Clear and Present Danger, Even Without a Third Term

Chris Matthews says of President Trump "the man has to be stopped by somebody. And that means his Party."

His party obviously refuses to do so, which makes it all the more unfortunate that Matthews' read of the United States Constitution is accurate only in part. He maintains

We're founded on the principle of division of powers. Presidents cannot decide things. He cannot break through the Constitution. I mean, here's a President existence as President. That's a fact. And everybody knows it. But yet  he keeps saying "I may run again next time." I may run again for President and clearly that is a problem because he says he won the 2020 election. He decides what the Constitution will read. He acts like he can do everything.

Chris Matthews: We're founded on the principle of division of powers. Presidents cannot decide things. Here's a president who keeps talking about running for reelection in 2028. Everybody knows he's limited to a two-term existence as president. But yet he keeps saying, I may run… pic.twitter.com/44oxq1KWbS

— Blue Georgia (@BlueATLGeorgia) February 28, 2026

Division of powers is an important principle embedded in the Constitution or, as the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision put it, something which exists within the penumbra of the Constitution. (And we know how that turned out in Dobbs 45 years later.)  Nonetheless, the document does not prohibit an individual from serving more than two terms as President. Instead,the Twenty-Second Amendment reads

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or  acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

And so it was on February 25 that Trump administration officials announced

that the federal government would withhold $259 million in Medicaid funds to Minnesota, the latest effort by the federal government to pull funding from Democratic-led states as President Trump rails against a major welfare fraud scandal there.

Federal judges have blocked most of the Trump administration’s efforts to claw back funds from states like Minnesota, New York, California, Illinois and Colorado. The states have decried the cuts as politically motivated, adding that they would harm hundreds of thousands of people. The Trump administration has pointed to allegations of fraud to justify the cuts.

The latest action targeting Medicaid funds will almost certainly be challenged in court.

Although obviously unconstitutional, it may take awhile for that to go through the courts. And if lower court(s) decide against the regime, Mr. Trump will continue to act illegally until the matter has run its course, because of course he will. It's not Donald's first rodeo as

In January, the Trump administration moved to withhold funding for food stamps and other hunger relief programs in Minnesota. A federal judge blocked that order. The Department of Health and Human Services also tried to freeze $10 billion in funding for child care subsidies, social services and cash support for low-income families in Minnesota, New York, California, Illinois and Colorado. A federal judge blocked that order, too.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration again moved to withhold a smaller pot of Health Department funds that included grants aimed at curbing H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted infections. A federal judge blocked that move, and his order broadly enjoined the government from terminating public health grants “based on undisclosed agency priorities.”

The cuts to social and health care services came as Mr. Trump has fixated on allegations of fraud in Minnesota, claiming, without evidence, that similar large fraud schemes are playing out elsewhere in Democratic led-states.

.

You and whose army? If the Administration decided to defy the courts in this or virtually any other matter, it is questionable he'd be blocked by the same U.S. Supreme Court which ruled in 2024 that the President can do whatever he wishes in his official acts and is completely immune in the "core" acts.

At some point, the regime will again the court(s) the figurative middle finger, as it came within hours of doing on April 7, 2025, until Chief Justice John Roberts let the Adminstration off the hook. Donald Trump has almost told us so, such as when in February of last year, he

posted on social media a single sentence that appears to encapsulate his attitude as he tests the nation’s legal and constitutional boundaries in the process of upending the federal government and punishing his perceived enemies.

“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” Mr. Trump wrote, first on his social media platform Truth Social, and then on the website X.

By late afternoon, Mr. Trump had pinned the statement to the top of his Truth Social feed, making it clear it was not a passing thought but one he wanted people to absorb. The official White House account on X posted his message in the evening.

The quote is a variation of one sometimes attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, although its origin is unclear.

Nonetheless, the sentiment was familiar: Mr. Trump, through his words and actions, has repeatedly suggested that surviving two assassination attempts is evidence that he has divine backing to enforce his will.

He has brought a far more aggressive attitude toward his use of power to the White House in his second term than he did at the start of his first. The powers of the presidency that he returned to were bolstered by last year’s Supreme Court ruling that he is presumptively immune from prosecution for any crimes he may commit using his official powers.

The sentiment has become even more familiar. Whining yet again about losing the 2020 election, in December of 2022 Donald posted on Untruth Social

A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

And now, this:

Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly previewed a plan to mandate voter ID and ban mail ballots in November’s midterm elections, and the activists expect their draft will figure into Trump’s promised executive order on the issue.

Peter Ticklin, the Florida lawyer advocating for declaration of national emergency, told the Post "we have a situation whee the President is aware that there are foreign interests that are interfering in our election processes. That causes a national emergency where the President has to be able to deal with it."

Asked about the idea, Donald replied "I've never heard about it." You're forgiven for having flashbacks to the 2024 presidential campaign, when in the debate with Kamala Harris, Donald maintained "I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I haven't read it. I don't want to read it purposely. I'm not going to read it." 

Project 2025, which turned out to be a blueprint for the Trump Administration, includes plenty of ideas to detonate free elections.  It's one more reason, a big one, that this man does have to be stopped by somebody, whether Donald Trump seeks to stay in office beyond January, 2029 or even if he doesn't make it through this term of office.

Share |

Journalism

The Hill reports

MSNBC host Chris Matthews came under fire this week from some progressives for pressing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on why she believed a woman who had accused former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg of pressuring her to have an abortion while she was an employee for his company.

"MSNBC needs to fire Chris Matthews. Today," Shaunna Thomas, president of the women's advocacy group UltraViolet, said in a statement. "Matthews' refusal to believe women, and history of sexual harassment, make it clear that he is not fit to continue to cover this election. MSNBC can and must do better, and they can start by firing Chris Matthews."

After the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday, Matthews asked Warren during an interview why she believed the accuser and not Bloomberg. Warren had brought up the accusation during the debate.

"You believe he is lying?" Matthews asked, referring to Bloomberg.

Warren reiterated that she believed the woman, with Matthews then asking why Bloomberg would lie.

"Just to protect himself?" Matthews asked.

"Yeah, and why would she lie?" Warren responded.

In a lawsuit filed against Bloomberg, a female employee alleged that he told her to "kill it" after he found out she was pregnant. The language was interpreted by the employee as ordering her to have an abortion in order to keep her job, The Washington Post reported.

Bloomberg has repeatedly denied making the remark.

Lauren Duca, a journalist and activist with more than 400,000 Twitter followers, called Matthews's questioning of Warren "insane."

Chris Matthews asks Elizabeth Warren why she believes a female employee who sued Mike Bloomberg for telling her "kill it" when she was pregnant over Bloomberg.

"You believe he's lying? ...Why would he lie? Just to protect himself? ...You’re confident of your accusation?" pic.twitter.com/hVkkQhhXtz

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) February 26, 2020

Chris Matthews is not insane. Slate's Heather Schwedel recommends he "shut up," even as she inadvertently explains why it is unnecessary, as Warren

answered his incredulity with reason, frankness, and an elegant allusion to how the issue intersects with her own story: “Well, a pregnant employee sure said that he did. Why shouldn’t I believe her? You know, I’m just really tired of this world, this one is personal for me. It really is.” She displayed irritation without crossing over into anger that would surely give her critics reason to dismiss her, at least in their minds: “We have gone on and on and on where people say, ‘Oh, I can’t really believe the woman.’ Really? Why not?” She was composed—“And why would she lie? That’s the question, Chris”— and she didn’t back down. She answered Matthews plainly: “I believe the woman. Which means [Bloomberg]’s not telling the truth.”

It's called journalism. The Massachusetts senator made a serious charge when she maintained during the debate in South Carolina "At least I didn't have a boss who said to me, 'Kill it,' the way that Mayor Bloomberg is alleged to have said to one of his pregnant employees."

Warren herself recognized that the employee's accusation was an allegation, unproven and ultimately a "she said, he said issue.  In drilling down on the matter, Matthews was committing an act of journalism, challenging the candidate to explain why she believed the female employee. 

And, of course, there was the inevitable demand that the offender be fired:

Matthews’ refusal to believe women, and history of sexual harassment, make it clear that he is not fit to continue to cover this election. MSNBC can and must do better, and they can start by firing Chris Matthews. (2/5)

— Shaunna Thomas (@SLThomas) February 26, 2020

Along with the unlikely possibility the employee is lying, she may have distorted what was stated, remembered the incident inaccurately, or omitted important context. But that is how it has become with cancel culture, in which reactions overtake the search for truth.

Not to worry. Elizabeth has this. She understands candidates have their jobs, journalists have theirs, and if there were only sweetness and light between the two, the public would be the loser.

Share |

Going Low

Lamenting what he sees as Bernard Sanders' march to the Democratic presidential nomination, Chris Matthews goes on about Nazis, Jews, concentration camps, and the Holocaust. Beginning at 1:41 of the video below, he can be seen and heard remarking

That is the name of the game. It's pretty much over unless that changes. I was reading last night- Brian, I know because you're a history guy, too- I'm reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940.   And the general, Renaud, calls up Churchill and says "it's over." And Churchill says "how can it be? You got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?" He said "It's over."

So I had that suppressed feeling. I can't be as wild as Carville but he's damn smart and I think he's damn right about this one."





You're reading that right. He said nothing about Jews; nothing about the Holocaust or concentration camps; nothing, even, about Nazis per se. As noted by one who likes Sanders, denigrates MSNBC, and despises the Democratic establishment (whatever there is left of it, anyway):

I dislike MSNBC's Chris Matthews but his use of the Maginot line as a metaphor was reasonable. It's probably the most famous military metaphor of bypassing fortified defenses in history.

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) February 23, 2020

However, that didn't stop numerous tweets accusing Matthews of anti-Semitism.  One came from the communications director for the candidate, obviously feared by Matthews, whose surrogates include Ilhan Omar and a brazen anti-Semite.

never thought part of my job would be pleading with a national news network to stop likening the campaign of a jewish presidential candidate whose family was wiped out by the nazis to the third reich.

but here we are. https://t.co/2G1bqZ6bkI

— mike casca (@cascamike) February 22, 2020

We can write this incident off as just another loathsome manifestation of cancel culture, the "you disagree with me, so just die" impulse. But it shouldn't be necessary for supporters of Bernard Sanders' candidacy to apply the religion (or ethnic or whatever is intended) card to an innocuous, perhaps clumsy, military reference.

Hopefully, this is merely a one-off from the Sanders campaign. Nonetheless, there you have it- a bigot in the White House, and an opposing campaign which may be gearing up to throw up some ugliness of its own.

Share |

Vice-President Klobuchar

After Friday's debate in New Hampshire and before he transitioned into a rant against socialism, Chris Matthews gushed about Amy Klobuchar

I'm with the people here so far. I thought Klobuchar was wonderful. I'd never seen her this good. I think she's shown in this last week audacity. What you want to see in a politician is audacity, spontaneity.

You don't have it on a damn script. Be someone home with the lights on, somebody who's there, a human being and that's how she came across tonight. She never raised her voice. She was confident. She looked- I'm sorry it's weird to say this- she seemed like a President tonight. She seemed like the President I would like to have as President.

It was weird, Chris- but only because Amy Klobuchar is not running for President.

Oh, she'd take the nomination if it were handed to her. It is her goal- but has not been, and still is not, her intention. In Westerville, Ohio in the fourth Democratic debate of this presidential cycle, the Minnesota senator slammed her colleague from Massachusetts, the "capitalist to the bone," with "I want to give a reality check here to Elizabeth, because no one on this stage wants to protect billionaires. Not even the billionaire wants to protect billionaires."

A few minutes earlier, after Warren had made the (strategic) error of vouching for Medicare for All, Klobuchar had stated

At least Bernie's being honest here and saying how he's going to pay for this and that taxes are going to go up. And I'm sorry, Elizabeth, but you have not said that, and I think we owe it to the American people to tell them where we're going to send the invoice.

Responding to the bait from Klobuchar, a couple of weeks later Warren did explain how she would finance her health care plan.

We still don't know the details of Bernard Sanders' health care plan and partly as a result, Sanders now leads the Democratic field. His main rival currently is Pete Buttigieg, like Klobuchar a center-left candidate whose health care notion is closer to that of the Minnesota senator than to that of either Sanders or Warren.

When Warren was Sanders' main challenger, Klobuchar took on Warren rather than condemning Sanders, with whom she also has major disagreements. While Warren and Sanders have avoided criticizing each other, Klobuchar has charged after Buttigieg

At the debate in Manchester on Friday, Klobuchar took a quick shot at Sanders and Warren for their health care plans, then argued

And Pete, while you have a different plan now you sent out a tweet just a few years ago that said, henceforth, forewith, indubitably, affirmatively, you are for Medicare for All for the ages. And so I would like to point out that what leadership is about is taking a position, looking at things and sticking with them.

Later in that debate, she commented

Okay, there you go. Meeting the moment, meeting the moment, we had a moment the last few weeks, mayor, and that moment was these impeachment hearings. And there was a lot of courage that you saw from only a few people. There was courage from Doug Jones, our friend of Alabama, who took that tough vote. There was courage from Mitt Romney, who took it very, very difficult vote. There was courage, as I read today, about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman being escorted out of the White House, what he did took courage. But what you said, Pete, as you were campaigning through Iowa, as three of us were jurors in that impeachment hearing, you said it was exhausting to watch, and that you wanted to turn the channel and watch cartoons.

It is easy to go after Washington, because that’s a popular thing to do. It is much harder, as I see Senator Shaheen in the front row, such a leader, it is much harder to lead, and much harder to take those difficult positions. Because I think this going after every single thing that people do, because it’s popular to say, and makes you look like a cool newcomer. I just, I don’t think that’s what people want right now. We have a newcomer in the White House, and look where it got us. I think having some experience is a good thing.

At a party dinner on Saturday

Sanders' supporters were quiet or applauding during most other candidates' remarks. Amy Klobuchar even played along during her remarks, turning to the Sanders section and saying, “Hi, Bernie people!”

Amy Klobuchar may look like a President to Chris Matthews, and she wouldn't mind reaching that office. However, playing second fiddle to an elderly president from Vermont is not a bad gig and her audition has been going quite well lately.

Share |

A Republican, Not In Name Only

Conceding Donald Trump's "love of Vladimir Putin is a big berak with the GOP orthodoxy," Steve M. observes the President is "just the modern GOP on rage-induced drugs."

Republicans favor torture and have "an obsession with torture," he points out.  Their support for the President's eagerness for deficit spending comports neatly with their passion for blowing up the deficit whenever the President is a Republican..

And of course, immigration, regarding which Steve M. cites questions those who doubt

the largely Republican-driven shutdowns of immigration reform efforts in both the Bush and Obama years? Or anti-immigration anger so vociferous that it led John McCain, once a supporter of reform, to demand that the government "complete the danged fence."

Were he blogging primarily about the GOP's immigration policy, rather than the failure to understand that Trump is a creationof the Republican Party, he would have noticed another similarity between Trump's immigration policy and GOP orthodoxy which has gone under the radar.  This is the ten-point immigration plan on the Trump-Pence campaign website:


1. Begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border, on day one. Mexico will pay for the wall.                                                                                                                                                                 
2. End catch-and-release. Under a Trump administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.

3. Move criminal aliens out day one, in joint operations with local, state, and federal law enforcement. We will terminate the Obama administration’s deadly, non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets.

4. End sanctuary cities.

5. Immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties. All immigration laws will be enforced - we will triple the number of ICE agents. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country.

6. Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur, until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.

7. Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported.

8. Ensure that a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system is fully implemented at all land, air, and sea ports.

9. Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet. Many immigrants come to the U.S. illegally in search of jobs, even though federal law prohibits the employment of illegal immigrants.

10. Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, keeping immigration levels within historic norms.


For all of Donald Trump's bluster, there is one key item missing from the list.  Chris Matthews asked guest Haley Barbour Thursday evenig "why does Trump never mention illegal hiring?" Here he is, the Mr. Populist who broke through that supposed "blue wall" in the Rust Belt by winning the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and there is no talk of illegal hiring or the workplace raids.

Trump does promise to "triple the number of ICE agents," but that is followed by "anyone who enters the U.S. illegally" because the focus is on people who haven't yet crossed the border. If the immigrants already are here- illegally- employed at a job a native-born individual or legal immigrant otherwise would have, Trump doesn't want to hear about it.

There has been little support over the past few decades for deporting individuals who ae in the country illegally and employed, and President Trump has given little indication he will challenge that. Building a wall to keep out individuals not yet here goes down much easier, like a little sugar with medication.  Viewing video of men, women, and children already in the USA being kicked out would be much more discomfiting.

Business interests are not to be offended. We wouldn't want to cut into the profit in hiring cheap, non-union, vulnerable labor, would we?  In this and in other ways Donald Trump is, as characterized by Steve M., "a Republican evolution, not an aberration."




 








Share |

Unusual Revolutionary

Charlie Pierce caught an interview of Hillary Clinton by one of the candidate's acolytes, Chris Matthews (photo from MSNBC). and observed "it appears condescension is not just a river in Egypt." Matthews claimed

Look, the history of the Democratic party—your party, not Bernie Sanders. He's not a Democrat—your party has produced the New Deal, the progressive income tax came from the Democrats, Social Security, the greatest anti-poverty program, came from Roosevelt, health-care and civil rights, and all these good things, and in every case, you had to battle Republicans against it to the last person. It's always been a tough fight. You need 60 votes in the Senate, and you need 218 in the House. And if you don't have them nothing gets done. Can the Bernie people be taught—not him, he can't be taught—can the kids behind him be told that this is how it works in our system? You can call for a revolution but it ain't gonna happen. There isn't going to be a revolution. There's gonna be an election and an inauguration and then there's going to be a Congress sitting next to you that you have to deal with. Revolution sounds like a pass. You don't have to have logic any more. We're going to have a revolution and pay for anything.

Pierce remarks

First of all, what Sanders is calling for is a democratically determined change in how we govern ourselves. He's not fcking Robespierre. The tumbrels are all in your head, dude. Among other things, Sanders is advocating for the restoration of a financial-reform system that was a pure product of the New Deal and that prevailed for 60-odd years. That's his "revolution." Just chill. 

"The kids" is how Mattthews refers to young voters. It's reminiscent of the common sports talk show vernacular in which college athletes and even professional athletes are commonly referred to as "kids." It's what you call young adults when reluctant to afford them the full respect they're due.

Thus, Matthews asks, probably rhetorically "Can the Bernie people be taught—not him, he can't be taught—can the kids behind him be told that this is how it works in our system?"

Not only can't "the kids" be taught, but a 25-year veteran of the United States Congress, one currently more popular among his own constituents than any other Senator, "can't be taught."   Matthews should have consulted the other veterans, those of the United States Armed Forces.

In 2014, GOP Senator John McCain of Arizona and Vermont senator and then-Senate veterans' committee chairperson Bernie Sanders addressed the huge controversy surrounding the Veterans Adminstration. McCain proposed a bill which contained a provision allowing veterans residing far from a VA facility to obtain private care. House veterans committee chairperson Jeff Miller, representing the extremely conservative and veteran-laden Florida Panhandle, added the provision to a bill he was sponsoring in the lower chamber, and it quickly passed, 426-0.

But Sanders, Jill Lawrence has written for Politico magazine, "was focused on fixing scheduling and strengthening the VA internally."  and he and Senator McCain

agreed to give veterans the choice of private care for both scheduling and distance reasons, and McCain agreed to limit the choice program to a two-year trial. Both agreed on expanded firing authority, and they compromised on how much due process to allow for those who were dismissed.

The bill passed 93-3.   However, the Senate and the House bills had to be reconciled and, Lawrence explains "Sanders and his party, with strong backing from the disabled veterans community, wanted to add new money to bolster the VA internally. Miller and the House leadership, meanwhile, wanted to focus on the private-choice program."  That would be Vermont's Bernard Sanders, whom a technically accurate but wildly misleading Matthews labeled " not a Democrat."

Soon afterward, the VA director told House Republicans that the agency needed to correct its deficiencies $17.6 billion, a number which infuriated Miller.  However

Sanders and other Senate Democrats were predictably livid. Instead of going to Miller’s meeting, they held a press conference to vent about money and collegiality. Sanders responded to Miller’s moving-the-goal-posts charge by saying he did move them—“to a much lower and more realistic number,” $10 billion less than the initial Senate bill. He said he had tried to meet the Republicans “more than halfway,” but was sad to conclude “the good faith we have shown was not reciprocated by the other side.” Miller’s approach, he said, amounted to saying “come to a meeting, vote for my bill, end of discussion.” He added: “That is not democracy.”

Then-House Speaker John Boehner did not agree with Democratic criticism and

blamed the impasse on Obama. "Bipartisan, bicameral negotiations were making good progress, until the White House began demanding more money with no accountability, and no strings attached. Now, I want to be clear: there's going to be no blank check for the president and his allies,” Boehner said. Other Republicans blamed Sanders, who had invited Gibson to assess VA’s internal needs and ended up with what a Republican aide called “a half-baked proposal” that arrived smack in the middle of a negotiation.

Nonetheless

a compromise was reached just a couple of days later. The House had offered zero money for VA improvements, while Sanders had asked for close to $9 billion. In the end, both sides agreed to $5 billion. Another $1.5 billion went for leases of 27 major medical facilities in 18 states and Puerto Rico. The two sides also agreed to create a Veterans Choice Fund and put $10 billion into it. The House, which had offered no due process to people being fired, agreed quickly to an appeal within a week, a decision within a month and no pay for the duration of the appeal.

The new bill passed the House 420-3 and the Senate 91-3 and was signed into law by President Obama.

After Chris Matthews' rant about how "the kids" and Bernie The Revolutionary don't understand how our representative democracy works, Clinton lectured the viewers on American history:

We had to have people who were willing to roll up their sleeves and compromise. We couldn't have ideologues who were just hurling their rhetoric back and forth. We had to actually produce results. That hasn't changed since George Washington. We have to produce results now because a democracy is a fragile organism. 

Over-compensation can be quite unattractive.  Throughout the 2008 primary campaign Matthews, enamored of Barack Obama, made several controversial remarks (some arguably sexist) about Mrs.Clinton, perhaps the most (in)famous being "T]he reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around."

In December, 2007 Matthews had asked journalist Chrystia Freeland about Mrs. Clinton's supporters "Chrystia, do you -- aren't you appalled at the willingness of these people to become castratos in the eunuch chorus here or whatever they are?"  Given his about face, one now is tempted to say ooh, that must really hurt, Chris.








Share |

Just Plain Folks

Bob Somerby, a nearly-constant critic of Chris Matthews, has slammed the MSNBC talk show host for promoting the inconsequential story about the wealth of the Clintons.  He quotes Matthews, periodically posing as the working-class guy from the streets of Philadelphia, on Hardball asking Nia-Malika Henderson "Why don’t we accept them as they are and stop making them like us? Because I don’t know the answer why we want them to be frauds to us. If she’s a little elitist, let her be a little elitist."

Somerby remarks

Matthews is extremely wealthy, apparently with the filthy lucre he gained from a deal with the devil. 

Reportedly, Matthews’ salary went to $5 million in the year 2001. Beyond that, his wife, Kathleen Matthews, holds an upper-end corporate job with Marriott.

Chris Matthews is very wealthy. His summer home, the crib on Nantucket, was purchased in 2004 for $4.4 million—about the price of the Clintons’ two houses combined. 

But it's not only Chris Matthews.  Politico reports

Matt Lauer and the rest of NBC’s “Today” show cast took time out of its Thursday morning broadcast to discuss what critics are calling gendered questions from Lauer to General Motors CEO Mary Barra.

“I got a lot of criticism and I said I always thought this was not a gender issue, this is a human issue of work and life balance,” Lauer said in reaction to backlash from his interview that aired one week earlier. “It’s a parenting issue for men and women, moms and fathers, a question I ask myself every single day. But clearly it still touches a nerve.”

Lauer found himself facing critics after he asked Barra, a mother of two, how she handled both tasks of a parent and a CEO. According to Lauer, he asked the question after the GM CEO publicly spoke about missing her son’s junior prom for work. After the interview aired June 26, Lauer issued a statement on his Facebook page.

“It’s an issue almost every parent including myself can relate to,” he wrote. “If a man had publicly said something similar after accepting a high-level job, I would have asked him exactly the same thing … [Work-life balance is] an important topic, one that I’m familiar with personally, and I hope we can continue the discussion.”

Martha Stewart and Kathy Lee Gifford were also on “Today” to join the conversation, and agreed that the subject should not be “taboo.” While Gifford expressed that she feels that women can “have it all,” just not at the same time, Stewart said parents “can’t have it all, but you can try.”

Having more self-awareness than media giants such as these, you know what is missing from this discussion.  "Barra" is the married name of Mary Theresa Makela (photo below from Forbes) who, Wikipedia notes, "is married to consultant Tony Barra, whom she met while studying at Kettering University, and has two children."   Perhaps when asked "Given the pressures of this job at General Motors, can you do both well?"  Mrs. Barra, wife of a man lacking a 9-to-5 job, might have responded "I have a husband to help me."

Lauer doesn't understand. Martha Stewart doesn't understand. Kathy Lee Gifford doesn't understand. These multi-millionaires don't quite understand (or, as they might put it, "get it") as they pretend to be average Joes, people just like the rest of us.  They are far wealthier. Mary Barra- Chief Economic Officer of a company worth a mere $37.4 billion, which recently announced a recall of 8.2 milion vehicles- is far wealthier and far more important.   Her job is more consequential than yours, mine, or those of our neighbors.  If Mary Barra doesn't get it right, an automotive company could go down, with disastrous results for millions of consumers, including workers who rely on her company to get themselves to and from their job.

The ultra-rich are not like the rest of us.  The husband of Mary Barra- whose total compensation this year may top $14 million- can help with the two children.  It's merely a guess but... Tony and Mary probably could put food on the table if Tony quit his job or even retired forever. If his job is so important that he cannot do so (fat chance), $14 billion would go a long way in hiring the best household help, nannies, and the like.

Of course, Mary's involvement in her children's' lives would be ideal. But even without that, the children should do quite well, thank you, with enrollment in the finest secondary schools and colleges and a leg up in the business world. (Their mother is well-connected.) Mary herself ( though evidently thoroughly qualified to be GM's CEO) is the daughter of a long-time Pontiac die-maker.  She earned a B.S. in what was once called "General Motors Institute," then scored a GM fellowship and an MBA from Stanford Graduate School of Business.  Mrs. Barra may always have been an extraordinary individual, but this is no coincidence.

The Barras can do it any way they want- that comes with the territory when a couple earns more than $14 million a year. Good for them.   But this pretense of Lauer, Stewart, Gifford, Matthews and other fabulously wealthy celebrities that they are just like the rest of us must come to an end.  Mary Barra needs only a husband who can suck it up, be a stay-at-home parent, and recognize that marriage to a tremendously wealthy and influential woman can soothe the pangs of not being able to brag at cocktail parties about your own job.

Share |

The Republican Media- No. 39

Politico always has been one of the media organs most aggressively pushing the "on the one hand and on the other hand" meme.  On Thursday, January 16, Dylan Byers didn't disappoint when he wrote

Back in May 2012, five months before the presidential election, Fox News produced and aireda four-minute video attacking President Obama. The decision to create an attack advertisement was seen as so ethically questionable that, after criticism even from conservatives, Fox News issued a rare statement clarifying that the video "was not authorized at the senior executive level."

On Wednesday night, MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell produced and aired an anti-Chris Christie ad (above) and offered ideas for future ads that could be used against the presumptive Republican presidential candidate.

"I wrote that ad in a few minutes,” O'Donnell told viewers. “I was just sitting there listening to him, just grabbed those quotes and wrote it. You can do this at home, it’s easy.”

We've reached out to MSNBC for comment regarding their decision to produce and air the advertisement. We will update here if and when we hear back.

Notwithstanding the title of the piece, "MSNBC Creates, then Airs, Anti-Christie Ad," there is no evidence the network itself produced the hypothetical campaign spot (video, below). Before going to commercial O'Donnell, who is a veteran television writer and producer, remarked

Chris Christie has already written the attack ads that his opponents will use against him when he runs for president. I actually took some of Chris Christie`s own words from his press conference last week and produced a perfectly respectable fake attack ad against Chris Christie which I will show you in tonight`s rewrite. You are not going to believe how easy it is to do this. And yes, you can try it at home.

Immediately before running the ad, O'Donnell stated "I wrote this commercial while Chris Christie was actually still doing his press conference."

Unless O'Donnell is lying, he himself wrote the commercial. Compare that with the way Fox News rolls, as described by the author of "The Loudest Voice in the Room." Asked by Chris Hayes why Fox News is so successful, Gabriel Sherman explained

One simple answer, Roger Ailes. He starts in everything (sic) with the network starts with him. It is a completion reflection of his world. He has two meetings a day, where he comes in, monologues about the news, gives his take on the headlines and that radiates through the building, from the daytime news shows to the pundits at night. Everything works together. It`s one cohesive package. At other networks, shows do their own thing. Different points of views. Fox, even with different hosts, it`s essentially one 24-hour product that`s packaged by Roger Ailes.

Five days after O'Donnell's piece, on January 20 MSNBC's Chris Matthews took a different tack than had his colleague, editorializing

The fact of the matter is that this case will proceed and will be judged not by the politics, but by the facts as they come to light. If it is found that the governor has set up a political operation that turned on punishing rivals and holdouts while favoring friends, the question then will be whether the tough-guy tactics crossed the line into criminality.

Certain hosts, including O'Donnell, on MSNBC have come down hard on the ruthless, incompetent governor.  Not so Matthews, for whom the standard is criminality. if Christie's tactics have not "crossed the line into criminality," he will be "exonerated,"  an awfully low bar for the governor of a state. But Dylan Byers evidently thinks MSNBC is run like Fox News.  While he first attributed production of the ad to Lawrence O'Donnell, he then refers to the network and "their decision to produce and air the advertisement."  It is a slick sleight-of-hand and a nefarious means of implying that management of MSNBC maintains the same control over that network's hosts as Roger Ailes does over his own.

Share |

Word To Action Unlikely

Paul Krugman is a great economist.  He's also a great optimist.

In his regular New York Times column, on December 5 Krugman commented "Mr. Obama laid out a disturbing- and, unfortunately, all too accurate vision of an America losing touch with its own ideals, an erstwhile land of opportunity becoming a class-ridden society." He maintained "this isn't entirely new terrain for Mr. Obama" but "what struck me about this speech, however, was what he had to say about the sources of rising inequality."  The President, he noted addressed such critical factors as the minimum wage, labor's bargaining power, the safety net, and fixation on the fiscal deficit.

Citing improving health care implementation, Obama's second-term focus on his legacy (including shoring up the social safety net), and the President's apparent break with the "fiscal scolds" obsessed with debt and entitlements, Krugman argues Obama is

finally sounding like the progressive many of his supporters thought they were backing in 2008. This is going to change the discourse — and, eventually, I believe, actual policy.

So don’t believe the cynics. This was an important speech by a president who can still make a very big difference.

Can, but won't.   In his softball interview for his Hardball tour, on Thursday Chris Matthews asked the President to comment on "a moral responsibility to look out for people who haven`t made it in this country."   Obama responded in part

And, you know, I -- I think Pope Francis is showing himself to be just an extraordinarily thoughtful and soulful messenger of peace and justice. I haven`t had a chance to meet him yet, but everything that I have read, everything that I have seen from him indicates the degree to which he is trying to remind us of those core obligations.

It's far from bold to compliment a pope, particularly for being a "thoughtful and soulful messenger of peace and justice.  (Soulful? Perhaps like the video below.)  But it was only fair and generous; in what was hardly a coincidence of timing, the President gave his speech on December 4.  Pope Francis had issued his Apostolic Exhortation a mere eight days earlier on November 26, declaring "We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market," observing "trickle-down... has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra­lized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

But while there is every reason to assume the sincerity of Pope Francis, there is little reason to assume the sincerity of Barack Obama. Buzzfeed's McKay Coppins has observed (at approximately 5:50 of the 6:16 video way below) "it's fascinating that five years into Obama's presidency we're still arguing about what he really believes."  The Administration currently is deep into secret negotiations (citation from the Electronic Frontier Foundation via The Economic Populist) for the

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that could include more than a dozen nations in the Asia-Pacific region including Malaysia, Vietnam, Japan, and South Korea.  Recently, China said that it was studying the possibility of joining the TPP talks.  Many members of the proposed agreement have long histories of currency manipulation, dumping, and other unfair trade practices that have dramatically increased U.S. trade deficits and job losses, and the agreement could sharply curtail the ability of the United States to challenge these practices.  The TPP would significantly increase the threat that rapidly growing trade deficits and job losses in the United States would be locked in if the TPP is completed.

Completion and implementation of the treaty would continue a policy of the last several presidents in destroying good jobs.  The Economic Policy Institute found

U.S. trade with Mexico after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has cost the United States nearly 700,000 jobs through 2010. U.S. trade with China has certainly failed to deliver on the promised benefits of growing exports. Since that country entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the U.S. has lost 2.7 million jobs through 2011 due to growing trade deficits with China. And the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) has also resulted in growing trade deficits with that country and the loss of more than 40,000 U.S. jobs. Most of the trade-related job losses are concentrated in manufacturing, and growing trade deficits are responsible for a large share of the decline in U.S. manufacturing employment over the past fifteen years.

It is fascinating and understandable that insightful, thoughtful individuals still are arguing over what Obama believes.  Probably, though, Obama's speech on economics this past week does reflect a major portion of the thinking of the first black president, community organizer, and law professor.  But as with real Wall Street reform- which has been elusive in this Administration- the President's policies generally reflect his reluctance to step on some very wealthy toes.  After Coppins' remark, host Steve Kornacki added, "that means he's a great politician."

Barack Obama is a great politician, but no Pope Francis.  Paul Krugman's optimism, while inspiring for this Chanukah/Christmas/New Year's ("holiday") season, likely will prove somewhat misplaced.

Share |

How Can This Be Posted Without One Mention Of Ted Cruz?

If the U.S. government does not pass a continuing resolution by September 30, it will shut down.  The Senate has passed a "clean" continuing resolution, but the resolution passed by the House contains a repeal of the Affordable Care Act.  Hence, the matter returns to the lower chamber.

The GOP strategy has become clear, as voiced by Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, who on Hardball Thursday said of President Obama "Hold on -- hold on -- who will negotiate with Syria, who will negotiate with Putin, who will negotiate with Iran, but won`t negotiate with 50 percent of his countrymen."   It was reiterated by National Review's Kevin Williamson (and others), who Friday tweeted "So the White House will negotiation with the atomic ayatollahs but not with House Republicans. Solution: Give John Boehner The Bomb." However, Matt Yglesias explains

The whole reason Obama neither will nor can negotiate with John Boehner is that Boehner has the equivalent of the The Bomb. He's threatening the destruction of the American financial system unless Obama implements policies that he favors. The government of Iran doesn't have the power to make a similar threat, but the government of Russia does. Vladimir Putin could hold a press conference tomorrow and say that nuclear-armed ballistic missiles will destroy Houston, Chicago, and Indianapolis tomorrow unless Obama agrees to his list of demands.

Would it be reasonable for Obama to open a negotiation on those terms? Of course not! The content of the demands isn't even relevant. The threat is too crazy to indulge. You simply observe that such an attack would trigger a counteract and lead to tragedy on a global scale. Then you have to hope the Russians come to their senses, because if they don't something awful is going to happen.

But President Obama has negotiated with the GOP.  Emerging from negotiations was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed by Republicans "Obamacare."    On September 3, 2009 CNN found

President Obama and top aides have quietly stepped up talks with moderate Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine on a scaled-back health care bill, according to two sources familiar with the negotiations.

The compromise plan would lack a government-run public health insurance option favored by Obama, but would leave the door open to adding that provision down the road under an idea proposed by Snowe, the sources said.

One of the sources said White House officials are "deep in conversations" with Snowe on a much smaller health care bill than Obama originally envisioned.

The modified proposal would include insurance reforms, such as preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, according to the source.

The potential deal would give insurance companies a defined period to make such changes in order to help cover more people and drive down long-term costs. But if those changes failed to occur within the defined period, a so-called "trigger" would provide for creating a public option to force change on the insurance companies, the source said.

By September 13, Senator Snowe had asserted "no way" to a public option.  Her colleague from Maine, Susan Collins, demanded the trigger mechanism be dropped.  Both proposals were shelved in the interest of gaining support from either or both Senators.  Additionally, Bloomberg reported at the time

Republicans in the House have complained that the legislation had loopholes that would allow for federal funding of abortion, which is now forbidden by law. Sebelius said on ABC’s “This Week” that the president will toughen the language currently in the House bill to explicitly rule out the use of federal funds. “That’s what he intends that the bill he signs will do,” Sebelius said.

Ultimately, the Act included a provision requiring that the portion of any premium which pays for abortion coverage, as well as any claims for an abortion, are paid for with private funds.   A framework relying on the private market with no public option and further restrictions on abortion, and neither Senator Snowe nor Senator Collins voted for health care reform.  Nor did any other Republican in either chamber.

Conservatives nonetheless have been relentless in their fight against a health care law featuring an individual mandate, first proposed by the Heritage Foundation,  In June, 2012, Republican Chief Justice John Roberts issued a ruling holding the individual mandate in the legislation constitutional.  The health care law was a major issue in that November's presidential election, won by Barack Obama over an opponent of the legislation, Willard "Mitt" Romney.

Some people, in past administrations Republicans but now Democrats, maintain "elections have consequences."  Nonetheless, the House GOP can vote- presumably for ideological (if misguided) reasons- to repeal the PPACA, which it now has done 42 times. But once Repubs go to shutting down the government or worse yet, refusing to pay the bill for programs the federal government has approved, it becomes clear their real aim is to bring the country down.


Share |

Now It's "Boy"


It has been ten days.

In those eleven days, the talk about Chris Christie in the national media has remained upbeat, positive, and positively ignorant.  Typical was an exchange between a longtime Democratic politician and Chris Matthews on Thursday's Hardball:

WILLIE BROWN (D), FORMER MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO: I think that either Biden 
or Clinton would prefer not to have to face Charlie Crist or anybody like 
Charlie Crist, in this case, obviously the governor of New Jersey.

MATTHEWS: You mean Crist Christie, Crist Christie.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: Yes, I was going to -- I like Charlie Crist better, because that 
was a better contrast.
But Chris Christie is in fact the one guy that these two people would not 
like to have to face, simply because he can go into the Democratic world 
and have some credibility, as he`s proven almost daily in New Jersey.

MATTHEWS: Can he keep up? I want to get back to the two younger guys that 
seem like the hot guys. Can a guy like Christie keep up this attitude of 
it`s none of your business, that sort of street talk that`s made him 
popular? Can you sustain that? Ed Koch did it for like 12 years before he 
ran out of that steam.

In those eleven days, few outside of New Jersey media have taken a close look at what Chris Christie actually does or says, which is not only reprehensible, but completely in character.   At a town hall on Tuesday, March 12 in one of New Jersey's largest cities, the governor continued the crusade for his own vision (vouchers) to destroy the public school system. NJ.com, the online version of the highest-circulating newspaper (The Star Ledger of Newark), reported

The pastor of the Paterson church that hosted Gov. Chris Christie’s town hall earlier this week said the governor should apologize to Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver for referring to her by her gender and race — instead of her name — while saying she is blocking a school reform bill he favors.

Rev. Kenneth D.R. Clayton, pastor for St. Luke Baptist Church, said he was "saddened by the governor’s blatant attack of Speaker Sheila Oliver" on Tuesday after audience members pressed Christie to address long-standing problems at Paterson schools.

Christie told the town hall audience he strongly supports a bill creating a trial voucher program for students to attend private and parochial schools, but "we have an African-American female speaker of the Assembly ... who refuses to let people vote on this bill."
Christie also said: "Why is it taking a Republican governor from the suburbs to stand up and fight the teachers union and the urban political machine to say, ‘Hey, I want to give your children a shot?’ Let me tell you what that is, that’s the worst kind of discrimination from my perspective."

A few days later, some outlets recognized another Christie-like comment (video below) made during the same exchange.   PolitickerNJ noted

Gov. Chris Christie’s use of the word “boy” in a Paterson Baptist church stirred ensuing debate within the African-American community, as some claim he simply used the word as an exclamation while others take offense at the governor’s remarks.
The incident happened last Tuesday.

While at a town hall meeting Gov. Chris Christie attempted to advance the ideals of vouchers, itemizing the benefits particularly for African American parents.  However, something seemed to go array.

The stage was set when Christie referenced Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-34) without fully acknowledging her elected position, as elected officials had chastised him for doing on a number of occasions, just the first mis-step that day.

When Christie Town hall attendee Mike Henry, a deacon of the church and an African-American, yelled, “Fix our public schools” from the back of St. Luke’s, the vouchers-advocating governor responded: “You can yell all you want about ‘fix the public schools.”

Henry yelled again, “Fix the public schools,” at which point Christie said, “Yeah, I hear you, boy, I hear you.”

Opinions differed as to the nature of the New Jersey governor's remark.  Reverend Kenneth Clayton, who had invited Christie to the church, apparently believes that racists are determined to sound bigoted.  He contended (emphasis mine)  “We are not political allies but what I think is that was a misuse of the term on his part - but not intentional.  I do not think it was the governor’s intent to be racist"  After viewing a video, one fellow commented “Although I am not a fan of Christie, I think that this video and its poor editing has (sic) done a superb job of making this sound like a racist thing instead of a slang expression.”

However, State Senator Ronald L. Rice, head of the Legislative Black Caucus, argued "I believe it’s in him and it came out. He has a Bull Connor mentality. He’s taking the same approach, putting his bullying process on us. It bothers me. He doesn’t want anyone to challenge him.”









Bingo! No one knows if Christopher J. Christie is a racist; probably not.  His agenda, in either case, is far less ethnic or racial than corporate and self-centered.   Whether it's (Christie's greatest hits, below) calling a reporter an "idiot," hectoring a teacher about "stand(ing) up and fighting the teacher's union," raging against a teacher who dares confront him about policy, threatening to beat up a constituent on the New Jersey boardwalk, or calling an adult "boy," it's always the same with Christie.  It's a wealthy (mostly through his wife) governor belligerently expressing his sense of superiority by demeaning someone else.

















The governor of New Jersey employed the term "boy" as did the segregationists of old, though he may have done so even if his critic were white.  Anyone questioning him gets the same treatment, "the same approach, putting his bullying process on us.... He doesn't want anyone to challenge him."  For those of us who are male, white, of the same generation, and of the same part of the country as Chris Christie, "boy" is not the slang expression used. It always has been "man," as in "thanks for calling, man" or "Yeh, I hear you, man."

Christie's policies, seemingly out of the Club for Growth textbook, are bad enough.  Other Republicans from (Iowa Representative) Steve King to Mitt Romney to Rudy Giuliani have similar ideas about how to control the lower and middle classes.  What separates Chris Christie from the pack is a temperament clearly unsuited to the office to which he aspires, the U.S. presidency.   The media, meanwhile, will continue its love affair with him until it slowly comes to the realization it has been snookered.



Share |

Criminal Culpability



He nailed it.   Again.

On Friday, Hardball's Chris Matthews boldly went (as he has previously) where no man or woman does (transcript, here).     He interviewed Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, and Democrat Donna Matthews, Democrat of Maryland.    They discussed HR 3541, the  noxious PreNatal Non-Discrimination Act  (PRENDA) of 2012 (text of bill here), which provided for a fine and/or imprisonment for anyone who

performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child; uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion; solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a sex-selection abortion or a race-selection abortion;or transports a woman into the United States or across a State line for the purpose of obtaining a a sex-selectionabortionor race-selection abortion: or attempts to do so.

PRENDA received the votes of a majority of Representatives but went down to defeat because passage required a two-thirds majority according to the procedural rules under which it was brought up.   Matthews established that, contrary to Stearns' assertion, the measure created a solution in search of a problem.   He then asked

My problem is this. You don`t want to punish the woman. You want to punish the doctor.
But in this case, a woman could -- if she did have this intention because of her background or values or whatever they are -- and I`m certainly not for them -- if there was such a case, she would simply go from doctor to doctor who wouldn`t ask her the question and she`d proceed with the abortion.

So what do you accomplish with this law? It couldn`t be enforced. 

After the conversation veered off into a brief discussion of sex-selection and Asian culture, Stearns conceded that he would support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, throwing into question his motive as an advocate for a bill which would have banned the rare practice of abortions chosen as sex-selection.    Matthews then zeroed in:

MATTHEWS: Well, if it`s morally wrong -- why don`t you punish the woman?

STEARNS: We can punish the doctors.

MATTHEWS: Why not the women?

STEARNS: The way the bill is set up is the doctor has no right to question the motivation of the girl.
(CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: Because that`s not what this is about, that`s why. So you punish the doctors, you ask the doctors to be mind readers, to sit and figure out when a woman comes to the office --
(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What should be the punishment, sir? I had this with people who say they are pro-life. I think we`re all pro-life.

STEARNS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: What should be the punishment for a woman who chooses to have an abortion?
STEARNS: Well, I`m not talking about abortion.

MATTHEWS: Answer that question before we go on.

STEARNS: No, no, no, Chris.

MATTHEWS: You want to outlaw it, call it murder, use terms like that. What should be a punishment for a woman who chooses -- goes to a doctor, they don`t go door to door, she goes to the doctor and asks for this procedure, what should be the punishment for that?

STEARNS: If we`re talking about abortion, we have the Hyde rule which says you can have an abortion for incest, the life of the mother.

MATTHEWS: Go on.

STEARNS: And things like that and rape. So we already have that in place. But the question is --

MATTHEWS: So, what should be the punishment for a woman who wants an abortion because she doesn`t want to deliver the child, period? What should be the punishment?

STEARNS: Let me ask you --

MATTHEWS: So, you don`t want to answer this, do you?

STEARNS: I want to ask you a question is --

MATTHEWS: No, I just ask the questions.
(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: You want to outlaw abortion and you don`t want to do it because you know deep down you know the average voter, even in your district, which maybe conservative doesn`t believe the woman is guilty of a murder, they really don`t think it should be a murder charge, they don`t think it should be fineable, because deep down people are troubled by this issue. It`s a difficult moral dilemma and that`s why we let the person make the decision, it`s so difficult.
That`s why we don`t make all these laws that you want to pass. Why don`t you let the women answer it?

STEARNS: It`s your show. Let me answer the question.

MATTHEWS: You won`t answer it.

STEARNS: I`ll answer the question the way I want. It might be your show and you can do all the talking but I can answer the question the way I want.
The question is: should there be a law preventing a woman making an abortion based upon sex selection to eliminate female embryos. And that I agree is wrong and I think you agree and Donna also agrees.

MATTHEWS: What should be the punishment for the woman doing that?

STEARNS: It should be against the law. Just like it`s against the law in all of Europe --

MATTHEWS: What should be the punishment?

STEARNS: I think the punishment should certainly be very serious.

MATTHEWS: What should it be for the woman? What should it be for the woman?

STEARNS: It should be more than a civil case. It should be something very serious --

MATTHEWS: So, should it be a criminal matter for the woman as well as the doctor?

STEARNS: I think so. You are killing an embryo and sometimes four or five months into gestation --

Game, set, match- though Stearns should be applauded for courageously (albeit foolishly) admitting what no man or woman dares- belief that a woman who seeks an illegal abortion should be prosecuted.  Chris Matthews appears to be the only individual in the media- mainstream or alternative- who will even raise this issue and getting a pro-life congressman to state publicly that he agrees should be considered a coup.     If Matthews had pursued the issue further, probing what Stearns meant by a "very serious" punishment, it would have been even more enlightening.

I have argued that the prospective mother invariably is precluded from prosecution in "pro-life" legislation either because the proponents want to pander to women or are actually unsure that abortion is killing.     However, Matthews, who says he doesn't "believe in punishing people for having abortions," plausibly contended "I think sometimes you guys on the far right think women are incapable of a major decision like this, so you punish the doctor who you presume is a male."

Perhaps he noticed that the bill referred, in stunningly passive language (emphasis mine):   "a woman upon whom a sex-selection or race-selection abortion is performed...."   The woman- along with the prospective father- could have sued practically anyone if passage had been obtained.  If aware the illegal abortion has been performed, "a physician, physician's assistant, nurse, counselor, or other medical or mental health professional" (custodian was overlooked) could not only have been sued by the woman, but also by the prospective father. The health professionals also would have been prosecuted as criminal offenders and subject to a fine and/or imprisonment for failing to report to law enforcement even a rumor of such an abortion taking place, a heck of a way to conduct a criminal justice system.     But held blameless, the women are viewed as "targeted victims of sex-selection abortion," euphemism for "object."

There are a National Association of Black Journalists Hall of Fame, as well as Halls of Fame for journalists hailing from specific states such as Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, and Michigan.     There seems to be, however, no Hall of Fame for journalists from Pennsylvania, Matthews' home state.     If there were, his inclusion would be arguable.     But on this issue, it would be a slam-dunk.


Share |