Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Take Over, Terry!

Chris Matthews is an ongoing embaressment to journalism, never better demonstrated than in his recent dialogue with Pat Buchanan and Terry McAuliffe on MSNBC's Hardball. As per usual, Chris starts the show off with an ass clown of an opening question.
"He is suggesting he isn't really the guy he says he is, the President of the United States, I am going to start with Pat because I am looking around for "birthers" and I consider a 'birther', and this is my rule Pat, my colleague, anybody who has questions, anybody who thinks this is a significant issue in this campaign coming up. Is this a significant issue to you?"
So, how about if I ask Chris this one:
"First let me tell you that I am looking for morons, and dear colleague, my rule is that anyone that believes the US would be well served if Obama won a second term is a clear cut moron. Are you, Chris, someone who thinks the country would be well served if Obama served a second term?"
Loaded questions don't lead one to informative answers. I guess Chris missed that one in j-school.

Pat goes on to point out that whether he believes it or not is immaterial, and if Chris is troubled by people asking this question then perhaps the president should put the question to bed and answer it, once and for all, and while he is at it, why not release his grades and LSAT scores? Why not be transparent? All are excellent questions, for which Chris and smiling Terry did not condescend to answer.

Informing the public, seeking answers to questions, these used to be the stuff for news men. No more. Chris doesn't care much about the questions.

Pat's final comment:
"You're supposed to be a journalist."
Amen to that.

Update April 27th

Apparently the president has released the sought after information. Smitty has commentary on it here. Jill weighs in here. Nice to know Barry's done goofing around...

... or is he?


  1. Matthews asks a question than talks just talks over his guests, never bothering to listen to the answer. Even Terry McAwful had a hard time getting a comment in, until Chris tired of badgering his guest and asked the Terry to take over. And there they are, Chris and Terry smiling and shaking their heads, all the while not realizing it's Matthews that looks ridiculous.

  2. Maybe the people would stop asking questions if they stopped giving us "proof" like this.

  3. Wow.

    So if I am to take these techie guys at their word, they can take apart a produced document by its production layers, which would never be the case in a document simply photocopied, thereby confirming it was a fraud the Obama's gave the nation. This is almost like one of those witch prophesies at the opening of Macbeth. Creepy.

    It's a safe bet, though, that reporter and journalist Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball still has no interest.

  4. Plus it disagrees with that FactCheck version (one name). That was the previously released "authentic" version. Btw, I enhanced that seal on the FactCheck version long ago and it wasn't a real Hawaiian State Seal. I guess those embosser manufacturers wouldn't (couldn't) sell them a real one, so they bought a generic seal featuring an eagle. It was a cheap one, too. It only incised the paper--it didn't create a real raised (embossed) seal. The real Hawaiian seal says "State of Hawaii," as one might imagine. So you could say that this is the second time that Obama gave the nation a fake. A third time if you count that Kos version, which was different from the FactCheck version.

    I didn't bother to mention the FactCheck nonsense because no one cares anyway. Or they argue that they saw real certificates that had the same seal. Just as some are saying that if you scan a document with Adobe, you get layers automatically (because it tries to give optical character recognition for future editing). I have not found that to be the case, certainly not what we see in that video.) And I would question scanning a document using digital editing software to begin with. I'd use my scanner (and create a jpg file) or a photocopier (and later scan to digitize the image and no layers would ever appear.

    We'll see the media ignore all this, though. Or present talking heads that say there is no legitimate concern here. We aren't supposed to question anything that comes from these guys. Heck, you a zealot and a crazy person for even looking.

  5. Exactly. Anyone who even thinks it may be a pertinent question is, by Chris Matthews definition, a nut. The truth of the matter is that if all the Obama administration did was submit a fraudulent document, that in itself would be actionable.

  6. And what a clown - Matthews is badgering one guest whose opinion he has no respect for, and after brow beating him and talking over him, this joker asks the Dem guest to take over the host job to continue the badgering.

    I'll say one thing, Pat Buchanan is not afraid to go on these shows where he knows the score, and still get in there and pitch for the right. It would drive me nuts, but he gets in there and does it.

  7. It's amazing, all the way around, isn't it?

  8. Am I misremembering The Narative? As I recall it, Stanley Ann was 17 when Our Zero, Who art The Won, was born.

  9. I was reading she was nineteen, which is an unusual number if you ask the Reverend Louis Farrakhan.

  10. Ah, so you're calling in the experts, huh? For, who better knows unusuality?

  11. Now that's a good one! Of course, I can hear that raspy voice in the back of my head, torturing the "number nineteen" in the background, so that adds to it.

    Too funny!!

  12. SAD was 18 when she bore the Won. Same as Bristol Palin. Not that Brsitol bore the Won, mind you, but you know.

  13. I'm not saying that SAD *wasn't* 18 at the sad birth of The Won, just that as I remembered The Narrative, she was not-yet 18.