Matthews Slams Harris: You Speak With A Forked Tongue

Chris Matthews calls B.S. on Todd Harris for the double standard Republicans have where they come in with slim wins and do exactly what they want and say they have a mandate, but expect Democrats to pussy-foot around and apologize for being there when they win by large margins. Todd replies by saying that acting that way will make Obama end up with an approval rating like Bush. Really Todd Harris? You think that’s what will happen if Obama pushes through a populist agenda against the will of the Republicans?  Todd Harris is a typical Republican Strategist – all that comes out of his mouth is garbage.

11 thoughts on “Matthews Slams Harris: You Speak With A Forked Tongue

  1. It’s time to stop this ridiculous idea of having to have “balance”, where both sides are presented to the audience as having equal credibility to begin with, when we’ve all seen these bozos falter and flail through some of these appearances before. From now on, they should stick to people who are willing to tell the truth, not the “view” from “the other side”. It’s time to state the obvious: When you present the Truth versus The Other Side, The Other Side is not going to tell you the truth. So stop pretending they are.

  2. “Todd Harris is a typical Republican Strategist – all that comes out of his mouth is garbage.” You know I’m pretty sure that that characterization works equally well for Democrat strategists and most politicians in general for that matter.

  3. If you’re going to put a partisan hack on your show, you know exactly what you’re going to get, regardless of their party. What would you expect this guy to say – “I’ve seen the light and now I’m a progressive”?

    If you want intelligent and objective discussion, there are ways to do that. But all these news-talk shows want the same thing – fireworks – so they load up their panels with people who will set up the strawmen to be knocked down. It’s the Fox-ization of news.

    Of course Obama has a mandate. This election was an ass-kicking and everyone knows it, so it’s not “news”. When you don’t have “news” you have to make “nooz”, apparently.

    That said, I admit I enjoyed seeing Tweety thump this numbskull on the noggin.

  4. And Christopher, it isn’t “Democrat strategist”, it’s “Democratic strategist”. Using the term incorrectly reveals your past exposure to right wing brainwashers (e.g., Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc.) Time to get detoxed.

  5. Gorn a Democrat strategist would be one who strategizes for the Democrat party or candidate rather than a democratic strategist one who strategizes for philosophic/political construct of democracy, right? *sidenote, I do not nor have ever listened to/watched Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly etc. with anything resembling regularity.

    As far as a mandate is concerned, yes there was a mandate, I’m not disputing that. The question is yet to be answered though, if this was a “pro-Obama” mandate or an “anti-Bush” mandate. It would have been much clearer if the election took place without bailout fiasco and economic collapse (for which I blame Democrats and Republicans equally). Additionally, with the Bush, McCain, more of the same, sentiment and McCain’s disasturous campaign, it complicates determining the true nature of any mandate. This would certainly have been a drastically differnet election were it Obama running at the end of a Democratic presidency where Bush was not a factor.

    I think the first 100 days and 2010 midterms will be a much better determination of the power and nature of his mandate.

  6. Christopher Wiseman, the reason I called it garbage, because it is dishonest what he said. That is the whole reason Matthews got angry and said he had a forked tongue.

    I have no problem listening to reasonable and factual based commentary from Republicans. But, that is not usually what you receive.

    That is the reason why I called him typical – he tarnished himself and his credibility on National TV, exactly like Bill Kritsol every time he is asked for an opinion or strategy. And as Gorn so eloquently put it, that makes him a hack.

  7. “a Democrat strategist would be one who strategizes for the Democrat party or candidate rather than a democratic strategist one who strategizes for philosophic/political construct of democracy, right?”

    No, Christopher, that is not correct usage. It is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. That has been the usage since Thomas Jefferson. A member of the Democratic Party is a Democrat, and a strategist for that party is a Democratic strategist.

    Members of the Democratic Party (and I am not one, by the way), find the usage “Democrat Party” to be annoying because it is wrong, and disrespectful because it is the preferred usage of right wing demagogues. The modern originator of the term is probably George W Bush based more on his personal ignorance than anything else, but it has been picked up with glee by the right wing. Anyone using it on a blog is automatically considered to be either a troll or ignorant.

    This is so much the case that the topic has a wikipedia entry.

  8. Gorn – I stand corrected. Of course, I believe both parties should be renamed because I find them to be neither democratic nor republican in their policies.

    Fredomrebel – Anyone who depends on advertising dollars for publication/broadcast I immediately label as suspect until they prove me wrong. Which is why despite being a news and political junkie, I find FuelTV, History and Discovery channels much more informative and educational then the alphabet channels commentary (not really news).

  9. “The question is yet to be answered though, if this was a “pro-Obama” mandate or an “anti-Bush” mandate.” – Christopher

    I’m not sure there is a distinction, given that Obama ran as the anti-Bush. He certainly wasn’t elected because he’s black, or because of his lengthy resume. He was elected on a platform of undoing the damage done by unfettered Republican Party control, embodied in Bush administration policies and his willing accomplices in Congress (who were also repudiated by the electorate).

    “It would have been much clearer if the election took place without bailout fiasco and economic collapse (for which I blame Democrats and Republicans equally).”

    What is clear is that the electorate wants a change from the status quo. There is a majority dissatisfaction with unregulated and unrestrained markets, trickle-down economics, cowboy foreign policy, and Constitutional abuse. If you look at the polling, this was true even before the bailout fiasco. Prior to the conventions, Obama and the Democratic candidates held a commanding lead in the polls for a very long time. Other than a brief blip for a week or so after the Republican Convention “bump”, this was never a very close race.

    The Democratic Party deserves blame for acquiescing too easily under the Republican thumb, and for opting for political expedience in a hostile environment. But the policies, one and all, are born of the modern conservative movement that has dominated now for decades. It is amazing that conservatives decline to take ownership of their failed policies that have been put into place almost without opposition, and instead prefer to blame others.

    Recent history has been all strategic for Republicans and only tactical for Democrats. Responsibility lies disproportionately with the strategists.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s