February 10, 2010

Chris Matthews brings teh crazee on Palin

The hate never ends on MSNBC. Chris Matthews and crew went completely bananas tearing Palin apart for her Tea Party convention appearance, calling her, "an empty vessel ready to be filled by ideology she doesn't understand."

Before I go further, let me issue my standard quotation of Jim Geraghty that he wrote after the Vanity Fair hit piece: "There’s room in this world for a profile that is critical of Palin, but that preferably didn’t begin with the supposition that she is the root of all evil in the political world."

Chris Matthews does not seem to read Geraghty's stuff.

Please read a substantial portion of the transcript at NewsBusters, but brace yourself for some weapons-grade radioactive hating before reading or watching.

Of course, there's some jibing about her writing on her hand:

MATTHEWS: Well, I don`t know. I just don`t know what to make of this, Richard Wolffe. This is like something that every kid in school can understand, crib notes.

RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Crib notes. Teleprompter no good, but crib notes OK.


WOLFFE: And there were only six words on it.


Ok, I still don't get it. Out of six cribbed words she pulled a passable speech and Q&A session. Obama needs a full prompter set-up to speak to school students.  How does this make her stupid?

This part was particularly revealing:
MATTHEWS: Well, so you`re not saying there`s -- well, let me go to you, Mark. It seems to me the issue here isn't that she took notes. I`m looking at notes now. We all look at notes. It`s when you sneak them on your hand! She could have put that on an index card and nobody would have made a big issue, but she had to look like she was just pulling it out of the air, so she pulled it off her hand like a palm reader!

Ok, so it's the physical act of writing on her hand that has their panties in a knot, no?. Notecards = good, hand = bad. Mmmkay.

Even more stoopid under the fold...
Matthews played the clip from Fox News Sunday [FNS transcript] where Palin describes the possibility of Obama playing "the war card" on Iran, and what that would mean politically. Of course, Matthews can't fathom the idea that an attack on Iran might be forthcoming, then willfully misrepresents everything Palin just said.

In the clip Matthews uses, he edited out the part where she cited Pat Buchanan's recent column as the logic behind her point about a possible Iran war. Matthews is unable to contemplate the difference between just up-and-bombing Iran out of the blue, and a long chain of events that would lead to an eventual war, just as Pat Buchanan contemplated in the column that Palin cited. In his piece, Buchanan himself referred to a National Review Online column by Daniel Pipes, wherein Pipes cites half a dozen polls to support his "rally 'round the flag" thesis.

Clearly nutty, that Sarah Palin. For this, Matthews calls her, "a balloon head". Matthews' guest Richard Wolffe then dings Palin for "riffing* off Pat Buchanan's column, apparently", which was pretty darned apparent since she explicitly mentioned Buchanan before saying anything... except that Matthews left that part out of the clip.

* - (Newsbusters transcribes this as "ripping off", but I've listened to it a few times and I think it's "riffing". I report, you decide.)

Chris Matthews spent the next few moments wallowing in his inability to grasp the well-established concept of rallying around the flag, before positing that somebody must be writing Palin's material. Well, which is it, Chris, that she has stupid material, or that it's too complicated for her to have written it herself?

This is amazing:
WOLFFE: I don`t even think she`s being consistent with those folks [Those folks being the neocons supposedly filling her head. - ed.] because Chris Wallace at Fox asked some great questions, and one of them was, Look, Bill Kristol isn`t happy with you, you supporting Rand Paul, and he doesn`t like any of this foreign war stuff.


WOLFFE: He doesn`t like the Patriot Act. You know, there are such massive inconsistencies in her position, I think...

MATTHEWS: Does she know what she`s saying?

WOLFFE: I think she`s just saying stuff that sounds right to her because other people have said them. She is not George W. Bush. And look, Mark...

Ok, the amazing part is that Wolffe is apparently aware that Wallace asked her this question, but conveniently neglected to take into account her answer:

Palin on FNS:
... But nobody is ever going to find a perfect candidate. There are things that I don't agree with Rand Paul, and yet his domestic policies for the most part, I do agree with. He wants limited government. He wants the Feds to start taking their hands off states issues and I respect that and I'm proud to support him. Again, never finding a perfect candidate, no doubt he disagrees with me on a whole lot of issues. But proud to support him and others whom I can believe in.

What's so hard to understand about that? Rand Paul is somebody with whom she has some differences, but is in general agreement. Happens all the time. In Wolffe's world, only an individual in complete lockstep with a candidate can endorse.

They go on to tar Palin as a secessionist. That's so idiotic I have nothing to say about it, other that to quote exactly what Palin said in their clip:
And then I started hearing up there in Alaska, I started to hear all this news coverage about, Oh, Texas is seceding from the union, the governor--- And I said -- I said, I think they got that wrong. Texas today? I don't think they`re seceding, they are succeeding.

Here's another good one:

MATTHEWS: You know, Huey Long wasn`t the most sane guy in the world, Richard, but he said that when fascism comes to America, it will call itself anti-fascism.

Uh... Chris, where have you been, man?

Posted by: JoeCollins at 10:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1008 words, total size 7 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
19kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.473 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.45 seconds, 133 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.