I watch Hardball on occasion hoping for some dram of enlightenment, which, I suppose, renders me the very model of Einstein’s definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
With every show, host Chris Matthews seems to become more muddleheaded as well as deceitful, and I never quite know which quality is on display. After all, muddleheadedness is such an inseparable part of modern conservative thought -- something that Matthews has swallowed pretty much wholesale -- sometimes what seems like deceit may only be a manifestation of disorganized thinking.
At any rate, Hardball is what passes for political analysis on television these days, so we’re (I’m) stuck with it. And whether befuddled or bogus, Matthews was really on his game last Monday night.
In a segment devoted to the Rove affair, Matthews had gathered syndicated columnist E.J. Dionne and the New York Post’s Washington bureau chief, Deborah Orin. (In today’s political environment it’s OK to have a single conservative guest, but any liberal -- Dionne -- must be offset. Hence Orin’s contributions, which were almost as bad as Matthews’.) The result was less than enlightening.
I offer evidence:
ORIN: You could argue that it is pretty clear that Karl Rove wasn't trying to get even with Joe Wilson. He was trying to make it clear that Joe Wilson couldn't be trusted.
MATTHEWS: Right.
Appallingly, Matthews failed to point out to the audience Orin’s talking-points parroting of the developing Republican defense-offense of trashing Wilson. Said Orin later, incredibly: “What's more important [than the security leak story] is … that Joe Wilson didn't tell the truth.” Her shell game went unchallenged by Matthews throughout.
But poor, lonely, singularly insightful E.J. Dionne. He tried to get at what’s really at issue: not Wilson’s probity, but a national security breach, possible perjury, the orchestrated GOP effort to dismiss both and the accompanying hypocrisy of it all.
DIONNE: You're going to face a very interesting debate here, because you had just a few years back a lot of Republicans saying a president should be impeached if he was guilty of perjury or obstruction of justice. This investigation seems … to be moving toward a perjury probe. What are [Republicans] going to say now compared to what they said all those years ago?
At this juncture Matthews said something that only a qualified cognitive therapist could decipher.
MATTHEWS: Well, why wouldn't they say the same thing? If you're a Democrat, you wanted to nail Nixon. If you're a Democrat, you want to nail Bush.
Dionne seemed as baffled as I at this psychotic break, but kept his composure and repeated the fundamental point that somehow seemed to go right over Matthews’ head.
DIONNE: But I'm saying, the Republicans were the ones saying obstruction of justice and perjury was a big deal for Clinton. Is it going to be a big deal for this administration?
Secondly, you had Scott McClellan running into a lot of tough questions today, where he basically said that he couldn't really defend what he said two years ago, not because he couldn't defend it, but because now he's been told by prosecutors that he couldn't say anything. This, too, is starting to sound like some questions and answers during the Clinton years.
ORIN: Oh, please.
DIONNE: So, I think the Republicans have a real problem here now.
ORIN: Oh, please. I mean, this is not Watergate. Democrats are always dreaming that they have got a new Watergate. This is not a new Watergate.
Did you follow that? Watergate? Did Dionne not repeatedly compare the scandal to Clinton’s problems only? Is Matthews’ attention-deficit disorder contagious in close proximity?
MATTHEWS: You know, the old argument in politics is, if there's something -- if there's a shot that's unfair against you, you'd better damn well correct it. Why has it taken until now for the truth [note "truth"] to come out from the other side, from the White House side, the explanation as to what these conversations -- E.J., pick up here.
At this point, having asked E.J. to “pick up,” Matthews rambles for 95 more words.
DIONNE: Right [and you could hear him mentally add, “you idiot”]. Well, let's be clear. Joe Wilson....
Matthews, of course, interrupts again. Ninety-five more needless words weren’t enough.
MATTHEWS: If it is that serious—is it that serious?
DIONNE: Well, first, attacking Joe Wilson right now, Joe Wilson is not the guy under investigation. The issue here is not what was true or false about what Joe Wilson may have said. The issue here is, did somebody break the law and disclose the name of a CIA agent?
MATTHEWS: We don't know that. You don't know that.
DIONNE: No. And I don't know the answer to that yet. But that is what is under investigation.
Dionne later makes another, final, desperate attempt to interject a pertinent comment.
DIONNE: All I'm saying is that, saying this or that about Joe Wilson doesn't address the issue that the White House faces right now, which is, who said what under what circumstances?
“Doesn’t address the issue.” That might as well be Matthews’ network slogan.
Perhaps we should all forfeit what little tranquility remains after watching Hardball’s amateur-hour spin by just watching the O’Reilly Factor instead. That should do it.
Recent Comments