If you’re Chris Matthews and you’re attempting to regain a reputation for being “fair and balanced” after famously exhibiting excitement about Barack Obama and his presidential campaign, what do you do? How about facilitating a discussion about Obama’s proposed stimulus plan with two lawmakers from the same party, the Republican Party?
That’s precisely what Matthews did during a segment on his January 27 edition of Hardball, inviting only Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada) and Representative Mike Pence, the House Republican Conference Chair, to discuss the plan.
Not enough? How about a segment exploring whether Rush Limbaugh is the “new voice of the GOP” but once again facilitating the “balanced” discussion with two people on the right and no one on the left or even center? (Never mind that Limbaugh has been the voice of the Republican Party for two decades and counting.) In the very same broadcast, Matthews did this as well, bringing on MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan and right-wing radio talk show host Heidi Harris (you might remember that Harris, appearing on Hardball during the election season, had told Matthews that women vote for Democrats because they “tend to think with their hearts and not with their minds”).
Want more? How about, in the process, framing a question based on Rush Limbaugh’s assertions and posing it to these two other right-wingers while prefacing the question with the words “let’s get back to the facts here”?
MATTHEWS: Look, let’s get back to the facts here. Does he [Limbaugh] have something here by saying that Barack Obama is trying to get the Republicans to join him, or at least a handful of them, so that he can share the blame if it [stimulus plan] doesn’t work? Is that a reasonable claim?
This kind of fairness and balance not only rivals Fox News but threatens to out-Fox it.
Does anyone doubt that Matthews once again feels a thrill running up his leg? It’s official: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Matthews is back!
Cross-posted from MediaBloodhound.
Related posts (automated):
Print This Post
Speaking of Rush, I read an interesting Op-ED piece he wrote in the WSJ regarding bailouts and stimulus packages.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html
Jeff
@jeff
Yes, that is an interesting Op-ED piece. He lost me at the opening premise, though. We aren’t spending a metric assload of money because we’re afraid of a recession. We’re spending a metric assload of money because we’re afraid of a deep, long-lasting depression. Trying to pass of what’s happening now as something that will completely heal itself in 6 years is pretty disingenuous.
fikshun,
Seriously, the government really doesn’t know why they’re spending the money….They really haven’t a clue, and feel as though they need to act whether it’s right or wrong. They seem to think governments are bigger than business and market cycles. It’s amazing that so many people have drunk the bailout kool aid.
What Limbaugh said was that the boom cycles after recessions are an average of six years. Recessions are short as are most depressions. The only depression that lasted long was the one in the 30′s and that was because of government interference and programs. Earlier depressions only lasted a year to 18 months. 1873, which was the worst depression in history lasted almost two years.
Interesting news today on the contraction of GDP, which was less than the street had expected. However, all of this useless bailout nonsense has spooked the markets.
However, it doesn’t matter what they spend, it’s only the government’s good intentions that count. The Republicans share as much responsibility for this mess as the Democrats. Bailouts don’t work, merely rewarding bad behavior. That first bailout before the election that McCain suspended his campaign for was supposed to stop the bleeding. It didn’t, and since them all other stimulus plus the additional liquidity put in by central banks has pumped about 7 trillion into the world money supply. If that shot of economic crack didn’t work, one should seriously consider just letting the natural course take place. It would be shorter, quicker, and would come back stronger.
As I have said before, a bailout that could work would involve the government guarantee individual savings and letting everything else go. There would still be a lot of pain, but it would be quick, not the prolonged twisting agony that the governments actions are putting the public through.
gold or raw agricultural land are a good hedge as the chances of a major currency debasement grow daily.
Jeff