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".