talented, Jer, when it comes to ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 9:05am.
sliding off subject, deflecting, and flat out talking bullshit that comes nowhere near addressing the particular subject at hand when you want to fade the heat.
Critical thought; logic; common sense?
You are a lefty, for God's sake - who supports and defends Obama and the Democratic Party - both of which have demonstrated time and again to be as comfortable with critical thought, logic, and common sense, as a vampire is with a stake poised above his heart.
I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent; but your latest foray into the metaphysics related to the divergent philosophies expressed by the socio/economic models of communism and capitalism make about as much sense in this forum as does a haberdasher knitting wrestling jackets for fleas.
MD
Hmm..another roundabout way of declining to answer the question.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 2:00am.
I'm shocked.
Jer
And another post that does nothing but ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 3:20am.
deflect.
I'm not surprised.
In the least.
MD
Oh yeah?
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 3:23am.
Jer
Sometimes Jer, you make me ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 4:01am.
LMAO.
MD
I see "Little Christie" is
Submitted by John21 on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 8:19am.
I see "Little Christie" is off his meds again.
I think he actually believes that he has some credibility left, delusions are like that. "Tingles" you need to get some professional help, you are actually beginning to believe the sick things that you say.
The "Moochlie" will never let you get anywhere near Barrack, get use to it.
Doesn't Chrissie get tired
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 8:56am.
from running around with his skirt up over his head all the time?
As I read
Submitted by nolefan2 on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 9:40am.
the article, I substituted Obama for Romney and George Soros for Grover Nordquist. Obama: A "Dangerous" Puppet for Progressives, Radical Left Wing, and George Soros." Now it makes sense.
Chris Mattresspad...
Submitted by stratosaurus on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 11:45am.
I wonder how long it's going to take PMSLSD execs to realize that Chrissie is only slightly more unhinged that Keef Overdosed. I'm sure his ratings are in the tank, since his rants haven't made much sense since Odildo the Mad originally infested the white outhouse.
Sometime soon, the walking sphincter with teeth that is the always-lovely but terminally-vague Chrissie will experience one of several options.
1) PMSLSD realizes that CM is a waste of air-time, and replaces him with a more reasonable "correspondent" for whom they can sell commercial time more profitably.
2) He will experience an cerebral melt-down on live TV, and be sent off to a home for the partly cloudy, preferably in the Northwest Territories of Canada, where he will live out the rest of his pitiful existence on a diet of moose-based Salisbury steak, oatmeal, and Tim Horton's doughnuts.
3) He'll be abducted by a passing UFO, and will join Jimmy Hoffa as one of many lab rats for the greys.
4) He will be one of thousands of the more advanced cases of libturdism placed in protective custody when the CDC and NIH release the studies proving the long-held supposition that libturdism is a mental disease. He'll be in fine company, though, since comrades piglosky, reidovic, wateronthebrain, fineslime, and nostriligus will be with him, not to mention Odildo the Mad.