Skip to comments.No November Surprise: Matthews Says Saddam Verdict Helps Dems
Posted on 11/05/2006 6:33:47 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Here's an antidote from an unlikely corner for all the Dem outrage at the 'November surprise' of the Saddam verdict. On this morning's 'Today,' none other than Chris Matthews just pronounced his considered opinion that the verdict actually helps . . . the Democrats.
According to Matthews, given the unpopularity of the war, anything that draws attention to Iraq hurts Republicans. Apparently that even extends to a good-news story such as the Saddam verdict. Opined Matthews to host Lester Holt:
"One general rule would be anything that brings attention to Iraq is bad for the Republicans. I think Iraq's become a four-letter word for the voter. And this trial and condemnation of Saddam Hussein is probably going to remind us of Iraq again. It's probably going to help the Democrats to some extent."
More predicatable was the analysis over at CNN, where a skeptical Susan Roesgen asked Suzanne Malveaux:
"What about critics, especially in Iraq, even Saddam Hussein's chief lawyer, who say the verdict was timed to come out just before the election to help the GOP?"
Well, if Saddam's lawyer said it, that should surely be good enough for CNN!
Roesgen continued her effort to rain on the Saddam-verdict parade in a subsequent interview of international criminal law expert Prof. Michael Scharf of Case Western law school. Asked the cynical CNN host:
"Does this turn [Saddam] into a martyr for the Iraqi people more than a monster?"
Oh yeah - huge martyr to all those Shias and Kurds whose relatives he slaughtered.
And later: "In some ways this trial has been a sideshow compared to the ongoing bloodshed in the streets of Iraq. Does this verdict really matter?"
Translation: let's get off this positive development and back to the IEDs!
To his credit, Prof. Scharf, who has written a book about the trial, gave a balanced view of events, noting the trial has served as a model of due process in contrast with the courts under Saddam. If Iraq can stay together as a country, the trial will be seen as a key point in bringing back the rule of law, opined the professor.
Let's hope the good professor himself will be be brought back by CNN despite his refusal to take direction from Roesgen's gloom-'n-doom script.
Saddam-no-November-surprise ping to Today show list.
Do ya think these guys really hate this much, or do you think it is more of an experiment to see how much power they have to influence an election?
Chris, you need to give up trying to save a sinking ship. LOL!!!
Saddams verdict is a non-event ,, I didn't even click the link on Drudge, this trial was decided before we went into Iraq. Chris Matthews is just applying the MSM spin but to no effect..
Maybe the Democrats don't remember history but the Republicans sure do. This guy was one of the most evil dictators around and we went to war after this guy wanted to take over the oil in the Middle East.
He has now been justifiably convicted and will hang for his crimes. I think this helps Republicans understand what we are fighting against.
Saddam, Matthews, or both?
When I first turned on the TV today, flipping the channels, the first news I got on Saddam was on MSNBC.
For several minutes, the caption on the screen read...
"SADDAM FOUND NOT GUILTY ON GENOCIDE CHARGES"
"...this trial was decided before we went into Iraq."
I think Saddam had a little something to do with his rightful, impending hanging, don't you? I'm glad somebody in the world decided to take action rather than continue to huff and puff from the UN. :0)
I finally had my cable hooked up after returning to my house after a long absence.. I found the news shows more aggravating than informative and realized I had completely weaned myself off of them as I had the alphabet news..
I prefer to read your reports! Ar least here I get sane feedback to read!
I was watching Dan Rather on Fox N Friends this morning and even he got it right. He said this Saddam verdict and the good economic news will probably help the GOP.
I see the media throw this term around- the unpopular war- and it begs the question:
Has there ever been a popular war?
I wish that I could be paid so well to be so stupid!!!!!!
Thanks, MEG. Living here in Ithaca, it's rare for me to hear myself referred to as 'sane' ;-)
These "journalists" are an embarassment. They have no grasp of history unless it's on a teleprompter, no concept of ethics, no concept of justice, no understanding of ANYTHING that isn't put on a monitor in very large letters in front of their air-pocket-filled hairdo'd heads.
Or more simply, they are pretty idiots, who revel in their own stupidity, and consider zero understanding of the stories they read proof of their "objectivity".
Read carefully, Chris: You are an idiot.
Do you think people FORGOT about Iraq for more then five minutes since the invasion?
To make such a statement is evidence of unbelievable bias. He would probably say the bombing of Hiroshima was going to help the locals because it saved money on tearing down condemned buildings.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt....
That is why you post on FR! You do live in a very loony left wing area!
Sorry I didn't qualify my statement. Both of course, but Chrissy for what crap he spews against US the most.
No event could top Jon Carey.
"Do you think people FORGOT about Iraq for more then five minutes since the invasion?"
Well, I guess "Halp Us Jon Carry We R Stuk Hear N Irak" was actually helpful to Jon Carry and the Democrats, in Chris Matthews' fevered little imagination, at least.
"Matthews Says Saddam Verdict Helps Dems"
Is this guy some sort of flipping idiot on purpose?
Who the heck was marching in the streets in 2003 to keep this fool in power?
Hint Chrissy: They were not wearing Reagan T-shirts!
To Chrissie, the sun rising in the east helps Democrats...
IMHO you can explain the "anti Americanism" of journalism quite well as the natural result of being in a business which doesn't do anything and therefore has a need to promote talk over action. That is easy to do by simply second guessing people who actually do stuff; hindsight will always show that they could have done better, cheaper.
IMHO that explains why journalism is so critical not only of capitalism which provides our food, clothing, shelter, and fuel but of the military and the police which are the sine qua non of government. The only people whom journalism does not second guess are people who are fellow travelers with journalism in the sense that they also mercilessly criticize and second guess those whose claim to significance is that they get necessary things done. Plaintiff lawyers and labor unions, of course, but also leftist politicians and intellectuals.
Journalists call other journalists "objective," and call journalism's fellow travelers other positive names such as "liberal," "progressive," "moderate," and so forth. Any fellow traveler of journalism can become "objective" by the simple expedient of getting a job as a journalist.
The answer to your question is that journalists positively lust for influence.
Good point. He probably thinks they proved Kerry's point, since it's obvious they can't spell. ;)
You have to be effing kidding me. This helps out Republicans no matter what. It just reminded people of what we are really there for.
I don't know why we here at FR eveen discuss Chrissy and his irrelevant show. The only reason he is still in the news is because of the 24/7 news cycle and there isn't anything else to cover at 2AM or whenever he comes on. Matthews is a non-player in national politics.
I'm sorry, I just can't leave without repeating this again.
My nomination for All-Time Stupidest Observation By A Pundit. Until Savageweenie, Olberforehead, Frankenstupid, The View cows, and Alan "Cryptkeeper" Colmes chime in, at least.
Where is Chris Matthews in the TV ratings?
Is it even possible to have someone a greater light weight than jimmy carter?
Mathews has no gravitas.
On the street interview with crack mom likely Democrat voter......" I think America is in dire need of a new direction. The fact that saddam is on trial does nothing for my four children that live with their grandmother because As A single mom I am too stressed to care for them. I would never vote for anyone who would harm my kids by tampering with her social security. Although her old man will get out of prison soon, he won't be able to ease her burden even if he doesn't deal drugs like used to. The main thing is NO MORE BUSH!!"
THey are all crashing due to the power of the web to customize news.
He is a pundit without a following now!
Matthews is as delusional as Carrey, actually I can see no impact on the elections here by this decision.
Interesting how they try to spin it both ways. To Chris, Saddam's sentencing means Democrats will benefit. To Brown, his sentencing is politically motivated (evidently, in her way of thinking, to help the Republicans).
" Where is Chris Matthews in the TV ratings? "
Somewhere below the "Head-On/Apply Directly to the Forehead" commercials.....
Saddam Verdict Helps Dems
I don't see how, they just lost a vote!
I think both.
Matthews was shaken and ashen when he announced his commentary -- he knows damn full well that this does not help the RATS and he is unnerved.
I do think Matthews went a bit loopy ages ago.
If bin laden were captured today, chrissie would say it helps the RATS
I've seen a few leftie bloggers try to spin it that way, that the troops were showing they "got" Carry's "joke," and agreed. Twisted, ain't it?
Chris Mathhews just makes up his lines as he goes along. He is probably no longer working directly in the Dimorat organizations because he is so incompetent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.