My email to Chris Matthews re: the unfair Kerry interview

[tableturner]

I sent the email copied below to Chris Matthews, with a copy sent to the Kerry campaign. Please don't get on me for trying to be judicious in my language. I want results (not that I am holding my breath), as opposed to defensiveness, and I believe that tact is often helpful in such situations. Here is the email, which starts with an excerpt taken from the transcript of the show:

MATTHEWS: To try sharpen your position so we all come out of this room knowing your position. Had you been president earlier this year when they went up against the blank-the stonewall at the U.N.. and the U.N., and the Security Council, the Russians and the French, did not go along with the war, what would you have done differently than the president did? At that point, would you have said another two months I’ll argue with you guys? I’ll try to hold a carrot or a stick out to you and the French and try to get them to board? Or would you have finally said, I’m tired of waiting for the French. We’re going alone in our national interest.
What would you have done?
KERRY: I would have done exactly what I said at the time, which is we should have pursued more diplomacy at the time to exhaust the remedies. And Chris...
MATTHEWS: It’s now October. How-would you still be exhausting the remedies now?
KERRY: Why not?
MATTHEWS: OK. That’s a position. I didn’t know you would go this long.
KERRY: Why not?
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone all these months?
KERRY: Why not? Absolutely. It’s cool in the fall as much as it is in the spring.
MATTHEWS: So you would have waited at least a year.


Mr. Matthews,

Can you not see that had Sen. Kerry been inaugurated as president instead of Bush, that at the point noted in your question above ("Had you been president earlier this year when they went up against the blank-the stonewall at the U.N."), with Kerry likely having pursued things differently, the circumstances likely would have been different? Thus, asking him what he would have done at that point is unfairly setting him up to answer for a situation that was not of his doing, a situation that at least to some degree (and probably, to a good degree), was different than it would have been had he been president from the beginning of Bush's term. Can you not see that your question was representative of a false paradigm?

In effect, you were asking him "If we could have pushed a magic button, and removed Bush and made you president at the moment when the U.S went up against the blank-the stonewall at the U.N., how would you have cleaned up his mess?" But you did not frame it that way.

Had Sen. Kerry been president, the following are some of the actions and conditions that probably would have been different due to Sen. Kerry's actions as president, compared to the results of Bush's governance:

1) He would not have been surrounded by a bunch of neo-cons who, years before, had plans to go to war with Iraq and were eager to go to war with Iraq, come hell or high water.

2) He would not have been eager to go to war with Iraq come hell or high water.

3) He would not have put pressure on the CIA to manipulate intelligence to conform with a pre-existing desire to go to war with Iraq.

4) He and his administration would not have repeatedly lied to the world about purported, and now shown to be false, circumstances designed to back up a war policy.

5) He, without a pre-existing disrespect and enmity toward the U.N., would not have acted in an arrogant manner toward that body, and thus, the U.N. and the world community probably would not have been provoked into a tremendously strong antipathy toward our policies.

6) He would not have been so heavy handed toward our allies, including France and Germany.

The entire situation would have been different!

Don't ask him what he would have done if he had been president relative to situations that would have been different had he been president!

I know that you did not mean to do so, but you were terribly unfair to Sen. Kerry. I hope you will correct this on a show in the near future.

L.S.

[wtmusic]

1. Oh come off it

What are you, Kerry's Kerr-taker? He's a big boy now. He could have raised those objections himself.

Yes, everything would have been gloriously different if Kerry were president. But Kerry and his supporters better hold on those frozen waffles they show up with at Dean rallies, because he will be defending his war-waffle for a long time to come.

[tableturner]

3. Not his Kerr-taker

Actually I have not decided which Democrat I want to be the nominee. I like all of the major candidates except for Lieberman. I just want Matthews to be fair. I would do this for the others also if it came to my attention. You don't need to be so sour. In the end, almost all of us will support the nominee, whether Dean, Kerry or someone else.

[FXDS]

2. The Screamer

is a loud mouth wind bag. I'm surprised he has not taken over Rush's job of spewing this horse shitt!

Kerry is my #1 choice at this time Edwards my #2. I thought that Kerry and Edwards both kicked Matthews ass! I'm waiting for the rest of the field to do the same!

[quaker bill]

4. Tweety

Is a blowhard rep shill.

That being aside the man was waffling. I like waffles, but his are cold and stale.

The IWR was a vote of conscience, he chose political expediency.

[goforit]

5. LOL!!!....Kerry just ain't gonna make it!!!

Mr. Wishywashy????

Not in todays game!!!!

[RuB]

6. I agree with you 100%. But the sooner you and other Dems stop watching

that asshole Matthews the sooner he gets off the air. The same with all the Republican shills on MSNBC and CNN. In fact turn the damn tv off and READ!

[quinnox]

7. I agree that Matthews was very confrontational

but Kerry did very well regardless. It's expected that Matthews will tow the GOP line when he interviews the candidates, its what he does.

[madfloridian]

9. Even the GOP should be expected to be polite.

Matthews is just becoming impossible.

[madfloridian]

8. I did not watch, but I read the transcript. He was very rude to Kerry.

I was very insulted to see one of our candidates treated this way. I don't think any of us should find that satisfying.

I find it horrible that our culture has become such that interviews like this abomination can go on.

[rucky]

10. You Dont Go on Hardball And Expect Fair Treatment

when are we going to learn?

DONT FEED THE ANIMALS!

[DrFunkenstein]

11. Where Kerry Would Differ

"By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the Administration raised doubts about its bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war - that in the post-September 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return is in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public internal debate for a rationale for war, the Administration complicated its own case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community.

And by engaging in hasty war talk, rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the Administration placed doubts in the mind of potential allies, particularly in the Mideast where managing the Arab streets is difficult at best."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

You may disagree with Kerry's choice between two lousy choices, but you cannot say that he wouldn't have done a hell of a job if he were POTUS.

[caledesi]

12. Matthews is weird. Let me tell you why.

On Hardball, you would think that he is a repug, but if you have ever seen him on other shows for commentary, he is quite different. Very articulate, very knowledgable, and Democratic.

It's very strange!