Appearing on Thursday's 1pm hour of MSNBC News Live, "Hardball" host Chris Matthews couldn't resist taking a few swipes at Rush Limbaugh. After anchor Peter Alexander played a clip of the conservative talk show host discussing the New York Times story on Senator John McCain, Matthews irritably claimed, "Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant here. Irrelevant. He doesn't know anything more than what he read in the New York Times."
The radio clip, which was from Thursday's edition of Limbaugh's program, featured the host urging the GOP presidential candidate to learn a lesson from the front-page New York Times story speculating about a improper relationship with a D.C. lobbyist. Matthews's apparent annoyance at Limbaugh might have something to do with being mentioned in the clip. At one point during the monologue, Limbaugh asserted, "[McCain] has thought Chris Matthews and these other people in the drive-by media are his friends. They aren't."
The question must be asked, however, if Limbaugh is "irrelevant," why has much of the media spent the last few weeks focusing on whether or not the talk show giant's opposition could derail McCain's campaign?
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 1:06pm on February 21, follows:
PETER ALEXANDER: Just a short time ago, with all those ifs understood, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh weighed in on this, as we noted on the national radio program. Let's take a listen, though to what he just said.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: I refuse to get mad when something I have predicted is going to happen, happens. I refuse to get mad when something I know is true is true. It's a total waste of energy. The important question for John McCain today is, is he going to learn the right lesson from this? And what is the lesson? The lesson is, liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them. You cannot reach across the aisle. You cannot welcome their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect eternal love from them. You are a Republican. Whether you're a conservative Republican or not, you are a Republican. And at some point, the people you cozy up to, either to do legislation or to get cozy media stories, are going to turn on you. They are snakes. And if the right lesson is not learned from this, then it will have proved to be of no value. It's a great opportunity here for Senator McCain to learn the right lesson. Understand who his friends are and who his enemies are. And he's had that backwards for way too long. He has thought the New York Times is his friend. He has thought Chris Matthews and these other people in the drive-by media are his friends. They aren't. That's the lesson, today. And if you want to get mad, you know, Senator McCain says that he's disappointed here in the New York Times. Of course. I'm sure he's disappointed. The question is, is he surprised?
ALEXANDER: Well, that was Rush Limbaugh on the Rush Limbaugh show, Chris, as you just heard him going off for nearly two minutes, which he'll do for much of the day.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Right. Well, going off is correct. It's a good phrase. You've captured him. [Laughs]
ALEXANDER: But I guess the question is, for the conservatives, is it potentially an asset for John McCain? If it proves to be all the ifs and there are no facts to this, other than this is the impression of his staff members, is this perhaps an asset to John McCain, who is trying to invite in the conservatives to his, what is viewed as a much more moderate campaign?
MATTHEWS: I suppose. But, you know, the big story here is the journalism involved and whether this is a true story or not. And when Bill Keller of the New York Times says the story speaks for itself, well, if that's the case, the story here is that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist and did favors her. And that is a problem for him if that's true. If it's not true, it's not a problem for him. It's a problem for the New York Times. Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant here. Irrelevant. He doesn't know anything more than what he read in the New York Times. [Laughs] Ironically.
Audio available here (240 kB | 1:09)
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
MSNBC's risk
February 21, 2008 - 16:16 ET by allanfMATTHEWS: He doesn't know anything more than what he read in the New York Times. [Laughs] Ironically.
.. and neither does Matthews. Yet more people listen to and respect Limbaugh than Mathhews. Limbaugh pointed out MSNBC was taking a great risk running the clip. Their few viewers could desert them for Limbaugh.
Don't get your panties all tied up Chris!
February 21, 2008 - 16:18 ET by RickTaLifelol, Matthews is trying to build his testosterone back up after getting bitch-slapped by Olberman the other night. :-P
Irrelevant?
February 21, 2008 - 16:18 ET by cvgbuckeyeIRRELEVANT????? When you look up the word IRRELEVANT in the dictionary, there is a picture, right there, of Chris Matthews and Olbermann bent over with their pants down with a big MSNBC stamped on their butts.
I looked it up
February 21, 2008 - 16:34 ET by harqmanin the dictionary. You can only actually see one of the msnbc's one one butt. The other is blocked by the other. perhaps he is trying to rub it off the other butt.
I'll know when I read it in the NYTs.
That's all I know
On any given day Mathews has
February 21, 2008 - 16:34 ET by Free ThinkerOn any given day Mathews has an audience of somewhere around 350,000 people. On any give day Rush Limbaugh has an audience of somewhere around 4,000,000 people. Who appears to be irrelevant?
EL RUSHBO...
February 21, 2008 - 20:22 ET by danybhoyI think your shortchanging El-Rushbo, I believe his audience is between 14million-20million. But hey, if Mathews does'nt know the difference between having thousands of people tuning in compaired to millions of people. Like W said, "It's fuzzy math".
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Don't get your panties all tied up Chris!
February 21, 2008 - 16:18 ET by RickTaLifelol, Matthews is trying to build his testosterone back up after getting bitch-slapped by Olberman the other night. :-P
Matthews and Olbie
February 21, 2008 - 16:18 ET by LionKingTheir only understanding of irrelevance is from their personal and professional experiences.
For me it is irrelevant
February 21, 2008 - 16:33 ET by bigtimerFor me it is irrelevant what Matthews thinks anyway...
It would do McCain other RINO's to do well to listen to the words of wisdom that Rush spoke in his monologue....
...but they won't.
As an aside,I posted about this on the OT while it was going on, Rush on the air, and msnbc with Mattews....great fun at the time, I got a huge laugh out of all of it.
Hot Air Content
February 21, 2008 - 16:38 ET by RexRuthlessRush has his content of hot air, but his balloon rarely leaves the ground, while Chris Matthews', for the last few years, has yet to touch ground.
"Irrelevant"? How many viewers does Matthews have versus the listeners to Rush?
Rex
Matthews
February 21, 2008 - 16:40 ET by cvgbuckeyeMathews reminds me a lot of that recent movie preview that is running on TV, something about kicking the bucket, where Jack Nicholsen looks at that guy and says "John (or somebody) nobody really cares what you think" and then walks away from him.
ROFL! Yeah, who gave Rush
February 21, 2008 - 16:38 ET by motherbeltROFL! Yeah, who gave Rush Limbaugh the right to comment on things that he doesn't know anything more than what he read in the New York Times!
Would that be the same Chris Matthews that was on MSNBC this AM talking about the same subject with Pat Buchanan? And then later on the Live News show! I guess it's the exclusive purview of "professional journalists" to comment about that which they know nothing about, is that it? And Chris had a real good morning doing exactly that today!
MB,That was my take.
February 21, 2008 - 19:31 ET by Ryan Mc.MB,
That was my take. Brilliant post! Chris criticizes Rush then does the exact same thing he criticized Rush for doing. I love the comment Chrissy makes about how if its true its trouble for McCain, but if not its trouble for the NYTs. Wow!!! Brilliant analysis. You're right Chris, Rush Limbaugh should just stay home. He couldn't state the obvious quite like that. (Notice the awkward laughing after the shots at Rush. I think he knew he was going too far and laughed out of embarrassment.)
The story wasn't about the truth of an affair or not, it was that the NYTs put a gossip column story out as hard news, with no named sources or any firsthand knowledge. These "sources" just "thought" there was an affair. So these people they quote didn't even know for sure. "NYT: all the gossip that's fit to print."
Chrissy is a hater
February 21, 2008 - 16:48 ET by OldSailor88January Ratings for Hardball..
#26 of all cable news programs with a 0.5 share 422,000 viewers
Even Olberman has more than that.
Rush Limbaugh ratings for January
13.5 million listeners per week average.
Hmmmm........Who's the irrelevant one, Chris?
Stultus est sicut stultus facit
Old sailor I might have
February 21, 2008 - 16:53 ET by USA4freedomOld sailor
I might have old stats but this is what I found.
Chrissie, Chrissie, Chrissie,
You have 314,000
He has 20 some million.
That means that in comparison Chrissie, every one in Bakersfield Ca. is listing to you, that’s Bakersfield...
While “every one” in NYC.. LA..Chicago..Houston..Phoenix, and Philadelphia is listing to Rush. Chrissie, that is every single person in the 6 biggest cities in the country.
So if Rush is irrelevant what in the hell does that make you..
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party,the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
If Mathews wife spent 10
February 21, 2008 - 16:59 ET by circusstormIf Mathews wife spent 10 minutes with Rush she would start throwing stones at Chris... Especially after the thumping Olberman dished up for him...
Just wondering...
February 21, 2008 - 17:00 ET by HelenSI never watch Chris Matthews or read the New York Times but at several times during Clinton's time in office, didn't he (Clinton) respond to questions from the press with the disclaimer "I don't know, I just read it in the paper myself..." or some variation of that?
If a person is irrelevant because they only quote the newspapers, doesn't that mean that Clinton was irrelevant?
But maybe that was said of Bill and I missed it...
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Helen, what do you mean you
February 21, 2008 - 17:39 ET by motherbeltHelen, what do you mean you never watch Chris Matthews? You don't know what you're missing!! I'm not talking info, I'm talking pure entertainment value! Just watching him unravel day by day is hilarious. He is so far past being able to hide his feelings and maintain any semblance of impartiality that it's hilarious! The other night, he was concerned that Hillary, not Obama, would get a positive headline, and you could actually hear the panic in his voice!
Tune in, sometime, just for a good laugh!
What I find very interesting
February 21, 2008 - 17:16 ET by FastEdis located in the last para - "But, you know, the big story here is the journalism involved and whether this is a true story or not." and what follows. The assumption, by chrissy, is that the story is ture, on its face, and is a problem for McCain. What he is missing, is the point that Rush was letting McCain know that the "friends" in the media are all fair weather, and now those "firends" are facing a storm, they turn on him, and he should know that this is just the beginnning. He should also know that by calling himself a conservative he paints a target on himself that the media can't but help themselves to attack. Think Pavlov - say conservative, media attacks.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
If Chris Matthews considers
February 21, 2008 - 17:35 ET by futbolisgreat1If Chris Matthews considers Rush Limbaugh to be irrelevant, why did he respond to the question about Rush Limbaugh? why didn't he attack his company for talking about Rush Limbaugh? If Rush Limbaugh is so irrelevant, why is MSNBC and the rest of the media freaks all wondering whether or not Rush is going to endorse John McCain? Why do they all say that if Rush and Hannity don't get behind McCain, McCain has no chance at winning?
Chris Matthews is an angry old man. he just didn't like the fact that Rush Limbaugh made him part of the Liberal media elites that have turned on McCain. Matthews didn't like the fact that what Rush Limbaugh said is the TRUTH!
Christ Matthews is a moron who doesn't know his right hand from his left hand. His interviews in Hardball are a joke, he treats Republicans and Conservatives that he disagrees with, who are stupid enough to go on his show, with contempt. he asks them the super tough questions, while he will throw softball questions and get a hard on when interviewing Liberals and Democrats. He has kissed the floor that Clinton has walked on for over a decade, he gets a hard on listening to the pathetic speeches of Barack Obama, what do you expect from this imbecile?
yeah, he was tought with one of Barack Obama's supporters in Texas, but don't forget, this is the same Chris Matthews that admits to getting a tingling feeling up his leg when he listens to Obama's speeches.
give me a break....the man and the network he works for are a pathetic joke. They would be completely irrelevant if it wasn't for the fact that crazed out left wingers adore them and worship them.
This is a laugh.
February 21, 2008 - 17:36 ET by Clear thinkerThis is a laugh. Chrissy is the irrelevant one!
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Samuel Adams
I don’t understand.If
February 21, 2008 - 17:42 ET by pocomocoI don’t understand.
If Rush is so irrelevant, why the hell do they keep talking about him?
The MSM have him stuck in their craw, and try as they might they can’t spit him out and they’re too scared to swallow.
Chrissy
February 21, 2008 - 19:35 ET by PommeWishes he could quit Rush.
So, how many times over
February 21, 2008 - 17:47 ET by R D HelmSo, how many times over could Rush actually buy Chris Matthews before it would even begin to change the numbers in Rush's bank accounts?
Chris is a minnow. Rush is the Ocean Chris swims in.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
People like Chrissy get so
February 21, 2008 - 18:07 ET by mattmPeople like Chrissy get so insanely angry when Rush points out the truth about them (enemies, snakes in the grass, faux journalists, etc) that they forget themselves and fly into an inane rant that actually proves Rush has it right about them!
BTW - How does Chrissy know whether or not the NYT is Rush's only source on this? The one who knows nothing is Matthews, and he has demonstrated perfectly why "drive-by media" is an apt title.
Irrelevant?
February 21, 2008 - 18:21 ET by sentforth5Irrelevant people are never spoken of. The constant attention the drive-bys give Rush establish his relevance.
Dinosaurs? Job Ch. 40
Immediately upon
February 21, 2008 - 18:57 ET by Jack BauerExcuse me.. but Matthews is the "man" who gets a tingle running up his leg (presumably to his groinal area and beyond) everytime he hears Obama speak?
JB
February 21, 2008 - 19:54 ET by BarkerAnd Rush Limbaugh must cause a sharp pain inside Matthews' head.
Ever seen a bird fly into a window? Well, that bird is Chris Matthews.
So, Matthews picks up the
February 21, 2008 - 19:12 ET by Chris NormanSo, Matthews picks up the silly media buzz story of a few weeks that Rush was "irrelevant" and decides to keep running with it. Unfortunately (for him), in his arrogance, he doesn't realize how ironic it sounds coming from his low rated mouth.
There’s irrelevance;
February 21, 2008 - 19:28 ET by PlaceboThere’s irrelevance; then there is Chris Matthews!
When one Presidential
February 21, 2008 - 19:48 ET by fitzfongWhen one Presidential campaign (the Clinton Campaign, of course), can dictate the content of your virtually unwatched program by forcing you to apologize live on-air, you are irrelevant.
Watch Mathews? Sorry I just can't do it!
February 21, 2008 - 20:44 ET by IamTinmanI've tried, but any more than 2 or 3 minutes and I have to flip the channel. Luckily it's right next to FOX.
Mathews reminds me of those little terriers that keep yapping around your ankles. You occasionally look down to make sure he's not peeing on your leg, the rest of the time you ignore him!
NYT Irrelevant
February 21, 2008 - 23:07 ET by m1xramI was hoping that some day we could start aplying that idea to the NYT. Why focus on the NYT when they are irrelevant? Their articles are tabloid like. I guess you could use them as a reference for what didn't happen.
m1xram