Chris Matthews: Campaign Donors 'Unsavory', Romney's are 'Rich People' and 'Loaded'

Photo of Warner Todd Huston.

Chris Matthews attacked campaign fund donations to Mitt Romney last night on Hardball, calling the entire system of political fund raising "unsavory" along with claiming that Romney's contributors in particular are all "rich people" and people who are "loaded". In fact, he didn't seem to understand at all why anyone would even donate to a Romney campaign because he thinks everyone sees him as a "stranger".

In a report that was supposed to be about this first round of fund raising of all the candidates, Matthews found no time in a ten minute segment to even mention the many millions of dollars raised by Democrats, focusing almost entirely on his distrust of Romney, even though Romney raised far less than Clinton.

Matthews seemed to be claiming that Romney was doing something nefarious by raising the cash he raised. He also seemed to be saying that rich people were out of order to donate to what ever candidate they wanted to support solely on the basis that they were, indeed, rich. I guess in Matthews' world, rich people should not be allowed to have a right to a political candidate?

At around 7 minutes into the segment Matthews and his small panel consisting of Lynn Sweet and Andrea Mitchell get to the analysis of the report.

Matthews started with this bit of populist blather:

CM: What does it all mean? Well here's the bottom line, money matters no matter how much you or I find this unsavory it matters because you need it to stay in the race...

"Unsavory"? It has always cost an exceedingly high amount of money to run for a Federal office in this country. The Founding Fathers even complained about how much they had to spend to do so and some could barely afford it.

After another minute of meaningless patter, he went on with his panel.

CM: Andrea what dies it mean? Explain to me... maybe I do know, but I don't like it, I find this so unsavory...

Andrea Mitchell: I know, it's awful (laughs)

CM:... here we are we're going around killing people around the world to spread democracy, and what are we spreading? A form of government based on how much money you can raise from rich people, mainly.

First of all, he has no knowledge of who has donated what as Lynn Sweet nails him on a bit later. But, secondly, how many "poor" people donate other than very small sums to campaigns anyway? And what does the "going around killing people" have to do with this discussion at all, other than to interject, as he so constantly must do, his opposition to the war in Iraq into a debate over campaign fund raising???

Mitchell then goes on to bemoan the seeming abandonment of the artificial campaign funding program that was created post Watergate.

AM: There are a couple of quick points to be made. This is the end of the public financing system, none of the major candidates are using it, they're all raising money, raising huge amounts of money and then they'll either self finance... they're not gonna take the matching money... there are no more campaign limits...that's gone.

CM: That's the worst part...Watergate was supposed to end this pig trough of fundraising and now we won't even honor the rules coming out of Watergate.

No doubt, the worst part for Matthews is that people have, at last, moved on from having the tall tales of Watergate and the Vietnam War rule their every political thought and policy decision. Well, everyone but the throwbacks in the MSM who are desperate to continue revisiting the days when they mattered most -- a time long since passed into history.

Next Mitchell gets Matthews' into his Romney rant...

AM: And we haven't talked probably enough about Mitt Romney about what he has achieved. He really swamped John McCain it shows there really are no front runners.

CM: Well, let me go to Lynn on that... Lynn, it seems to me that Romney who running about 3% in the polls only has rich people behind him because if you look at the amount of money he's raised compared to the kind of support he has in the polls per capita it looks like they're all loaded.

Really? And, dear Chris, you can PROVE this wild-eyed statement of the seeming impropriety of those evil "rich people" donating to Romney as if they shouldn't be allowed to, or something?

But, Lynn Sweet shoots down Matthews' "unsavory" theorizing.

Lynn Sweet: No, first of all we don't know that until we get the breakdown between all the zip codes and how much is Internet and how much is direct mail. The biggest story out of this though is Mitt Romney because everybody knew that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would do well and it's not a surprise that because, you know, the second tier field are office holders, that they have enough to keep them in even if they don't sustain it so Mitt Romney is a stealth fundraiser, no one expected him to do this well, it will give him the kind of spotlight he needs to get out there.. and he has a whole operation going on, I visited it in Boston it's on the banks of the Charles just a few weeks ago, he's got the infrastructure, he's got a lot going on, this will give him a change to have people take that look that they haven't been willing to do yet.

Not good enough for the hyperventilating host, however!

CM: Who's giving him money, who's giving him, I wanna know one thing, who are the people giving money to a guy that most people don't know in this country? People even in Massachusetts who lived up there all through his term as Governor don't know the guy, they find him a stranger. Who are the people that are warm toward Mitt Romney, does anybody know who these money people are?

Sweet tries again to inject some real facts into Matthews' financing inquisition.

LS: We're gonna know exactly, I mean just so the viewers know, come April 15th we'll have the name and address of everyone who's donated more than $200, we could slice and dice it in a hundred demographic ways through every zip code in the country and so there is an answer to that and that's gonna be probably a surprise if we find out where the money comes from and if it's in places that we could read the tea leaves and show that it will translate into votes a swell as financial support.

Nice try, Lynn. But your host doesn't seem to be buying reality!

But there you have it. Another Chris "I'm a serious, unbiased journalist" Matthews extravaganza.

Video on-line at MSNBC


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Of course, if Romney is get

Of course, if Romney is getting big money support, it must be for nefarious reasons, right? Is Matthews at all interested in who's giving big money to Hillary? Or did she get her start with grass-roots, $10 and $20 donations from, you know, "working families"?

Everyone knows Chris Matthews gave up the pretense of being a serious, unbiased journalist a long time ago. The only question now is who his next target is going to be. The only thing one can be sure of: it won't be Mizz Hillary. Before long his entire show will have to be classified as an "in-kind" contribution to her campaign.

Republicans might want to take another look at Romney; apparently Matthews considers him a threat to Hillary, or he wouldn't be attacking him.

It's comforting to know tha

It's comforting to know that Highlights for Children has a bigger audience than Heardbull.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, the &q

Oh, yeah, I forgot, the "we're going around killing people around the world to spread democracy " was a nice, gratuitous slap. You go, Chrissy!

Folks, we need to focus on

Folks, we need to focus on the positive (and I know that sounds strange coming from the likes of me, but hear me out!) in this matter... If someone had told me, when I was ranting against public financing ten or twenty years ago, that in 2007 I'd finally hear Andrea Mitchell saying: "This is the end of the public financing system" I'd have wondered about his/her mental health, but.... It just happened. Rejoice! Maybe the Republicans or Democrats will even get the guts to propose legislation to get rid of it (and their favorite bipartisan lie about it supposedly costing nothing, as if money's not fungible by definition!) off our tax-forms! Hell, maybe they'll quit making me pay for various other forced-speech/lies, and finally understand that they're being "sinful and tyranical" as well as unConstitutional whenever they try it.
JMR

Hardball admits republicans are winning

After Matty and his lamebrained democrat crew spewed their lib talking points about how much the republican electorate is dissatisfied, apparently because they made it up out of thin air and attached it to the large slate of viable republican candidates, they had to take a few seconds TO admit something:

 In all the polls the republican frontrunner beats the top two democrat frontrunners.

 Apparently the demolibs Bush-hate showtime views aren't actually translating to republicans or to the electorate as a whole, as the poll they reluctantly mentioned while discounting it before and after must prove, if we are to believe at all their other poll numbers..

 They whined about Bush' low polls numbers, then cried the congress has even lower numbers, but blamed all the congressional numbers on republicans, magically, out of thin air again, with nothing backing it up.

 It was an amazing video - following the lead post video.

 Someday they might figure out what biased goofballs they look and sound like as they drool over how much they hate Bush and republicans, and how they claim all the republicans are disgruntled with their candidate field, then quickly announce how the republican beats the democrats....LOL... then try to explain that away...

 WOW. It's really something to behold.

PS- they(the demolibs) should be afraid of Mitt Romney , those who claim all the politicans are dirtbags and skum have said to me that Mitt Romney seems like an honest and decent guy. Surprising considering my sources.

Once more, Matthews demonstra

Once more, Matthews demonstrates that his political knowledge is thin, and what passes for his "analysis" is merely speculation and WAGs.

If he's so concerned about money in politics, does it bother him that virtually all the candidates at this point are millionaires? 

As for public-financing, that was trashed years ago.  For example, the FEC found that both the Clinton and Dole '96 campaigns violated fund-raising limits that they had explicitly agreed to obey in return for Federal matching funds.  Both campaigns were fined, but since the election had been over for many months and the campaigns dissolved, no one ever paid a cent.

Nowadays, candidates just find it cleaner to skip the matching funds altogether.  If Beltway denizen Andrea Mitchell hasn't followed this development over the past couple of decades, what the hell has she been watching?

You can bet a dollar to a d

You can bet a dollar to a dime that large amounts of money raised by anyone but Hillary will be portrayed by Matthews as unsavory, or as "the rich" seeking influence. Hillary's gazillions will be portrayed as evidence of her vast popularity. Obama might get a break (Matthews will probably hedge his bet), but no one else.

Matthews' unwatched Loveball

Matthews' unwatched "Loveball for Leftists" remains mired in an abysmal FOURTH place out of FIVE shows.  The latest ratings:

Friday, March 30, 2007

7PM - P2+ (25-54)

FOX Report with Shepard Smith – 1,167,000 viewers (213,000)
Situation Room – 464,000 viewers (130,000)
Loveball for Leftists – 417,000 viewers (110,000)
Million Dollar Challenge – a scratch with 112,000 viewers (a scratch with 41,000)
Glenn Beck – 438,000 viewers (163,000)

Thanks for the post

Gives me hope that some people arent out there watching the TV with drool coming out of their mouths and a water bong on the table.

Romney's nomination is hind

Romney's nomination is hindered, as the media sees it, by several things.

Number 1: He's a Republican. There is really little else that needs be said, but as the media goes, there is more.

Number 2: He's Mormon. More accurately labeled, for those unaware, he's a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. As such, Romney is as far from an atheistic God hating liberal valued person, as you can get.

Number 3: He's popular. Mitt Romney is an extremely popular governor in a state of liberals. How odd is that? Well, the media doesn't like that.

Number 4: He's conservative. On most issues, Romney stands firm as a conservative. Yes, he has had some moments of slack getting to be governor, of this I am painfully aware.

Number 5: He's very business savy. One of the biggest reasons that Romney was so popular as governor, was because he treated the government as a business. In so doing, he only spent the money he had to work with, and he fired employees that didn't make the cut. In other words, he didn't carry baggage employees that weren't doing their job(s).

Romney would be a nice choice for a presidential candidate. Do I truly see him as being a viable person to beat a Democrat? Perhaps under the right circumstances. However, as JFK was horribly belittled for being a Catholic, Romney will be abused for being Mormon. I really don't want to see that happen to him, or the Church.

In the end, it will be up to the people to decide whether they want him or not. Given the choice between Rudy, McCain and Romney, however, I choose Mitt every time.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Chris, you're a scream.Yes, I

Chris, you're a scream.

Yes, I'm sure Hillary's war chest was raised in $25 increments solely from working class folk. 

Having said that, I'm pretty sure it wasn't working class folk who bought that house for her and Bill in Chapaqua.  Remember that, Chris?  Wouldn't you say it's just as "ominous" for some rich person to gift someone a mansion as it is for rich people to contribute to a political campaign?

Chris Matthews

C.M. is a left wing political hack. He will say or twist anything to destroy any Republican. Fits right in with the Nbc and Msnbc agenda.