Chris Matthews, Obama Team Attack CNBC Anchor

Following a day in which CNBC news anchor Rick Santelli captured the outrage of millions of Americans toward Obama and the unfairness of the bailout bill, MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews and the Obama administration went on the attack.

It isn't unusual to hear this sort of cheap shot partisanship from Chris Matthews. We have thoroughly examined this scumbag's 'work' on MSNBC and have found him to be nothing less than a bad joke.

What IS unusual, however, is for the administration of a sitting President to constantly go on the attack with regard to critical commentary in the media.

Obama has built up a reputation in his short career on the national scene by going after those who criticize him, such as radio talk show personalities, local television station news reporters, and now, even an anchor for a network that has been the most pro-Obama media outlet on the air.

We have commented before several times about Obama's apparent shockingly thin skin.

It takes a thick skin to be a politician. Obama is sorely lacking in that quality, and hence, he seems to mount a personal vendetta against any and all who would dare hold up his policies to intense scrutiny.

And that is exceedingly dangerous.

Matthews the Moron

Is Chris Matthews really a moron, or does he just act like one while attempting to be a news anchor?

The MSNBC anchor asked the question on Thursday, 'Does Rush Limbaugh hate this country,' because Limbaugh stated on the air that he hopes Barack Obama fails.

I said the very same thing, so I suppose that means I 'hate this country.'

Listen, Matthews, you dumb little thimble-brained twit. I want Obama to fail precisely because I love this country. And if you had one ounce of journalistic integrity in that sorry carcass of yours, you would have reported the context of Limbaugh's words.

Limbaugh had just reported that Barack Obama's ideas are socialistic. This is true. And, as most of us who are true American patriots know, socialism is antithetical to everything America has ever stood for.

Therefore, we want Obama to fail because we are against socialistic programs being introduced into a capitalistic society.

If I state that I want Obama to succeed, that means I am endorsing and supporting socialism.

This I refuse to do.

Thus, I want Obama to fail for the good of the country.

Now, MORON, I mean Matthews, tell us precisely why YOU want Obama to succeed? Are you a socialist? Do you look down your snobbish nose at the very capitalism that made this country the greatest in the world? Do you continue to accept a salary from a corporation that is run according to capitalistic principles?

If so, Matthews, and we all know it's true, then not only are you a moron, but you are a hypocrite to boot.

But of course, you know that yourself, you snarling, salivating, slithering, slimy piece of rabid humanity. Tell us how you live with yourself or go to sleep at night.

By the way, have you and your bosses at NBC gotten any of the mega-bailout bonanza Obama promised you before the election in exchange for being totally 'in the tank' for him, cheerleading the way?

Before we get through with the likes of you and your bosses, not only will you be bankrupt and off the air, but we will hold you accountable for our tax money you got but didn't deserve.

Chris Matthews: The Punk Strikes Again

Everyone knows that Chris Matthews of MSNBC is a biased, featherweight partisan who poses as a serious journalist. And just in case they didn't know it before, everyone now knows that Matthews is a punk to boot.

Known for pulling embarrassing stunts that put guests, politicians, and other newsmakers on the spot, Matthews demonstrated during the GOP debate in Dearborn, Michigan on Oct. 9 that he will not hesitate to resort to dirty tricks in order to attempt to embarrass those with whom he disagrees.

The latest of Matthew's dirty tricks is the 'let-me-test-you-on-your-knowledge-of-world-leaders' trick. When asking Fred Thompson about the importance of Canada as our neighbor and trading partner, Matthews asked Thompson, 'Who is the Prime Minister of Canada?'

Leftwing nutcases in the mainstream media have been using this trick ever since Dan Quayle to try to catch a GOP candidate in a mental lapse for which they can then be vilified.

One cannot forget the 2000 Presidential campaign when one of the frozen chosen elitists of the mainstream media whipped out a 10-question 'quiz' to give to then-candidate George W. Bush.

Ladies and gentlemen of the mainstream media (and I do use those terms very loosely), your role is not to give candidates a history test or a memory quiz.

Apparently this dirty trick is alive and well among the mongrels of the media, and Chris Matthews no doubt hoped that he could 'catch' Fred Thompson in a memory lapse.

Nothing doing. Thompson answered the question and went on with his answer.

Matthews had already shown his bias in the debate when, after his colleague had asked Thompson a question to which she followed up with another question, he made the snide remark--with the microphone on--that Thompson's answer 'sure did take long enough...I wish he had stopped with his first answer.'

Thompson quickly shot back, 'That's your opinion, Chris.'

My friends, individuals like Chris Matthews have no business moderating a debate anytime, anywhere.

LIBERTY ALERT! Dems Won't Back Down on Fairness Doctrine

Washington, DC (TLS). Like a bad rash that won't go away, Democrats in Congress just keep scratching the infected itch to do something to silence conservative talk radio.

After losing a round in the House when an amendment to an appropriations bill was passed that barred the use of federal funds to revive the Fairness Doctrine, Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate indicated that they have no intention of giving up on trying to revive the ominous doctrine that would have the effect of silencing free speech on the radio.

There was a time back in the dark ages when such a doctrine was necessary. Radio was the ONLY form of electronic media. The Fairness Doctrine was implemented to keep citizens informed of political news on all sides of the issues.

Today, such a doctrine is simply not necessary due to the many various ways that Americans get their news. The fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly dominate radio does not mean the other side is not heard loud and clear.

And, as I have said, if Democrats and Liberals are hell-bent on bringing this monster back, then Republicans and Conservatives should make sure that the doctrine applies to mainstream network news.

This would mean that conservatives could demand equal time when Katie, Charlie, and what's-his-name on NBC roll out their nightly slant in favor of the Democrats.

And, of course, I would demand equal time to respond to Chris Matthews' nightly shenanigans.

Here are the details about the plan the Democrats are waiting in the wings to implement when they get a chance:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070705a.html

Poor Little Innocent, Frail, Weak Elizabeth Edwards

Washington, DC (TLS). To hear the mainstream media describe it, the poor, innocent, frail and weak Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, was compelled to call in impromptu to Chris Matthews' show to defend her husband against the relentless, cold, mean, and barbaric attacks of that pit bull Ann Coulter.

Never has a pathetic political operation gotten so much milage out of the comments of a ideological opponent.

And the Edwards laugh all the way to the bank.

First, Elizabeth Edwards is no innocent, frail, and weak human being. To the contrary, despite her fight against cancer, she is one of John Edwards' most effective and TOUGH campaign advisers. But you have to give the woman credit, she played the poor little innocent frail and weak wife to the 't.' She should win an Oscar.

Second, Edwards' phone call to the Chris Matthews show was no impromptu, spur-of-the-moment thing. It was PLANNED. Matthews informed Coulter just before airtime that Elizabeth Edwards 'might' call in.

'Might.' Sure, Matthews. You set the whole thing up. You even admitted it.

Third, Coulter's statements about John Edwards are largely deserved. And for the record, she never actually said she wished he would die in a terrorist attack. That statement was a joke and was a takeoff on the statement by Bill Maher that Vice President Dick Cheney should die in a terrorist attack...about which he was 100% serious. It was that very week that the blogosphere was full of venomous attacks against Cheney, who has heart disease, to the effect of, 'We wish he would die.'

Now, did the mainstream media report on the fact that countless posts to the Daily Koz and the Huffington Post website were calling for the death of Dick Cheney? Nary one.

What about their comments concerning White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's cancer, to the effect of, 'We hope he dies. His death will be proof that God hates him.'

NONE of this was reported by the mainstream media. Zilch.

Yet Ann Coulter is made out to be a close relative of Bagdad's 'Chemical Ali' because she uses what the Left had already been saying to turn the tables around on Edwards, saying in effect, 'Every time I say anything negative about him I get attacked. Maybe if I do what the Left does and wish he would die in a terrorist attack, that would be just fine.'

But you see, most of the reporters in the mainstream media are too dumb to follow carefully such logic and use of the English language, and unfortunately, many of their viewers are in the same boat.

Thus, it is much easier to assume Coulter meant she hoped Edwards would die in a terrorist attack.

Make no mistake, my friends, the Edwards campaign, for which Elizabeth Edwards is the most powerful player outside the candidate himself, has its own pit bull tactics that make Ann Coulter look like Pollyanna.

An Edwards campaign staffer wrote this on the Edwards campaign blog in the months prior to her resignation (and she was not even fired for the statement): "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit"?

Wonder what the good, down-home Baptist and Methodist folk in Edwards' hometown of Seneca, South Carolina think about this blasphemous attack on Christian belief?

Personally, I don't think they're surprised. People who know the Edwards know that they are relentless and cold opportunists. And in this way they are so very much like the Clintons.

Stupid Questions

Washington, DC (TLS). Everyone knows that Chris Matthews of NBC is a partisan, biased, Leftwing nutcase. He has never attempted to hide the fact. He was seen recently on a late-night talk show using expletives to describe Republicans. He has done this before.

But the questions Matthews issued to the Republican candidates during their first debate cannot be described in any other way but 'stupid.'

'How would you feel about Hillary Clinton in the White House?'

'Well, ah, gee whiz there, Chris, I would just LOVE it if Hillary were in the White House! After all, that's why I'm running for President, you IDIOT!'

I wish someone had had the guts to answer the stupid question in that manner.

However, now it is Mike Wallace's turn to ask the stupid questions. In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview on CBS with Mitt Romney, Wallace reportedly asks Romney if he and his wife 'ever had premarital sex.'

Excuse me, Mr. Wallace, but with all due respect this is an IDIOTIC question that demeans your entire distinguished career.

So does it all come down to this? I suppose the start of it all was the question put to Bill Clinton in 1992, 'Boxers or briefs?'

The news business has reached a very low ebb. Not only do they think we want to know what type of underwear the candidates wear, but they have the unmitigated gall to ask an opponent what he/she thinks if their rival wins the White House. DUH!

And who cares if Mitt Romney and his wife had premarital sex!

We can only hope that with Fox News sponsoring the next debate, we will get some questions that are worthy of a serious dialogue concerning the nation's future. It would be hard to imagine Britt Hume or John Gibson asking the candidates such blatantly mindless questions that have nothing to do with their ability to be President.

No wonder none of the Democrats want to face Fox News reporters asking the questions!

But, since apparently the Dems have insisted that only so-called 'mainstream' news organizations sponsor their debates--you know, the ones that want to know about premarital sex--I have come up with a few stupid questions the mighty heavy-weights of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN could ask the Democrats.

'Mrs. Clinton, are you presently taking prescription hormonal therapy for post-menopausal women? And could this medication impair your decision-making?'

'Mr. Obama, which brand of smokes do you prefer? Winstons? Benson and Hedges? Would you offer Hillary a smoke if you were to light up after the debate?'

'Mr. Biden, are you standing there lusting after Hillary while waiting for your next question? And would you describe Hillary as an attractive woman or more of a bulldog?'

'Mr. Dodd, have you ever engaged in cross-dressing?'

'Mr. Edwards, if elected, would you disclose just who it is that does your hair? Chris Matthews and others of us want to know.'

'Mr. Kucinich, how many more times do you think you will have to position yourself to be photographed with President Bush before people remember who you are?'

'Mr. Gravel, do YOU even remember who you are?'

And finally.....

'Mr. Richardson, since you served in the Clinton White House and are friends of Bill (and we all know Bill talks)....tell us what all of America wants to know...does Hillary wear thong panties?'