Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

1998: Tweety wants Clinton censure. 2006: Is Bush censure "legal or not?"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Bush_Eats_Beef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:07 AM
Original message
1998: Tweety wants Clinton censure. 2006: Is Bush censure "legal or not?"
1998: Matthews proposed censure of Clinton, demanded historical footnote; 2006: Matthews questions if censure of Bush is "even legal or not"

Summary: Chris Matthews claimed that "there's a big question about whether it's even legal or not in the Senate" to censure President Bush, as Sen. Russ Feingold recently proposed, over Bush's authorization of warrantless domestic surveillance. But Matthews said something very different about the issue of censure in the context of former President Bill Clinton, at that time taking credit for first promoting the idea of censuring Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky controversy: "I'm not bragging, but I believe I was the first person to talk about the notion of censure because nobody else talked about it."

During the March 15 broadcast of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews claimed during an interview with Democratic adviser Howard Wolfson that "there's a big question about whether it's even legal or not in the Senate" to censure President Bush, as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) recently proposed, over Bush's authorization of warrantless domestic surveillance, in apparent violation of the 1978 Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA). But Matthews said something very different about the issue of censure in the context of former President Bill Clinton, at that time taking credit for first promoting the idea of censuring Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky controversy. On the December 30, 1998, year-end review edition of Hardball, then broadcast on CNBC, Matthews said: "I'm not bragging, but I believe I was the first person to talk about the notion of censure because nobody else talked about it."

In fact, as Matthews reminded viewers during the 1998 wrap-up, he proposed the notion of censuring Clinton during an interview with then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) that aired in March of that year. Matthews asked Lott, "Why don't you just pass ... a vote to censure Clinton if he does something wrong instead of impeach him? Isn't there a middle ground?" Lott responded: "Well, that -- that is -- yeah. Yeah. Sure." Matthews also asked, "Is that legal?" Lott responded: "That is an option, yes." After playing a clip of his interview with Lott, Matthews asked American University history professor Allan Lichtman, who is currently a Democratic candidate for a U.S. Senate seat for Maryland, "Do I get a page in the history books for that or a footnote maybe?" Lichtman assured Matthews that there was precedent -- President Andrew Johnson was censured by the Senate before being impeached by the House in 1868. Lichtman then lauded Matthews's political acumen: "Chris, you know your history, and you're a prophet all at the same time." Matthews replied, "Thank you very much."

From the March 15 broadcast of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Russ Feingold, the United States senator from Wisconsin, has called for the censure -- that means something short of impeachment, there's a big question whether it's even legal or not in the Senate -- of President Bush over the issue of his use of the National Security Agency to intercept electronic communications between here and other countries but involving Americans. Is that a big enough issue or misbehavior or misconduct to warrant a formal censure by the Senate?


http://mediamatters.org/items/200603160010

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's not legal to say the president's acting illegally. So there.
When the president does it, it's legal. The constitution gives the president the power to do whatever he deems necessary to protect the homeland. Our commander in chief is acting boldly, and noting that it breaks the law helps the enemy.

And now, it's not legal to note the president is breaking the law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. Great work exposing the hypocriticial and ethically challenged Tweety!
Kicked and recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PA Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. All the proof you need to show how shamelessly
Tweety whores for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. Tweety takes money from Repukes. No credibility.
He is a paid flack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
5. How can anyone stand to watch or listen to him after knowing
how phony his program is and how he uses an old worn shoe like Pat Buchanan on his program to stir up the shit.

MSNBC isn't very smart!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bush_Eats_Beef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I used to watch, now I've stopped completely...
I get 100% of my "Tweety Updates" from Crooks & Liars and Media Matters. To actually watch AND listen is just too painful. One of the last shows I saw was the one where he laid out the "sunny nobility" thing...as quoted in the photo I used for my post.

Two days later, he actually ADMITTED that he had been "criticized by some" for the sunny nobility remarks, and then proceeded to repeat the whole thing.

He's G-O-N-E, and nothin's gonna bring him back, as the Grateful Dead might say...

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
6. Recommended (5th) NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
8. Scotty has the job, Tweety, you ain't gonna get it. Time to give up.
I drink a shot glass of vinegar while watching Olbermannjust to get the Tweety taste out of my mouth.

:scared:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Wasn't he turned down by the Clinton administration?
Didn't he want to be the Press Secretary for Clinton?

I think this is some kind of twisted payback for those mean liberals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. I believe he was. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
9. So who's going to have the balls to take this up with him on the air?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bush_Eats_Beef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Probably none of his "mostly Republican" guests...
...that's the value of sites like Media Matters. If they (and others like them) didn't flag this stuff, it would just float off into the ozone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. God bless Media Matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
14. He's a G.E. tool -- nothing more, nothing less. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
15. I remember watching the May 1, 2003 broadcast of Airball
That was when I fist realized that Tweety really has some issues. This was when President Chickenhawk made his now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing. I literally couldn't believe my ears. I kept thinking, "No, he couldn't have just said that. I must have misunderstood."

Tweety quotes from Softball that day

What’s the importance of the president’s amazing display of leadership tonight?

And that’s the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously. What does that image mean to the American people, a guy who can actually get into a super sonic plane, and actually fly in an unpressurized cabin, like an actual jet pilot?

He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.

He’s like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes west.

and during the next hour as a guest on Countdown with KO

Nobody looks right in the role Bush has set for the presidency-commander-in-chief, medium height, medium build, looks good in a jet pilot’s costume-or uniform, rather-has a certain swagger, not too literary, certainly not too verbal, but a guy who speaks plainly and wins wars.

http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2003/05/hopeless-chris-matthews-daily-howler.html


Here is a link where you can view a copy of the transcript of the 5/1/03 Airball segment:

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/transcripts/hardball.htm

If you can stomach it, you might want to read the transcript. Especially after 2 years have passed, the whole segment stands out as an incredible explosion of ignorance.

MSNBC no longer has that transcript on their web site. I'm not surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. "Speaks plainly and wins wars." If Bush seems to be that kind of guy,
it's only because idiots like Matthews feed an illusion. Ever read Charlotte's Web?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I've seen the cartoon, does that count?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Maybe.
The plot is that a spider befriends a pig and puts a word like "amazing" in her web. Pig stands under web and is considered amazing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Same thing. I'll bet the cartool was more fun.
The pig avoided the slaughterhouse, after having won the grand prize at the state fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UrbScotty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
17. This screams FLIP-FLOP (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Like a fish on the bank
Did you know that he initially opposed the war in Iraq? That was one of the few times he's actually said what he thought about something. It cost him dearly with cable's core audience, however. Ever since he has pandered hard to get back into the good graces of the chickenhawks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
22. I don't believe Tweety is legal,
he is a front man for a war profiteering corporation posing as a human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC