Posted on 10/18/2012 1:34:53 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
On MSNBC’s “Hardball” Wednesday evening, Chris Matthews discussed the theatrics of the presidential debate with James Lipton, longtime host of “Inside the Actor’s Studio.” Lipton offered some unremarkable observations — he called Mitt Romney “the boss who tells lame jokes and waits for everybody to laugh or else” — but what made the segment remarkable was Matthews’ reaction to a portion of the debate in which Romney in essence silenced President Obama, telling him he would have a chance to speak later.
Matthews played a video clip of the exchange, in which Romney accused Obama of cutting the number of oil and gas permits awarded on federal lands:
ROMNEY: How much did you cut them by?
OBAMA: I’m happy to answer the question.
ROMNEY: All right. And it is — I don’t think anyone really believes that you’re a person who’s going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal. [Gestures.] You’ll get your chance in a moment. I’m still speaking.
OBAMA: Well –
ROMNEY: And the answer is I don’t believe people think that`s the case because –
ROMNEY: — that wasn’t the question.
OBAMA: OK.
ROMNEY: That was a statement.
After the clip ended, Matthews seemed appalled. “I don’t think [Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States,” Matthews said. “He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘You’ll get your chance.’”......
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Here are some of the Chris Matthews/Obama base.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2946475/posts
Chrissy and his ilk thought challenging Bush was constitutional ... patriotic even.
What’s good for the goose ........
You're having a DEBATE with the President of the United States...
You are THE candidate selected by the opposition party to run for election against this President...
This President has agreed to debate you in a format you both agreed upon...
And you CAN'T challenge him. Because he's the President?
Is that it, Matthews? Do you realize how moronic that line of thinking is, Chris? EVEN coming from you.
Whatever.
Matthews is upset because the Republicans have the gall to run a candidate against Fearless Leader, the Great Spreader, the Grand Redistributionist, The Most Wonderful Hero of All Time, and Champion of All That Is Good And Just. The utter nerve of Pubbies to run a candidate and not simply let Obama run unopposed as all great heroes should be allowed. Like when after Wellstone died in the plane crash, some of his supporters said the Pubbie running for his seat should champion Wellstone’s political philosophy...which was as left-wing as Obama’s.
AMEN
If we didn’t talk about Chris Matthews on FR, he’d have virtually no fan club because most of the brain dead consumers of lamestream MEdia are like, Chris who?
LOL!
Think of the difficulty Matthews faces each day. His daily goal is to say the most bizarre thing he ever said. He hasn't yet found it, but, somewhere, there has to be a limit.
You don't say that out of respect for the office if not the man. But if disrespect to the president is unconstitutional then the media and the Democrats spent most of 2000 to 2008 violating the Constitution on a daily basis.
But then again Chrissie always was an idiot.
“Romney was very smart to address Obama that way. It helps break the spell and diminish respect for Obama. It throws Obama a bit who is never talked to that way except by his hulking wife.”
Yep. Being spoken to dismissively also tweaks his Narcissistic Personality Disorder. If the polls show Romney still leading on Monday, Clinton’s Bellhop will be under enormous pressure to hit a walk-off grand slam in the final debate. One problem: as we’ve seen in the first two debates, he isn’t capable of that.
Every time Romney challenges him face to face in any way he lets a little more gas out of the Obama myth and O’s support among independents shrinks.
Romney 342
Obama 196
That fat pantload Roland Martin made the same assertion yesyerday on CNN—(first time I’ve watched CNN in God knows how long—I lasted 3 min. but that was the topic when I was tuned in.
These are people that have no respect for anything—ESPECIALLY the Constitution or anything good about America—people whose brethren railroaded Nixon, slandered and vilified Reagan and the Bushes, etc etc and they worry about respect for this horrible person they all tingled and drooled over like girls at a Justin Bieber concert in 2008. Yeah right.
Where else did he learn that famous attitude of pissiness toward the Republicans in the Obamacare meeting after being anointed? or the phrase "all wee wee'd up"? The Wookie, that's right.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2946475/posts
That thread was pulled by the Mod. What did you do?
You're being too kind...
Progressives think they’re the most brilliant people on the face of the earth while they confuse brilliance with an easy propensity to lie and to be deceitful.
They consider Christianity to be a dangerous religion responsible for untold murders yet they deny the millions upon millions of deaths associated with the socialism they love to embrace and deny at the same time.
They will consider dogs in the womb of a bitch to be dogs yet they consider a human in a woman’s womb to be “a non-viable tissue mass” as they declare sex to be recreation rather than procreation.
They consider veterans, as a group, among others, to be more of a terrorist threat than militant Muslim jihadists who never miss an opportunity to murder and torture in the name of their religion.
They have never defined the term “rich” yet they never miss an opportunity to villify “rich” people.
Is there a pattern there?
Just asking.
They hold hard-working, God-fearing, family loving Americans in utter contempt, which makes it alright to lie to them.
The media and pundits marveled openly about Bill Clinton’s ability to sway opinion with lies — they envied his ease and skill.
I recall a school teacher telling her students the same thing.
This thought is mainstream leftist thinking for when they achieve absolute power.
That comment is very telling of what their objective is.
Absolute power.
All I can think of off the top of my head is the defeat of the ERA and the DC statehood amendments. Reagan's legacy was to some extent negated by GHWB and Sandra Day O'Connor. GWB seemed clueless and confused, a caricature still used on him. As Eisenhower once said of Nixon, "give me a week, and maybe I can think" of some conservative victory.
York is wrong on this one. When a sitting president agrees to a debate, he agrees to share the stage with an equal. Each deserves the same deference. The president is not allowed special rules not allowed for the other. The challenger is entitled to respond to the president in the same manner the president responds to him.
This is one problem with a president accepting the invitation to a debate. He elevates the challenger to the status of an equal.
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.