Chris Matthews now finds pLamegate too complicated to talk about on his show

Posted by: ST on September 8, 2006 at 1:39 pm

Newsbusters’ Executive Editor Matthew Sheffield had a brief chat with Mr. Matthews last night and asked him why Hardball hadn’t done any shows on l’affaire de Plame since the Armitage revelation. Some background first:

One of the biggest media figures boycotting the Plame story has been MSNBC host Chris Matthews who has yet to mention the scandal at all since the Armitage report broke, a dramatic contrast to the 27 times he mentioned the “scandal” in the five months leading up to it.

Like P.J. Gladnick, I couldn’t help but notice Matthews’s strange flip. So I decided to ask him about it. His answer revealed an animus toward Vice President Dick Cheney and a fear of being asked to answer tough questions himself.

Make sure to read the interview. Matthews’ answers will not surprise you. His responses, in my view, tranlate into: “There’s no get-Rove angle to the story anymore, so who cares?”

Let me know if you get the same impression.

Update 4:30 PM: Speaking of Chris Matthews, here’s a flashback to the Republican National Convention in 2004, when Senator Zell Miller challenged CM to a duel. The sparks start flying about one minute into the interview, and the duel challenge is about three minutes twenty seconds into the interview. I.Love.It!:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

12 Responses to “Chris Matthews now finds pLamegate too complicated to talk about on his show”

Comments

  1. Severian says:

    What a complete and total crock and joke! There is no end to the lengths of Byzantine complexity Matthews and other liberal MSM types will go to to attempt to concoct a story damaging to the administration and Bush. Nuance this, push that, look at this reflected in that, mirrors, lies, innuendo, whatever, nothing is too complicated if it manages to somehow say something bad about Bush and Republicans, but suddenly this story is too complex for widdle Matthews brain to explain to the “public?”

    Again, what a crock. l-)

  2. I. M. Nieman says:

    Matthews is a card carrying liberal/socialist and has no interest in any facts which do not advance liberalism.

  3. G Monster says:

    I remember Mathews trying to confuse the issue with Michelle Malkin. He kept asking the question…really loudly…”are you saying John Kerry Shot Himself In The Foot?” The next day Zell Miller was on and shut that Chris Mathews up. It was awesome. I know Michelle is a very strong woman, but I think she was caught off guard by the question and the tone in which it was asked. Mathews is a dork. And I’m being nice using that.

  4. Baklava says:

    See what big government (liberalism) did to ABC !!

  5. Kevin says:

    I think he actually said it was ‘too compicated’, because saying complicated it too complicated.

    Chris Matthews’ story vetting progress looks like this:

    -Does it make Bush or Republicans look bad?
    –yes-Present the story with little or no fact-checking.
    –no-The public’s not interested in this story.

  6. Severian says:

    It gets complicated when you insist on spinning everything as the administration and Bush’s fault, and never admit you screwed the pooch. Face it, he’s right, turning this around into something that makes all the lies, obsfucation, innuendo, and not so veiled insinuations that Rove was the mastermind seem true and like this all is an even more dastardly Rovian conspiracy gets way too complex. And we all know the Liberal MSM can’t just say “Well, look, we screwed up, it wasn’t a conspiracy, we have egg on our faces.” It’s true, it’s simple, but it’s not something the Liberal MSM will ever do. Look at Memogate, Rather and Mapes still refuse to admit that they were wrong, they got snookered, and that they wanted to believe. They still try and spin this as a VRWC plot. That’s what they mean by too complex, spinning this so that it looks good for them is too hard, so let’s just not say anything and ignore it and hope it’ll go away.

    Man, Fitzmas this year really sucked didn’t it Chris? l-)

  7. Severian says:

    Great video link. If Zell had been there in the studio with him Matthews would have wet himself. Having been around Southerners all my life, I can tell you, Zell’s anger was not an act, and if he’d been close enough he might well have spun Matthews head around for him.

  8. G Monster says:

    Yes ST. That is the interview I was talking about. Zell Miller beat Chris Mathews verbally. You can see Chris Mathews get all redfaced and embarassed. I have toned this post down so not to get out of control like the posters at firedoglake and dailykos. I think we should all keep this stuff somewhat civil. Not saying we shouldn’t argue or disagree, but let’s all be somewhat civil.

  9. Drewsmom says:

    Yeah, spitting matthews don’t wanna talk bout it no more, but he is spouting off the story that the demoncrats have found no link between Iraq and AlQuada tonight on his show with Colin Powell.
    That story is so OLD, why is this even mentioned anymore, we all know there was a connection unless you don’t count trainning camps in Iraq using old planes and letting AlJakweeeeee stay and get well there no link, but they have been beating this story longer that monica beat bill’s, oh well, I won’t go there, that too gross, I’m sorry guys. =))

  10. I. M. Nieman says:

    1. I want Matthews or any liberal to show me the exact quote when President Bush said even part of his justification for going into Iraq was due to Saddam having links with Al Queda. Just mentioning possible links does not equal justification for the war, simply relating facts which made Saddam dangerous to the world via his efforts to destabilize the Middle East.
    2. I want to know why Bush can be accused of lying about the intelligence data; and yet a host of Democrats, seeing the same data came to the same conclusions as Bush, but strangely they weren’t lying?
    3. Most of the world’s intelligence agencies and world leaders reviewing the same data, all came to the same conclusions as Bush and Blair about Saddam having WMD’s; and yet somehow Bush lied and/or ‘cherry picked’ the intelligence data but everyone else saying the same things were all either telling the truth or were victims of Bush’s lying.
    4. Lastly, Drewsmom is right that there were terrorist training camps in Iraq, Saddam was financially supporting Islamic terror and Al Zarqawi was in Iraq; yet now the left maintains there were no links whatsoever to Al Queda. Incredible!

  11. Severian says:

    I want to know why Bush can be accused of lying about the intelligence data; and yet a host of Democrats, seeing the same data came to the same conclusions as Bush, but strangely they weren’t lying?

    Ah, but you see, that’s only because Bush is so sinisterly clever that he confused them and fooled them! And, given that these same leftist Democrats then go on to say that Bush and company are the most idiotic, dumbest, most parochoial and undereducated morons on the planet, what does that say about Democratic politicians who were “duped” by them? And, Bush is so evil and sinister and talented that he managed to go back in time to when he was just a govenor and got Clinton and all his cronies to say Iraq was a threat too! I mean, c’mon, if Bush has a machine to steer hurricanes towards poor black folk, how much more of a stretch is it to believe he has a time machine as well? 8-|

  12. Lorica says:

    Actually I find 2 + [] = 4 abit much for Chris to talk about, but I am glad he is finally coming to grips with his “short” comings. – Lorica