Posted on 10/20/2012 1:33:05 AM PDT by yoe
Yesterday on Hardball, Chris Matthews played a clip from the second presidential debate during which Mitt Romney accused Barack Obama of cutting the number of oil and gas permits on federal land. Obama tried to interject and Romney said “you’ll get your chance in a moment, I’m still speaking.”
Constitutional crisis!
At that point, Professor Legthrill proceeded with a (civics lesson:)
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.’”
I looked through the Constitution — no mention of shushing the president during a debate. The Founders were unavailable for comment as they were too busy laughing their powdered wigs off.
Even though the Bill of Rights — specifically the 8th Amendment — prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” I’m going to beg the Founders’ forgiveness and post the Matthews clip anyway:
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
Only a homosexual could love Obama the way Chris does.
It’s not clear what Matthews’ point was. Maybe he meant that the President had the discretion to issue the drilling permits or not? If that was his point, he’s right, but the wisdom of the decision is another story.
A debate should require that each candidate address each other by names, not titles.
I think the real answer is much easier - Matthews is a drunk.
I understand that you are not alone in your thought, the three people who actually watch his show, or at ;least they say they do, two of them also agree with you and the remaining viewer has vanished.
Actually, everybody that Matthews knows would agree with him - maybe that is his real problem. He should be placed into a home for the mentally challenged and let his friends visit whenever they want. That way, he is happy and the rest of us are happy...
You took the thought right out of my head. He displays classic alcoholic behavior.
Was this the debate in which Obama was allowed to speak for an additional 4 minutes or was it the one where he was allowed to speak for an additional 9 minutes? I get them confused.
If Romney doesn’t understand that it is grievously unconstitutional to tell the president no to speak out of turn, obama will have no choice but to issue an Executive Order telling him to cease such commands. This will hold until the Presidential Debate Presidential Freedom to Rudely Butt In and to Get Help from the Moderator constitutional amendment requiring the same is approved.
This Romney guy just has to understand how wrong it is to want to make the president follow the rules! That archaic custom was thrown out the window 4 years ago due to its inherent racism, homophobism, hubrism, and anti-illegal immigrantism and it isn’t coming back in this new era of enlightmentism. /s
The very suggestion that Obama be accorded any special privilege or right above another candidate goes against all of the supposed values that Democrats pander their masses with.
We don't have kings here, Chris. At least not your vision of Messiah Obama.
With this kind of comment, Mathews removes all doubt of just how stupid he really is.
True, but when he sobers up he's still deranged.
Well,you gotta admit. Chrissy is only standing up for Boyfriend. :)
At times during the Smith Dinner, I was watching Chrissy. Others would be talking, and Chris would be gazing at Obama with adoring eyes. The speaker wasn’t referencing Obama in any way at the time. Chris was enthralled. It was sickening.
For Chris to say it’s not OK to challenge Obama, his other cohort, Hillary, disagrees. “We are all Americans, and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!” (4/28/03)
Chris Mathews is not a drunk!
He is just not very smart
Unless, of course, it is an "affirmative action" debate. In an "affirmative action" debate, the disadvantaged participant does, indeed, get to play by special rules. It could be reasonable to argue that president Obama is disadvantaged. He's dumber than a box of rocks.
Privacy, abortion, gay marriage, always being very nice to the President—my God, liberals certainly have a remarkable way of reading things into the Constitution. What’s the point of even having a Constitution, if it means whatever someone wants it to say (whether it’s actually in the Constitution itself or not...)? I think the left’s attitude toward the Constitution just shows how much contempt they have for it.
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.