Chris Matthews interviewed his daughter last week on MSNBC.
He just didn’t want you to know it.
As the L.A. Times’ Andrew Malcolm writes in “Top of the Ticket,“ “Matthews, the talkative political loudmouth of MSNBC”—
SIDEBAR: Wait a minute: How did Malcolm distinguish Matthews as “the“ talkative political loudmouth of MSNBC? I can think of at least two other well-deserving candidates. END SIDEBAR
—“who has a thing for college campuses, was at the University of Mississippi in Oxford for the first presidential debate between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.“
Malcolm continues:
The TV host found an eager group of professed nonpartisan college students in prison suits called CYA (No, not that one)—Concerned Youth of America.
So he interviewed several and they all seemed to agree with Matthews about this horrible looming federal deficit thing; see the deficit would “sentence” their generation to pay it off, just like being in prison except without all the murders, beatings and other institutional mayhem. Hence, the symbolic striped costumes.
Anyway, one of the students, an obviously bright young woman and apparent group leader, was very talkative and very assertive, just like her interviewer.
Hmm ... talkative and assertive? See the family resemblance?
Note at the end of the clip that Matthews gestures back to her and says, “Her name is Caroline.“
Aww. Daddy is proud of his girl!!
Just not enough, apparently, to identify her as his own.
Media Bistro reports that an anonymous tipster (see how ubiquitious they’ve become?) told FishbowlDC that “Matthews, at the asking of his daughter, instructed the producers not to name her.“
OK. So now MSNBC producers are taking their marching orders from a college student in a prison costume.
Check out this latest in a long (and getting longer) list of journalistic no-nos from the verbose MSNBC ancho—I mean, commentator:
After the Senate deals with the bailout/financial rescue plan tomorrow night, all eyes will turn toward St. Louis and the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, which will take place Thursday.
In the wake of another head-scratcher interview Palin gave to CBS and Katie Couric and another blistering impersonation delivered by “Saturday Night Live” and Tina Fey, even Republicans have begun to wonder whether the affable Alaska governor might be in over her head. Analysts across the board now generally agree that Palin is likely to exceed all expectations for Thursday night’s performance—because the bar couldn’t be set any lower for her.
But whatever happens, CNN’s Gloria Borger explains why Palin’s missteps may have already squandered John McCain’s opportunity to attract disaffected female supporters of Hillary Clinton.
Because of Palin’s curious, confusing and sometimes disconcerting responses to the relatively few questions posed to her by the national media, “Republicans are watching what once may have seemed like a brilliant idea turn into a riskier proposition each day,“ Borger writes.
GOP columnist and pundit Rich Galen takes a stab at explaining in his most recent piece why the $700 billion bill being debated in Congress is “A buy-in, not a bail-out.“ Here’s an excerpt:
Banks and other issuers have to have the funds to pay the merchant (less a fee) when you charge something. In order to do that, THEY have to borrow money. And they use your credit card debt is their collateral.
If the credit market remains frozen, then the banks can’t borrow money to cover the $4 you put on your credit card at McDonalds this morning. They have no choice but to get you to pay your debt back faster.
Let’s say that issuers raise the minimum payment from about 4% per month to 6% per month. Just two percentage points. But on your $10,000 debt your monthly payment just went from $400 per month to $600 per month.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if the Bush Administration had defined this legislation in these terms before the press had a chance to label it a “bailout,“ calls wouldn’t be coming in to Congress at a 10-to-1 ratio—or worse—against the bill.
Stumbled across this YouTube video of excerpts from a 2004 House Financial Services Committee hearing in which lawmakers discussed proposed regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
This hearing was about the same time that Alabama’s own U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby was conducting similar hearings in his committee and trying to get new regulations passed, as we discussed yesterday.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, an oft-mentioned candidate for Alabama governor in 2010, makes an appearance at 3:58.
Yes, this video was spliced together by a Republican. But never mind the storyboard interruptions; listen to the lawmakers.
Republican congressional leaders emerged from the failed bailout vote yesterday and angrily insisted that they would have had the votes to pass the bill, if only House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hadn’t given that “poisonous” speech ahead of the vote.
Democrats mocked that argument; U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said that Republicans were covering up for the reality that they couldn’t muster the votes they had promised for the plan.
Who’s right?
Republicans won’t share the names of those lawmakers who supposedly flipped on the bill because of the speech. They say it’s because they are still trying to work with those members in hopes that they will support the bill later this week. And there may be some validity to that; you can’t negotiate with someone you alienate, hence Republicans’ objections to Pelosi’s speech.
Democrats say Republicans won’t release the names of the lawmakers because they don’t exist.
Well, anyway, I watched the speech last night to see what all the fuss was about.
Republicans are right; it was highly partisan in content and tone, Pelosi’s persistent peppering of her comments with affirmations of bipartisanship and condemnation of partisanship notwithstanding. But Democrats are right, too; I really didn’t see anything that would explain (excuse?) the reversals of 12 votes.
Republicans are apparently arguing that Pelosi’s speech was so surprisingly partisan that it blindsided their members whose support for the bill was already squishy.
Here’s my take: Yes, Pelosi’s speech was probably inappropriate given the political climate in the chamber at the time. But guess what? Self-indulgence comes with being the speaker. It’s kind of a perk of the job.
The other side of that, of course, is that if Pelosi really wanted the bill to pass, she would do all she could to protect the votes to get it done. Republican lawmakers also have the option of taking their ball and going home. Sure, you can say it’s a reflection of their character, too, but those are the breaks.
But let’s be honest: Were Republicans expecting anything less (or more) out of Pelosi?
She’s from one of the most liberal districts in the entire country. She’s an avowed liberal, a lifelong feminist and a card-carrying member of the Bash President Bush Club. And in case Republicans forgot, we’re 35 days from Election Day—not just for president, but for every member of that chamber and one-third of the U.S. Senate.
Were Republicans really expecting a speech that wasn’t partisan?
If they were, they’ve got a serious break with reality.
So, here’s the speech; see what you think. (If you’d prefer to read the transcript, it’s here, but you’ll lose all the inflection.)
