Matthews hearts Obama

The poster hanging above Chrissy Matthew's bead

Chris Matthews — in addition to being a blubbering sack of shit partisan hack with a (literal) hard-on for Barrack Obama — is also a myopic hypocrite.

Last week, Rush Limbaugh responded to Obama ‘s unprecedented attacks on him and other not-in-the-tank-for-Obama free media by referring to the Obama administration as the “Obama regime:”

Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely.

Which sent Chrissy Matthews into a new level of pissing himself (again, literally):

“I’ve never seen language like this in the American press,” he said, “referring to an elected representative government, elected in a totally fair, democratic, American election. . . .We know that word, ‘regime.’ It was used by George Bush, ‘regime change.’ You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They’re juntas. They’re military coups. The use of the word ‘regime’ in American political parlance is unacceptable, and someone should tell the walrus [Limbaugh] to stop using it. I never heard the word ‘regime,’ before, have you? I don’t even think Joe McCarthy ever called this government a ‘regime.’

Never, Chrissy? Are you sure you want to stick with that story? Because the Internet is something of a Way Back machine, that lets the rest of us non-professional, unbiased, totally-not-in-the-bag-for-Obama, shlebs check the veracity of that claim.

No — not me. I was too busy in Power Point hell all weekend to care about what your latest hissy fit and too busy to check out your obviously insane claim.

Thankfully, Byron York wasn’t as busy or as disinterested as I was.

As Byron York demonstrates, however, there are few in the mainstream media, or (to cover Matthews’ case) its fringe, who have standing to so instruct Rush. According to York, the New York Times used the word “regime” 16 times with respect to the Bush administration, spanning both of its terms. The Washington Post topped that with 24 such references. In one instance, Post-man Howard Kurtz also applied the term “regime” to the presidency of George H.W. Bush.

York tops off his findings by pointing out that Chris Matthews himself called the Bush administration a regime. On June 14, 2002, he introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror. “Let’s go to the Reverend Al Sharpton,” Matthews said. “Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?”

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

  9 Responses to “MSNBC’s Chrissy Matthews Wets Himself (again)”

  1. It is because of MSNBC and Fox that people cannot understand what is going on in their elected government.

    Time to stop supporting these channels.

    • Personally, I like the ban that Hugo Chavez has placed on non-compliant media outlets in Venezuela.

  2. Robbie -

    It’d be nice if you would tell me to stop acting like a child.

    Thanks,
    Steven

  3. Steven..ohh..I agree..it’s why I don’t watch anything but Fox. Because the rest of them don’t even make a pretense of TRYING to be other than what they are. Far left..dimwitocrat party hacks. Hell, the only think I watch any of the big 3 for, is for local news.

    • Sean -

      I have yet to find anything on television that, regardless of the “attempt” at being unbiased, is anything but what the stereotype says it are – biased as f**k.

      If you try http://www.csmonitor.com, it is rather unbiased.

      Steven

    • Sean, responding to the shitbird Steven is an exercise in troll feeding.
      Stick with Fox News, as any informed and reasonable person should, and you can’t go wrong.
      The CS Monitor isn’t unbiased, which you can already be assured of if shitbird endorses it.
      Strange New Respect.

      Tales of tea-party racism could have been calculated to demoralize America’s anti-ObamaCare majority by presenting them with an ugly choice: accept the fate the Democrats have imposed upon us, or side with (as the Christian Science Monitor puts it) “neo-Klansmen and knuckle-dragging hillbillies.” The strange new respect for the tea-party movement suggests that this approach is too invidiously partisan even for the mainstream media.

      • Sean -

        I should correct that. CSMonitor is known as one of the least biased media sources for NEWS.

        Of course, if you read op-ed pieces and skip the warning about anything listed below is not the view of Fox News or the CSMonitor, then, well, you will ASSume the CSMonitor is biased as well.

        As it is well-known, it is not biased in its NEWS coverage.

        Steven

  4. Here is a link to the article where the CSMonitor supposedly “puts it” (is that English)?

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0403/Amid-harsh-criticisms-tea-party-slips-into-the-mainstream

    Let me know if that is the CSMonitor being biased, or if it is the CSMonitor reporting the news.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

© 2010 UrbanGrounds

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha