According to MSNBC host Chris Matthews, 2008 Republican candidate Mike Huckabee has been given "the biggest free ride from the liberal media that I have ever seen in my life." Appearing on Monday's edition of "Morning Joe," the "Hardball" anchor speculated that left-wingers would enjoy seeing the GOP "chaos" that a Huckabee victory in Iowa would produce and, as a result, are ignoring the Republican's "crazy" views on gun control. Matthews derided as "black helicopter stuff," the former Arkansas governor's assertion that owning a gun gives Americans the ability to fight tyranny. "It sounds crazy," he told "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough.
It's interesting to note that it wasn't Huckabee's position on taxes or immigration, which have been attacked as liberal by other conservatives, that Matthews objected to. The "Hardball" host lamented that a "sophisticated" media is allowing the '08 contender's position on guns to fly "under the radar." When Scarborough protested that conservatives view gun rights as meaning more just hunting, Matthews dismissively replied, "You really believe the only thing protecting you from the federal government coming into your neighborhood with helicopters and seizing you is your guns?" He then condescendingly claimed that the Founding Fathers designed the Second Amendment only for fighting the British and added, "I hate to tell you that the United States government is our government now."
Also during the segment, Scarborough mentioned GOP contender Fred Thompson and his recent appearance on Fox News. The ex-senator scolded FNC for constantly criticizing him. Scarborough marveled, "Attacking Fox in a Republican primary! It's like going to a Olbermann show and attacking Olbermann if you're a Democrat!" So, in the space of one segment, it appears as though Matthews and Scarborough admitted the existence of a liberal media and also the friendly reception that Democrats receive from Keith Olbermann.
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:41am on November 26, follows:
WILLIE GEIST: Hey, Chris. It's Willie. We were watching Fox News yesterday and Fred Thompson goes in, basically talking to his base on Fox News's air. I want to show you this clip and get your reaction to it.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Okay. All right.
["Fox News Sunday" clip]
FORMER SENATOR FRED THOMPSON: This is been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth. And I saw the promo for this bill and I think it was kind of-- for this show, and it was kind of featuring the New Hampshire poll. Let's put things in context a little built to start with.
CHRIS WALLACE: I don't -- I mean -- I don't know that Fox has been going after you. And I certainly don't think Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes --
THOMPSON: From, from, from day one, they said I got in too late. I couldn't do it.
WALLACE: A lot of people besides Fox have said that.
[Clip ends]
GEIST: Chris, doesn't look like a smart play from where we're sitting. What's your reaction?
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Attacking Fox in a Republican primary! It's like going to a Olbermann show and attacking Olbermann if you're a Democrat!
MATTHEWS: It's certainly, it's certainly a new message for the world that Fox is isn't pro-Republican enough. Well, I don't know. It seems to me that Fred is an honest guy and he's in the media. And he knows that we're all human beings and that there are all kinds of bias and games going on. Is he accusing Fox of backing Rudy? Is that what he's saying? What is the real story here? What are they up to?
SCARBOROUGH: He's just saying that they're overly negative. And I think that's the underlying current. Maybe taking it from Judith Regan's lawsuit and people have accused Hannity of being in Giuliani's back pocket. I think that's the underlying current here--
MATTHEWS: Yeah. I like that. I like the way you talk. Let's talk dirty here. Let's talk about the way that people are really talking which is Fred Thompson is not doing well in this campaign. He's tired of picking up the newspaper and reading that he's slow and tired an lazy and, you know, he belongs in a La-Z-Boy recliner and-- you know-- [Laughs]
Mika Brzezinski: He just can't seem to pull himself out of that type of coverage. I mean, every time he goes on, it doesn't get better. And I'm not sure why and I'm not sure if it's fair.
MATTHEWS: Yeah, well maybe-- I always thought, you know, he'd make a perfect running mate for Rudy. So, I don't know how this thing is going to end up. I mean, Rudy desperately, if he pulls this thing off, is desperately going to need a southern boy from the Bible Belt, somebody that can do what he can't do, which is go around the south and in that part of the country that's very religious and be the straight arrow, but--
SCARBOROUGH: What about Huckabee, who Novak just goes after?
MATTHEWS: I think Huckabee has got the biggest free ride from the liberal media that I have ever seen in my life. I mean, you want to get into conspiracy theories. I mean, why is everybody who is liberal pushing Huckabee? Give me a break.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, why is everybody who is liberal pushing-
MATTHEWS: Because it creates complete chaos in the Republican Party. If he wins in Iowa, what does that tell you about anything? He's not going to win the nomination. It's going to tell you that people have rejected Romney and selected some guy who's a country boy, who's the purest of the pure seed, the absolute Second Amendment guy. I mean, have you heard what he says about the Second Amendment? He doesn't say keep a gun so you can be a sportsman. He doesn't say keep a gun to protect yourself. He doesn't say keep a gun to protect yourself. He says you need guns to protect you from your government. If you don't have a gun, then all your other rights are no longer inalienable. They can be taken from you at a moment, so you need to have guns to fight tyranny. This is the black helicopter stuff and he's selling that out there and it's under the radar. And the media is sophisticated --
SCARBOROUGH: Hell, Chris that's not under the radar. I haven't heard a southern conservative not say that over the past 20, 30 years.
MATTHEWS: It's-- But-- I'm sorry, it sounds crazy. It makes -- You really believe the only thing protecting you from the federal government coming into your neighborhood with helicopters and seizing you is your guns?
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Chris, what conservatives would tell you is that the Second Amendment wasn't drafted for duck hunting and that's the point that people like Mike Huckabee have always said.
MATTHEWS: Yeah, it was drafted because we were fighting the British. I hate to tell you, that the United States government is our government now. Conditions have changed.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yeah, it was drafted
November 26, 2007 - 18:53 ET by motherbeltYeah, it was drafted because we were fighting the British. I hate to
tell you, that the United States government is our government now.
Conditions have changed.
Ah, yes, the old "living document" argument.
Well you know Chris, you don't like it when someone else says, regarding privacy rights....Yeah, it was drafted because we were very safe and secure. Well, I hate to tell you, but there are terrorists out there who want to kill us all. Conditions have changed.
So how's that argument working for you now?
So, Chris, does freedom of
November 26, 2007 - 19:00 ET by Chris NormanSo, Chris, does freedom of speech only apply when criticizing King George and the British?
Um...Chris...
November 26, 2007 - 19:01 ET by sarcasmoWhen the 2nd (which was originally the 4th, but people at the time never imagined a congress with the hubris needed to raise its own pay without a public vote on the issue!) was drafted, the Brits were defeated & kicked-out. Chris needs to interview Aaron Zellman instead of just inside-the-beltway NRA-types, IMO, to broaden his perspective on this issue. Some of us strongly-believe inadequate respect for the Second Amendment was in part responsible for 9/11, and unlike other claims, I can back this one up if you want.
Or Chris, if you want to keep prevaricating, try the group-rights vs individual rights angle. That one works on anyone who hasn't been paying attention for the past decade or so, despite the inconvenient location of the Second in the individual-rights neighborhood of the Bill of Rights.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Chris Matthews is
November 26, 2007 - 19:08 ET by DaBirdChris Matthews is brilliant.....................until he opens his mouth, then he shows us he is the exact opposite if brilliant.
delete double
November 26, 2007 - 23:28 ET by motherbeltdelete double
There's a proverb: It is
November 26, 2007 - 22:48 ET by motherbeltThere's a proverb: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
motherbelt, You took the
November 27, 2007 - 09:23 ET by msh1973motherbelt,
You took the words right out of my mouth. Chris Matthews is a complete moron and he proves it every time he opens his mouth.
He just doesn't get it
November 26, 2007 - 19:46 ET by celator"He then condescendingly claimed that the Founding Fathers designed the Second Amendment only for fighting the British."
Matthews is completely misguided on the 2d Amendment. The first four Amendments were written to specifically protect us from the government's intrusion, harrassment, and gave THE PEOPLE the absolute right to protect themselves against their government, should that government turn against them. That's elementary, and if Matthews doesn't get that, he is simply not well informed.
Here are the first four Amendments, to remind us of what they actually say.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to
be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Matthews is just wrong.
November 26, 2007 - 20:08 ET by Advocate123Gun rights
serves two major purposes: First, it allows individuals to protect
themselves when the Government is unable to protect them; second, it
allows individuals to protect themselves from the Government when it
unjustly attacks them. The truth is that liberty cannot thrive in a
country where its citizens are prohibited from protecting themselves.
Preventing people from owning guns is nothing more than forced
helplessness.
While there are those who assert that Governments
would never attack its own citizens, that argument can be quickly
dispelled by looking at other parts of the world where guns have been
banned. The world’s greatest atrocities over the last century were all
committed by armed governments or mobs against unarmed populations.
Conversely, there has not been a single case of genocide in the last
century against an armed citizenry.
After World War I, the Weimar
Republic in Germany and other governments in Europe disarmed their
populations to reduce crime. Then when Hitler took to power, Jews could
not own guns. This made it very easy for the Nazis to pull Jews from
their homes without a fight. This would have been impossible, however,
if Nazis knew its citizens had the means to protect themselves; it
would have been too costly to round up citizens to death camps while
fighting a war on both fronts. In fact, there was a Warsaw Ghetto
uprising were a Jewish Combat Organization obtained arms. They were
able to hold off the Nazis for a month and none of them ever saw a
death camp. Just imagine if all the citizens had the means to fight
back.
In
the 1970s, the Communist Government in Cambodia killed two million
people, close to thirty percent of its entire population in four years.
Shortly after the government came to power, it told its citizens that
they no longer needed their guns because the Government would protect
them. So, they went to the citizen’s homes and seized all their
weapons. It did not take long for there to be massacres once the
Government knew its citizenry could not defend itself.
In
Africa, unimaginable atrocities took place in Rwanda by the Hutu
against the unarmed Tutsi. The same types of atrocities take place
today by the Sudanese government against a defenseless minority. I
doubt these oppressed minorities believe only governments should bare
arms.
Devil's Advocate
Editorialist
Copious Dissent - Your Daily Dose of Liberty
http://copiousdissen...
"He then condescendingly
November 26, 2007 - 21:18 ET by ckc1227"He then condescendingly claimed that the Founding Fathers designed the Second Amendment only for fighting the British"
Then why didn't they put that in there?
I think it's pretty silly to argue that the founding fathers didn't believe in gun ownership at a time when owning one was paramount to their survival.
C'mon and take a free ride
November 26, 2007 - 21:25 ET by nkviking75MATTHEWS: I think Huckabee has got the biggest free ride from the liberal media that I have ever seen in my life.
Hey, Chris, y'spose that has anything to do with the media annointing McCain, Guiliani, and Romney as the "top tier" (later joined for a time by Thompson, who seems to be slipping back)? If Huckabee got a "free ride", it's because the MSM wrote him off from the beginning.
With Huckabee's rising poll numbers combined with the fact that he's an evangelical Christian (a *gasp* Baptist minister!), expect a lot more arrows in his direction.
As I recall, when Pat Robertson made his run for the White House in '88, there was a lot of debate about the appropriateness of an ordained minister holding the highest office in the land. I expect a comment from the left saying Huckabee is disqualified because he'd be mixing church and state.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Good Evening NK
November 26, 2007 - 21:39 ET by BlondeI heard this segment this morning (have been listening to MSNBC as I absolutely can no longer stand the treacly F & F in the a.m.). Joe actually has some pretty good guests....and unlike Fox, the interviews last 5 to 10 minutes and actually cover substantive topics.
It is really rather amusing....Joe pretending to be conservative, interviewing Chris Matthews. Chris pretending to be an objective political analyst, but of course the bias just can't be suppressed. I actually was laughing at some of the stuff Chris was spewing this morning.
Seriously, check the show out. If you understand where they're coming from, it's rather humorous. Plus, every once in a while they have a really great conservative on. Oh, and Joe can't stand "Bubbles", and gets in a really good put down at least once a half hour.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Fox and Friends silliness
November 26, 2007 - 21:49 ET by nkviking75I know what you mean about F&F. I like Fox, but some of their programming does nothing to help them be taken seriously. F&F may be the worst offender. As much as I enjoy snark, Shep Smith can be WAAAY over the top. Cavuto's relentless obsession with Victoria's Secret and the like seems adolescent. There are other examples, but you get my drift. I don't think they need to be pompous and hyperserious. That's why God gave us PBS. I just think they need to rein it in a bit.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
NK
November 26, 2007 - 23:07 ET by BlondeJust check out Morning Joe, knowing it is a lib gabfest. I am really kind of enjoying it. Plus, it's fun visiting this site later in the day just knowing some liberal outrage will be posted here. Kind of an "anticipation" thing.
Of course, after the Iowa caucuses & the New Hampshire primary, CSPAN will cook with gas until the general election. Buh-bye Fox & Friends.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Let's see, the
November 26, 2007 - 23:02 ET by MikeBLet's see, the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, and the Constitution was ratified in 1787. So, Chrissy, why was the second amendment written again? It couldn't have been because we were fighting the British, as they had already lost the war 4 years earlier. What a tool.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Wikipedia?
November 26, 2007 - 23:31 ET by Dave PierreWikipedia? Ugh.
NB, 2/5/07: "'Lib-pedia'? Anti-Conservative Bias Rampant At Wikipedia"
Matthews and the vast majority of all Liberals
November 27, 2007 - 11:14 ET by c5thenDo not know history and constantly inccorectly attribute their ideals and beliefs to historical figures. If you know anything about the history of England then you know that the 2nd amendment is there to re-afirm the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms to prevent an unpopular governmental coup an/or power grab.
Chris, the Constitution was witten after we had won against Brittian, the biggest and best military in history at the time, and the Bill of Rights was written a few years after that.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com