Hardball for Nov 7 (Chris Matthews discusses abortion and loses it with Marc Racicot)

MSNBC ^ | 11/8/2002 | Chris Matthews

[Utah Girl]

MATTHEWS: We have the Republican Caucus, the Republican Party on here, ideologically speaking, the most far right group ever to assemble, I think. G. Gordon Liddy, Patrick J. Buchanan and Bob Dornan are whooping it up here. We’re going to be joined right now by Marc Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee. Mr. Racicot, thanks for joining us.

MARC RACICOT, RNC CHAIRMAN: My pleasure. Thank you.

MATTHEWS: Are you going to try to appease these wild Indians I got here of the political right or what are you going to do? Are you going to give them an anti-abortion judge that can drive Nita Lowey and the left crazy for the next couple of months?

DORNAN: We all have Irish blood, including the host.

MATTHEWS: It has nothing to do with that (UNITELLIGIBLE). Mr.

Racicot, you’re not Irish, so speak on.

RACICOT: I am Irish. My grandmother was a good Irish person...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh God.

RACICOT: ... and Catholic as well. So I think we all have some disqualifying characteristics.

MATTHEWS: OK, let’s move on to the subject...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Judgeships are probably the hottest question in the country because when you put a judge up, you have to-they basically now have to say OK, I’m pro for abortion rights or I’m anti abortion rights, I’m choice or I’m life. How do you avoid that fight if Sandra Day O’Connor, for example, retires or one of the other judges retires in the next couple of months?

RACICOT: Well, I think you focus upon what the constitution contemplates and that is whether or not they’re qualified by reason of experience and training, and then you talk about the constitutional principles that have been articulated throughout the many generations that the court has sat and heard cases like whether or not you’re going to observe precedent.

There’s a reason for having the rule to observe precedent, and that is to bring about stability in the law. There’s a reason why courts are not consigned with the responsibility to legislate...

MATTHEWS: OK, can we get beyond...

RACICOT: ... because of stability.

MATTHEWS: ... that? I accept all that as sort of backdrop or background music, but the fact is the Republican Party has made a commitment to the far right crowd, to the religious conservatives of this country, to outlaw abortion. Will they make good on that promise?

RACICOT: I don’t think that there’s been any commitment of that kind. What this president has talked about is recommending to the Senate judges who are qualified by reason of their experience and training, and judicial capacity. These people that have been presented to the judiciary committee like...

MATTHEWS: Right.

RACICOT: ... Priscilla Owen or Miguel Estrada, these are people who are highly qualified. They have unanimous recommendations from the American Bar Association; they’re well qualified. These people ought to be considered and ought to receive a vote. The reason they didn’t is because those who control the committee were afraid the Democrats would vote for them too.

MATTHEWS: If all the people in the deep south, and I’m talking about pretty much up to the northern tobacco south, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, all across the south and what you might call the Bible Belt-I don’t mind calling it that-all voted Republican for governor as well as senator, a huge sweep on the red part of the map from last time. You don’t think that’s a mandate to outlaw abortion by the president, by putting pro-life judges on the bench? You don’t read it that way?

RACICOT: I don’t believe that you can distill it that simply, Chris.

I think there are a lot of reasons to explain that. Number one...

MATTHEWS: You don’t want to admit that one of the reasons is abortion?

RACICOT: I don’t think that it’s an expressed requirement or an express expectation. I mean I’m pro-life. I would like to see judges who construe the law in reference to that issue with a great deal of firmness, conviction and faith in the innocence of human life, but I’d never required that when I made an appointment.

I didn’t have that as a litmus test. I listened...

(CROSSTALK)

RACICOT: ... to what it is that they had to say about how they were going to be a judge.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you very much, Marc Racicot, Republican National Chairman. Back to the panel. Does everybody agree with that? I hear you Bob Dornan. Aren’t you amazed to hear that the RNC chair is basically pooh-poohing the idea that this is a big priority question?

[rwfromkansas]

Supporting abortion for economic reasons? You are a modern Hitler.....please may you be banned.

As for the actual interview, I am glad Racicot stood his ground. The type of appointee Bush wants NECESSITATES that he or she be pro-life, as as far as I know, strict constructionists are all pro-life.

[Fester Chugabrew]

When is the time that a fetus becomes life? Not sure.

Abortion is a rather final way of dealing with such an uncertain question, is it not? Is this an issue you can feel comfortable being wrong about? If no one is sure when human life begins, why do our laws state with such certainty we can end it up to the point of human exiting the womb?

Vacuous morals belong at DU.

[w.t.sherman]

Independent of the arguments, pro or con, abortion should be a side issue compared with cutting taxes and strengthening our military. Emphasizing the abortion issue is a guaranteed way of energizing the Democrat base and losing a majority in the House and Senate.

[Conservative til I die]

Isn't she supposed to die soon anyway? She's got some sort of cancer or degenerative condition.

[dubyagee]

These children, if allowed to be born...

Think about what you just said...

[vaudine]

You have hit upon two of the underlying, undiscussed (openly) reasons for the unrelenting cry of the sanctity of "a woman's right to choose."

1. Pro-abortionists sincerely believe that abortion is helping to keep down the burden of unwanted children in society, although there are many good ways to keep unwanted pregnancies from happening. However, they are not honest enough to simply say this. Instead, they chant/shout the mantra of "a woman's right to choose." There is no true discussion, because of the political power to be gained by outshouting the opposition.

2. The abortion industry is big billion dollar business--clinics, research, etc., and there are pols and organizations willing to quiet any remnant of conscience by grreasing the irritation with money.

Actually, if minorities could think rationally and analytically beyond the rhetoric, they would realize that these pols and orgns. have actually targeted them because the minorities have the greater number of pregnancies that end in abortion. This is a dirty little unspoken secret in the Dem. society.

Roe v. Wade was VERY bad law when established and is very bad law today. Even liberal lawyers know this. The govt. should have stayed out of it and let family, dr., and minister handle these decisions. Short a law to protect unborn life (which should be more easily construed from the Constitution than the "right of a woman to choose"), far fewer abortions would occur by decriminalizing it for drs. and leaving it to the primary people concerned.

I agree with you somewhat on the religious argument. When it concerns the law, argue it on a lawful, rational, basis, although I certainly believe the religious argument should be put forth by those who believe--it just should not try to persuade short the other argument.

Vaudine

[Conservative til I die]

Interesting that Pumpkinhead Matthews brought up Nita Lowey. She's my congresswoman out in my gerrymandered district in NY (tell me how suburban lower Westchester and Jamaica, Queens can share a district) and the reason I loathe her is that she was one of like 3 congresspeople to vote against the Born Alive Infant Act or something like that. Basically the Act gauranteed medical and legal protection to babies that were aborted yet survived. I assume previously the doctors killed it or left it to suffer and die on its own.

That Nita Lowey, what a humane person. I voted Right To Life against her, partly because it would be a sensible protest vote and partly because the Republicans and Conservatives didn't have the huevos to run candidates against her.

[Iowegian]

So the more people that are alive, the better the social security and the better the economy? Interesting.

If you know anything about our SS funding problem you would know that this is true, too few workers vs. recipients.

Get the Prime Minister of India on the phone, stat! We need to get some more tips from this thriving nation!

You can't compare the US to India on number of people alone. Their economic problems begin with their class system (due to religious beliefs). IOW if they had half the population they now heve, they would still be very poor.

[fabriclady]

Chris Matthews is not revelant.
His ratings are lower than Donnybigmouth.
He screams over his guest, I do not understand why any one would appear on his show.

[Conservative til I die]

Wow, Matthews really came off as a real $h!twipe from that transcript. He was really fixated on abortion. Gimme a break, a Southern vote for a Republican was a vote to outlaw abortion? How stereotypical can Pumpkinhead be?

[Iowegian]

This sounds to me like the problem is Social Security not abortion. Are you blaming our Social Security problems on abortion???

Are you forgetting your own posts? I'm only debating your points that letting those babies that were killed live would be an economic problem. Do you deny that more workers means more taxes collected, more wages collected, more money spent - therefore a bigger econony?

I dislike the idea of SS, let alone how it's been run in the past 40 years.

Well, I dislike welfare much more, and that was your argument, so what's your point?

[carenot]

No. I still believe that the option should exist, as horrible as it is, to have an abortion, which makes me pro-SKOD.

I have always wondered why it is allright to murder a baby the mother can't see. But when it can be seen it is murder.

Years ago there was a case when the abortionist preformed his murder for hire. But the baby cried, so he drowned her in the sink.

He was charged with manslaughter. It seems he was convicted, but I don't remember for sure.

[carenot]

I am for individual rights, which in my eyes puts the woman's right to choose firmly in her ball court.

My mother thought I was inconvenient, I am glad she didn't hire a hitman to off me.

[carenot]

It's all about individual freedoms.

Yes, it is. The right of an individual, a baby at conception is an individual. Never before and never again. He/she is a one of a kind.

[carenot]

ok. violently killed. got it. valid point. (what?)

I am late to this thread, even tho I have been replying. I am just reading down the posts.

I reckon you haven't looked up the procedure or seen the pictures.

You seem to be trying to understand. Educate yourself.

Welcome to FR.