• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Meet the Press, Sunday Feb. 19

A

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Did anyone watch this past Sunday's Meet the Press? Tim Russert had Mary Matalin, David Gregory, Maureen Dowd, and some Wall Street Journal journalist. Mary Matalin could not take any criticism of the Vice President so she started making her insults personal. Seeing her so defensive and behaving like a combative child was the highlight of the show. Her defensiveness spoke volumes as to the Cheney shooting. Matalin showed no class whatsoever. There there, Mary.....here's some valium.
 


***Just the opposite as you project. Mary was squeezed in between some of the most partisan jerks imaginable. Talk about not having a balanced political debate. Meet the Depressed is another in a long line of liberal media outlets. Mary kicked butt!
 
ptsdkid said:
***Just the opposite as you project. Mary was squeezed in between some of the most partisan jerks imaginable. Talk about not having a balanced political debate. Meet the Depressed is another in a long line of liberal media outlets. Mary kicked butt!
Click to expand...

Interesting. What bugged me was that they didn't have a democrat strategist there; rather, they had three journalists. Maureen Dowd is unquestionably harsh when it comes to Bush, but she was also harsh when it came to Clinton when he was the president.

People could not stand the sighing that Gore did in one of the presidential debates before the 2000 election, including myself. It made him look like an a$$. I am embarrassed when a democrat behaves that way. That is exactly what Mary was doing on Sudnay. She was sighing and shaking her head when anyone had anything negative to say about Cheney. She couldn't show a classy demeanor to save her life. If she really thought that Cheney hadn't done anything wrong, she wouldn't be so up in arms about any criticism of him. I felt sorry for her because she looked like a fool.
 
I just read throught the WHOLE TRANSCIPT...Here it is...

Please tell me where this "combative child" is that you claim?...

I DO see things like this...you know...from Maureen Dowd...someone whose supposed to be an intelligent member of the media...


This is AFTER Cheney came out publicly and took full responsibility...Dowd says Cheney blamed Whittington...

David Gregory summed it up well...


Now watch how Gigot responds...and then watch how Dowd responds...

Figure out who the idiot is for yourself...


And here's the ending...Check out Dowd's continuing attack and "combative child"like behavior...


Now I've sourced the WHOLE TRANSCRIPT...It starts on page 4 and goes through to page 8...

Show me where Mary Matalin personally attacked any member on this panel...Show me where she was acting like a "combative child."....

Show the whole forum...:roll:
 

I will try to get to this today, but I am swamped, so I am not sure I can do that today. Regardless, you can now watch the entire episode from your computer. Reading a transcript and actually watching the show are two, different things. You don't see her rolling her eyes from the transcript.
 
Here is a perfect example of her making it personal against David Gregory:

MS. MATALIN: Let me pose a question here. What if I called David, instead of Katherine calling the Corpus Christi Caller-Times and said, “I’m just going to talk to you.” I suppose David’s first reaction, or any of his colleagues would be, “No, let’s go through the process. Let’s call the pool. Let’s get everybody involved here.” No, I know that’s not true because I’ve done this with Cheney feeding frenzies before when he’s had to go in for routine heart checks. There’s no such thing as you just put out a statement. And if I ever did want to just give it to one guy—on occasion which I did so I had the time to walk through it—they would take it. They didn’t say, “Stop! Let’s go through the process and get the whole pool there.” So it’s disingenuous. I’m not starting a false debate. We’re not undermining the hallmarks of the democratic institution, the freedom of the presss. But its much ado about nothing, or in the words of Harry Whittington, “What’s all the hoopla about?”

MR. GREGORY: OK, but Mary, if that’s the case, first of all, you know, the vice president of the United States accidentally shot a man for the first time since Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton. Much different circumstance, admittedly. And the vice president’s office doesn’t feel an obligation to disclose that to the American people directly. You do it through a ranch owner in Texas? It just—it just strikes me as odd.

MS. MATALIN: It strikes you as odd because you live in a parallel universe. It did not strike Americans as odd. Press were calling me saying, “The president—the vice president needs to apologize.” He did profusely and repeatedly to the victim of his accident, who was Harry Whittington.

MR. GREGORY: If you thought he did everything right, why is it that you ultimately—if the vice president said, “I did everything right,” by disclosing it the way he did, why did you do a big national interview this week?

MS. MATALIN: Because you went on a jihad, David. For four days you went on a Jihad.

MR. GREGORY: And that’s an unfortunate use of that word, by the way. This is not what that was.

MS. MATALIN: Oh, OK. All right. How—were you saving up for that line?

First of all, whether Matalin was combative is a matter of opinion. She is someone of your party, so you are willing to overlook certain things that she says. Regardless, what I perceive as combative may not be what you perceive as combative. When I have seen her in interviews, she comes across like a pompous jerk. I saw her on Meet the Press with her husband a guy who co-wrote a book with her husband. She behaved the same way.

Maureen Dowd is totally unemotional when she speaks, and if you watch the show, you will see her making her statements without raising her voice, rolling her eyes, or talking with a condescending tone. Now, of course, you may think she does all these things, but I don't. I put in italics when she made it personal, in my personal opinion, although I think it's a pretty accurate opinion.

It's not a big deal if we come out with different perceptions from the show. I was expressing my opinion.

Your use of the eye rolling similie has gotten old, cnredd.
 

What was that brooch she was wearing? Yoi!
She is the Cruella Deville of the GOP



FYI - I just finished the audio version of Begala's & Carville's "Take It Back : Our Party, Our Country, Our Future" It's a nice read. Begala reads the audio book. I like Carville a lot more in print then on TV. He's got a lot of great ideas, but always seems so flustered and hyper on the boob tube.

He are what some of the blog's had to say about Matalin's performance:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/russert-watch-the-mary-m_b_15990.html
 

OMG, I totally agree. That brooch was butt ugly. I thought the red nail polish didn't look too good either.

Yes, her husband does not come off like an articulate person when he's interviewed on TV. I cannot picture the 2 of them together.
 
hipsterdufus said:
What was that brooch she was wearing? Yoi!
She is the Cruella Deville of the GOP

Click to expand...
aps said:
OMG, I totally agree. That brooch was butt ugly. I thought the red nail polish didn't look too good either.
Click to expand...

I wrote this just in the last few days...

It's so nice to see that some on the Left are more than willing to back up my statement...
 
cnredd said:
Show me where Mary Matalin personally attacked any member on this panel...Show me where she was acting like a "combative child."....

Show the whole forum...:roll:
Click to expand...

I provided a response to your request. At a minimum, you could respond to my post about what I believed was indicative of Matalin personally attacking David Gregory. If you disagree with my assessment, that's fine. I would love for you to watch the entire show because reading words is very different than watching facial expressions, eye contact, and all that stuff.
 

And this is worthy of debate why?

Unless Mary Matalin became a liberal overnight, this description of her allegedly hysterical behavior (which is a liberal trademark) sounds nothing like her and is highly suspect, especially considering the source. :roll:

If you want anyone here to beleive that she lost an argument (for whatever purpose that may supposedly serve), you might consider posting a link to it.

And she was probably just disgusted with the lame, biased drivel that usually flows from the guests on Tim Russert's show (who worked for Jimmy Carter as a liberal operative before being trusted with legitimate news coverage).
 
aquapub said:
And this is worthy of debate why?
Click to expand...

It was worthy enough for you to comment in this thread. I rest my case.

Unless Mary Matalin became a liberal overnight, this description of her allegedly hysterical behavior (which is a liberal trademark) sounds nothing like her and is highly suspect, especially considering the source. :roll:
Click to expand...

I did not describe her behavior as "hysterical." Nice spin there, Mr. Happy.


cnredd posted the link to the transcript for that show. You can also watch the episode from your computer, if you're at all interested.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
 

I note that not one point she made, not one statement she made has been rebutted. She explained the situation quite clearly and shot down the hysterics of Ms. Dowd. I will give David Gregory for issuing his appology for his behavior which was indicitive of the WH press corp's.
 
cnredd said:
I wrote this just in the last few days...

It's so nice to see that some on the Left are more than willing to back up my statement...
Click to expand...

I'm more than happy to oblige. :2wave:

FYI - Here's a list of Rush's nicknames, sorted alphabetically for your reading pleasure. Part 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show
 
Part 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show
 
part 3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show
 

Stinger, no one can describe Maureen Dowd as behaving hysterically. Her monotone voice is just that--monotone. I think she backed up her assertions during the program. Matalin thinks that Cheney's behavior was fine--Maureen Dowd does not. It is a matter of opinion. I certainly wouldn't expect Matalin to say anything negative about Cheney. While Americans on the whole did not seem to be bothered by his failure to report the incident more quickly, those who have an understanding of what should be reported to the press have disagreed, including people from the republican party.
 
aps said:
Stinger, no one can describe Maureen Dowd as behaving hysterically. Her monotone voice is just that--monotone.
Click to expand...
s

Her statements were hysterical and attempts to grab at anything.

I think she backed up her assertions during the program.
Click to expand...

She didn't back up anything, they were the same old tired assertions.

Matalin thinks that Cheney's behavior was fine--Maureen Dowd does not.
Click to expand...

And Matalin stated her case clearly and convincingly, Dowd was merely using hysterics.

It is a matter of opinion. I certainly wouldn't expect Matalin to say anything negative about Cheney.
Click to expand...

In this matter there was nothing negative to say that's why Dowd had to stoop to the hysterics, which is par for the course for her.

While Americans on the whole did not seem to be bothered by his failure to report the incident more quickly,
Click to expand...

It wasn't a failure, didn't you even listen to Matalin? It was reported to those who needed to know and to the public in due course.

those who have an understanding of what should be reported to the press have disagreed, including people from the republican party.
Click to expand...

Yeah the Washington press corp who got thier elitist panties in a wad because THEY were not told first. It was given to the AP through the local paper. So tell what difference in your world would it have made if you had heard it Saturday night rather than Sunday morning?
 
Stinger said:
Her statements were hysterical and attempts to grab at anything.

She didn't back up anything, they were the same old tired assertions.
Click to expand...

Please provide me the statement she made that were not backed up. Can you honestly say that the Geneva Conventions were applied at Abu Graib and that there wasn't serious dissent as to how the prisoners were being treated?

I would appreciate your backing up your statements.

And Matalin stated her case clearly and convincingly, Dowd was merely using hysterics.
Click to expand...

How Matalin and Dowd see this issue is a matter of a difference of opinion. I repeat that when republicans, particularly Ari Fleischer, state that what the VP did was questionable, I think Maureen Dowd has a leg to stand on. Fitzwater also disagreed with the way Cheney handled this (in case you don't know, Fitzwater was both Reagan and Bush I's press secretary). Sorry, but these 2 people know a little bit more about releasing information than you do. I think I'll go with their opinion.


In this matter there was nothing negative to say that's why Dowd had to stoop to the hysterics, which is par for the course for her.
Click to expand...

I agree that sometimes her articles are over the top, but I thought she was very effective during the interview.


See answers above. Personally, I think someone can state their opinion without being obnoxious or condescending. I would be embarrassed if Maureen Dowd was rolling her eyes and sighing during the interview, but I hold people to a higher standard than the average person. As I stated above, I thought Al Gore looked like an a$$ when he sighed throughout one of his debates with George Bush. It was a complete turn-off to see him behaving like that. I hold Matalin to the same standard. However, I must remind myself that those who are feeling insecure and/or weak will behave irrationally. LOL

Were you the one that said that Russert used to work for Carter? I believe you are getting Russert and Chris Matthews mixed up. Russert has never worked for Carter. He was, however, chief of staff for Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from 1977 to 1982.
 

Guess cnredd was incapable of defending his initial post in this thread. Cool.
 

Dowd: "Well, I think that the reason this story has evoked such fascination is because the vice president is like the phantom. You know, we hear the creak of the door as he passes, but we don’t really know what he’s up to. We don’t know his schedule. We don’t always know where he is. We don’t know what democratic institution he’s blowing off at any given minute, and so this allowed us to see how his behavior and judgement operated pretty much in real time—with the delay, but pretty much in real time."

Pure hysterics. And the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the people being held at Gitmo so that is specious on it's face.

How Matalin and Dowd see this issue is a matter of a difference of opinion.
Click to expand...

They may be entitled to thier own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts. And as noted Dowd's opinion was based on her typical hysterics, the woman comes off as an idiot and has for years.



I repeat that when republicans, particularly Ari Fleischer, state that what the VP did was questionable, I think Maureen Dowd has a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

Ari can question all he wants, he wasn't there and as far as Dowd again

Matalin blew her away with this FACTUAL statement : "What we thought we were doing Sunday morning by having an eyewitness who was there, who was an expert on hunting, going to a paper that understands the culture, who had the capacity to get it up on the wire quickly, was communicating and informing the public in which the vice president took responsibility, apologized, spoke to the reporter, was corroborated by the sheriff and our office, the vice president’s office. I no longer work there. I don’t see how that’s violating the rules of the institution, the hallmarks of our democracy. We just didn’t go through them."

Dowd went on to make this false statement "But then he shot his friend and blames his friend."

Cheney NEVER blamed his friend.

And

"MS. DOWD: But I think reporters would have had a lot of empathy for the vice president if he hadn’t sent people out for four days to blame the victim. I mean, you know, I went hunting with Reagan and Bush Sr. and I’ve been on all these Republican hunting trips, and—but I’ve learned a lot about hunting this week. And the thing I’ve learned is that the shooter bears total responsibility for where everyone in the party is before he shoots, and they shoot abreast, not while someone’s fetching a duck. So for him to send all these people out to blame this guy for so many days was not appropriate."

Which is a total fabrication and she can't even get it straight what they were hunting.



Fitzwater also disagreed with the way Cheney handled this (in case you don't know, Fitzwater was both Reagan and Bush I's press secretary).
Click to expand...

But was he engaged in these hysterics

Dowd "MS. DOWD: Well, I do think, you know, I appreciate the vice president’s attempts to put on a sweet pink tie and, you know, to tell Wyoming about, you know, his lust as a newlywed. But I think Mary had a very difficult job humanizing Dick Cheney, because I don’t think he has given us much chance to see him as a human being.

or this overblown rhetoric?

Dowd "And it covered all the problems of the Bush/Cheney administration: secrecy and stonewalling, then blowing off the rules that are at the heart of our democracy, then using a filter to try and put the truth out in a way that would most suit their political needs, and then bad political judgement in bungling a crisis. I mean, if there’s one thing the Republicans are great at since Reagan, it’s damage control. But he is such a control freak, you know, he doesn’t even care about the damage."




I agree that sometimes her articles are over the top, but I thought she was very effective during the interview.
Click to expand...

Effective at what?



Her demogogory cited above is your "higher standard"?

However, I must remind myself that those who are feeling insecure and/or weak will behave irrationally. LOL
Click to expand...

Believe me Mary Matalin is not one who feels insecure or weak, geez she's married to Carville.

Were you the one that said that Russert used to work for Carter?
Click to expand...

No
 
aps said:
Guess cnredd was incapable of defending his initial post in this thread. Cool.
Click to expand...
YOU started a thread based entirely on your opinion while watching a show...Since YOU supplied no evidence, I, a meek and fragile forum member had to do the work myself and look up the transcript...

I did so, and read the whole thing...I then gave my response using evidence that I myself supplied...

Then YOU decide to tell me that my evidence doesn't count...That says to me, "cnredd, I consider all of your efforts to be a waste of time"...

Then YOU say that the reason is discounted is because I didn't see the show and notice the mannerisms...

Which means that the only people who COULD debate this thread are people who HAVE seen the show...How many people on this forum did this?...5?...10 if your lucky?...And what are the chances of getting all of them to debate in this one thread?...

So THEN you provide a link with the show, but you also state that if two people watch it, then they can come up with two different viewpoints...

So I ask you...Then what's the debate?...

You saw a show and then started a thread bashing a partisan pundit because of what you perceive...BFD...
 

That was not my intention to dismiss your research. I apologize if that is how it came out. I would never intentionally dismiss someone's efforts.

Then YOU say that the reason is discounted is because I didn't see the show and notice the mannerisms...
Click to expand...

You have to admit that watching someone and determining whether they are being combative is based upon a person's voice and mannerisms. You cannot assess true credibility unless you see the person. That was my point. To me, you had overlooked the part where Matalin made things personal. I was merely pointing that out and further supporting my assessment that she had made things personal.

Which means that the only people who COULD debate this thread are people who HAVE seen the show...How many people on this forum did this?...5?...10 if your lucky?...And what are the chances of getting all of them to debate in this one thread?...
Click to expand...

If no one responded, it would not be a big deal. I was soliciting the opinion of those who had watched it. This is a political message board, and I am assuming that many people watch Meet the Press. I was surprised why you even showed up to dismiss my assessment when you hadn't even seen the show.


You are always free to ignore my thread, cnredd. If you don't see a debate, and that's what you are looking for, move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…