UPDATED: Say goodbye to Chris Matthews

Update #2: Matthews Retires

Stage 1 of his disappearing: Via Daily Beast:

A day after he was accused of sexual harassment by a journalist, MSNBC decided to keep host Chris Matthews off its airwaves during coverage of the South Carolina primary results.

Matthews is normally a fixture of election night coverage, which made his absence on Saturday all the more notable. His disappearing act came as MSNBC faced calls from a feminist organization to fire him because of sexism and sexual misconduct allegations—after raised eyebrows over other on-air remarks.

<….>

MSNBC did not immediately return a request for comment.

It’s starting.

—-Original Story Below—-

 

Honestly, I do not see Chris Matthews surviving this report.

MSNBC host Chris Matthews, whose long history of sexist comments and behavior have somehow not yet gotten him fired, tested the boundaries of his own misogyny again on Wednesday night. After the tenth Democratic presidential debate, the Hardball anchor grilled Elizabeth Warren about one of her lines of attack against Mike Bloomberg during the debate: that a pregnant female employee accused Bloomberg of telling her to “kill it.”

“You believe he’s lying?” Matthews asked Warren of Bloomberg’s denial.

“I believe the woman, which means he’s not telling the truth,” said Warren, who recently had to defend her own credible story of pregnancy discrimination.

“And why would he lie?” Matthews said. “Just to protect himself?”

“Yeah, and why would she lie?” Warren responded pointedly.

“I just wanna make sure you’re clear about this,” Matthews said. Right there on America’s purportedly liberal network, the anchor spoke to a 70-year-old United States senator who is running for president—and a renowned Harvard Law professor, no less—like she couldn’t possibly understand her own words, as if she were a child choosing between a snack now or dessert later.

The allegation that Matthews, a veteran journalist, was trying so hard to undermine was actually corroborated by a third party to The Washington Post earlier this month. There was no reason for him to harp on its veracity, except, perhaps, that he himself has made so many sexist comments over the years that he has a vested interest in Bloomberg being let off the hook.

Some of Matthews’s behavior has already been well-documented. Like Bloomberg, who frequently remarked “nice tits” and “I’d do her” at the office, Matthews has a pattern of making comments about women’s appearances in demeaning ways. The number of on-air incidents is long, exhausting, and creepy, including commenting to Erin Burnett, for example, “You’re a knockout…it’s all right getting bad news from you,” while telling her to move closer to the camera. Behind the scenes, one of Matthews’s former producers told The Daily Caller in 2017 that he allegedly rated his female guests on a numerical scale and would name a “hottest of the week,” like a “teenage boy.” In 1999, an assistant producer accused Matthews of sexual harassment, which CNBC, the show’s network at the time, investigated. They concluded that the comments were “inappropriate,” and Matthews received a “stern reprimand,” according to an MSNBC spokesperson.

This tendency to objectify women in his orbit has bled into his treatment of female politicians and candidates. He has repeatedly lusted over women in politics on air, including remarking in 2011 that there’s “something electric” and “very attractive” about the way former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin walks and moves, and noting in 2017 that acting attorney general Sally Yates is “attractive, obviously.” But he has reserved a particular contempt for the woman who made it closest to ascending the heights of American political power, Hillary Clinton, calling her “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “She-Devil.” The Cut obtained footage of him joking in early 2016, just before a live interview with then candidate Clinton, “where’s that Bill Cosby pill,” referring to the date-rape drug. In 2005, he openly wondered whether the troops would “take the orders” from a female president; after another interview, he pinched Clinton’s cheek; and in another, he suggested that she had only had so much political success because her husband had “messed around.” This evening anchor, in addition to everything else, has repeatedly challenged whether women are legitimate politicians or could be president at all. “I was thinking how hard it is for a woman to take on a job that’s always been held by men,” he said of Clinton in 2006. – Source: Like Warren, I Had My Own Sexist Run-In with Chris Matthews | GQ

There is much more, click the link to read this story. You should look for Matthews to retire very soon.

Trump leads Clinton by a point in new poll

This is good sign. Open-mouthed smile

Via ABC News:

2016_General_Election_Vote_Preference_10-31-16While vote preferences have held essentially steady, she’s now a slim point behind Donald Trump — a first since May — in the latest ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates.

Forty-six percent of likely voters support Trump in the latest results, with 45 percent for Clinton. With the data taken to a decimal for illustrative purposes, a mere 0.7 of a percentage point divides them. Third-party candidate Gary Johnson has 3 percent, a new low; Jill Stein, 2 percent.

The 1 point Clinton-Trump race is well within the survey’s margin of sampling error. Combining the last seven nights — across which results have been very stable — the results flip to 46 percent Clinton, 45 percent Trump, with a 0.4 point gap. Again, it is not a significant difference.

strong-enthusiasmEither way, the results are exceedingly close. Trump’s 1 point lead is a noteworthy result; he has led Clinton just once before, up 2 points in late May (among registered voters in a two-way test), after he clinched the GOP nomination while Clinton was still in a duel with Bernie Sanders in the Democratic race.

Although the election is close at this point, vote preference results a week out are not necessarily predictive of the final result. Mitt Romney was up 1 versus Barack Obama in comparable tracking poll results in 2012, for example, and John Kerry was ahead by 1 versus George Bush a week out in 2004.

I guess people are finally waking up to the fact the Hillary Clinton simply not trustworthy enough to be in the White House. I mean, could you just imagine, that woman being President? Surprised smile

Pat Buchanan gives an image of what might just happen, should Hillary Clinton Win:

If Hillary Clinton is elected, the email scandal, the pay-for-play scandal involving the Clinton Foundation, “Bill Clinton, Inc.,” the truthfulness of her testimony, and reports of Clinton-paid dirty tricksters engaging in brownshirt tactics at Trump rallies, are all going to be investigated more thoroughly by the FBI.

And if Clinton is president, there is no way her Justice Department can investigate the Clinton scandals, any more than this city in the early 1970s would entrust an investigation into Watergate to the Nixon Justice Department.

If Clinton wins this election, and Republicans hold onto one or both houses of Congress, investigations of the Clinton scandals will start soon after her inaugural and will go on for years. And the clamor for a special prosecutor, who will, as Archibald Cox did with Nixon, build a huge staff and spend years investigating, will become irresistible.

Realizing that this is the near-certain fate and future of any Hillary Clinton presidency, and would be disastrous for the country, Sunday night, Doug Schoen, who worked for President Clinton for six years, said he has changed his mind and will not be voting for Hillary.

Donald Trump says this is worse than Watergate. As of now, it is only potentially so.

But if Hillary Clinton, this distrusted and disbelieved woman, does take the oath of office on Jan. 20, there is a real possibility that, like Nixon, down the road a year or two, she could be forced from office.

Do we really want to go through this again?

Pat Buchanan is correct, this would a disaster for the Country. This woman needs to be defeated and I mean badly. I really do not understand why the Democratic Party even took this woman seriously. I guess it is name recognition or pedigree. But, it is and will be a disaster.

Others:  Politico, The Jawa Report, Talking Points Memo, Post On Politics, Business Insider, Althouse, Fox News Insider, AOL, Mediaite, Hot Air, The Week, The New Civil Rights Movement and Washington Free Beacon

9 days before the election

I really know that I have just not been writing here as of late. I am really just not into politics, like I was. This election is nothing more than a glorified clown show! I just not sure who is the bigger clown. 

So, I have decided to at least run down what is happening 9 days away from the election.

The rest you can read at Memeorandum.com. I am just not interested in spending that much energy blogging about silly stuff…. These are going to be the longest 9 days…..ever. I don't know smile

Good News: FBI reopens investigation on Clinton Emails

This is very good to hear:

WASHINGTON — FBI Director James Comey said Friday that investigators had found new emails related to the bureau’s previously-closed inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information, re-starting a long-simmering debate over the Democratic nominee’s conduct as secretary of State in the closing days of a presidential campaign that Clinton appeared to be putting away.In the letter to senior lawmakers explaining his decision, Comey said “the FBI cannot yet assess” whether the information is “significant” nor could he offer a timetable for how long it will take investigators to make an assessment.Comey wrote that the discovery of additional messages had occurred “in connection with an unrelated case,” leading to the decision to resume the probe. The subject of the unrelated inquiry was not disclosed in the brief letter.

– Source: USA Today:  More emails related to Clinton probe to be reviewed, FBI director says

Trumps reaction was this: (H/T to HotAir.com):

All I can truly say is that this might be a game changer.

There is also this, via HotAir.com:


Federal law enforcement officials said Friday that the new emails uncovered in the closed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server were discovered after the F.B.I. seized electronic devices belonging to Huma Abedin, an aide to Mrs. Clinton, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.

Ed Morrissey says:

Hillary’s going to lose the election to Trump because the perv sexting teen girls with his hand down his pants might have had classified information from his wife on the same phone? My God — this is the most Clinton thing ever. With 11 days to go, we have reached peak Clinton.

Indeed, we have. Looks like the October surprise came 11 days before the election.

Donald Trump mentions “Second Amendment People” and leftist media gets the vapors.

Well, it seems the media is wetting its pants over this statement here:

Here’s the leftist NYT getting the vapors over it: (To be fair some on the right are too...)

WILMINGTON, N.C. — Donald J. Trump on Tuesday appeared to raise the possibility that gun rights supporters could take matters into their own hands if Hillary Clinton is elected president and appoints judges who favor stricter gun control measures.

Repeating his contention that Mrs. Clinton wanted to abolish the right to bear arms, Mr. Trump warned at a rally here that it would be “a horrible day” if Mrs. Clinton were elected and got to appoint a tiebreaking Supreme Court justice.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Oblique as it was, Mr. Trump’s remark quickly elicited a wave of condemnation from Democrats, gun control advocates and others, who accused him of suggesting violence against Mrs. Clinton or liberal jurists. Bernice A. King, daughter of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., called Mr. Trump’s words “distasteful, disturbing, dangerous.”

Mrs. Clinton’s running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, expressed disbelief. “Nobody who is seeking a leadership position, especially the presidency, the leadership of the country, should do anything to countenance violence, and that’s what he was saying,” Mr. Kaine said in Austin, Tex. He called Mr. Trump’s remark “a window into the soul of a person who is just temperamentally not suited to the task.”

And Dan Gross, the president of the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, said Mr. Trump’s statement was “repulsive — literally using the Second Amendment as cover to encourage people to kill someone with whom they disagree.”

“For Trump, violence has become a standard talking point, a common punch line, and even a campaign strategy,” Mr. Gross said.

Paul D. Ryan, the Republican House speaker who has had a tense relationship with Mr. Trump, told reporters on Tuesday night that the remarks sounded “like a joke gone bad.”

He added: “You should never joke about that. I hope he clears it up quickly.”

Mr. Trump and his campaign did not treat his remark as a joke; instead, they insisted he was merely urging gun rights supporters to vote as a bloc against Mrs. Clinton. “The Second Amendment people have tremendous power because they are so united,” he told a CBS affiliate in North Carolina late Tuesday.

Here’s the video of Trump explaining himself:

The really funny party is that Hillary Clinton said the same very thing about Obama in 2008. Here is Keith Olbermann talking about it:

I wonder if the media will bring this up? Don’t count on it.

Others, Left and Right, Your millage may vary: The Resurgent, Mother Jones, Washington Post, Daily Kos, Politicus USA, Raw Story, Taylor Marsh, Common Dreams, Occupy Democrats, Boing Boing, The Atlantic, The American Spectator, twitchy.com, Business Insider, BuzzFeed, Vox, Mashable, The New Civil Rights Movement, Media Matters for America, The Gateway Pundit, The Week, Mediaite, ABC News, Politico, Washington Free Beacon and MichelleMalkin.com, Rolling Stone, New York Times, alan.com, The New Civil Rights Movement, Mediaite, twitchy.com, The Week and New York Magazine, alan.com, Guardian, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News and Raw Story, Associated Press, Occupy Democrats, Washington Post, Raw Story, NPR, Guardian, AMERICAblog NewsAMERICAblog …, Glamour, TVNewser and The Stranger …, CBS Pittsburgh, The American Mirror, CNBC, Bloomberg.com and The Week, Mother Jones, AOL, The Gateway Pundit, The Week, Occupy Democrats, Mediaite and Talking Points Memo, Political Insider blog, Outside the Beltway, Political Wire and Washington Monthly, Politico, BillMoyers.com and New York Magazine, Politico and Associated Press, Washington Post and Washington Free Beacon, Washington Monthly, Associated Press and The Nation, Politico, Hullabaloo, Washington Free Beacon, The Moderate Voice, Common Dreams, Bearing Arms, Heat Street, No More Mister Nice Blog, Infowars, Lawyers, Guns & Money, The Week, Media Matters for America, Hot Air, Mother Jones, ABC News, Media Matters for America, The Democratic Daily, Politicus USA, The Gateway Pundit, The New Civil Rights Movement and Public Policy Polling, RT, Politico, Hot Air, CBS New York, New York Magazine, The New Civil Rights Movement, The Times of Israel, Politicus USA, BizPac Review, Guardian, The Root, BostonGlobe.com, NBC News, Business Insider, Mediaite, The San Diego Union …, Occupy Democrats, Washington Post, Talking Points Memo, New York Daily News, Althouse, Media Matters for America, KTLA, Deadline, Right Wing Watch, CANNONFIRE, CBS Pittsburgh, CBS Los Angeles and Daily Kos

Brutal Video: Donald Trump rallies uncensored

Folks, I am not going to lie to you. I have serious concerns about November. 🙁 I knew stuff like this was going to happen. Trump pressed all the right buttons and exploited the Nation’s anger and now, we get this below. I will be voting for Trump. But, I can almost assure you; that he will not be elected. Trump could have taken the high road and ran a Reagan-like campaign. Instead, he ran an New York City brawler campaign and this is the result. Enjoy 4 to 8 years of Hillary. Because that’s what we’re getting, I am afraid. 🙁

Via Source: Voices From Donald Trump’s Rallies, Uncensored – The New York Time

Mr. Trump’s supporters often chant vitriolic, even violent slogans at his campaign events. New York Times reporters documented examples over several weeks. Source: Voices From Donald Trump’s Rallies, Uncensored – The New York Times

Others: Business Insider, twitchy.com, Politicus USA, The Atlantic, Mediaite

Dems platform change on Abortion could cost them votes from Anti-abortion Democrats

This could be bad for Hillary and the Democrats:

A Democratic Party proposal to amend the party’s platform to include more progressive language around abortion rights has outraged Democrats who oppose abortion, with some saying the issue has cost Hillary Clinton their votes.

The fallout centers around a proposal to repeal long-standing legislation that limits federal funds for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or life-threatening pregnancies — the so-called Hyde Amendment. Some version of this ban has been included in annual federal spending bills since the late 1970s.

The draft platform says Democrats “will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers” and “will continue to oppose — and seek to overturn — federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.”

Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, said the progressive language on the platform is making the party smaller. “This platform’s language just says (to abortion opponents) you are no longer welcome,” she said. “This has been the general message pro-life Democrats are receiving across the country.”

Day said ever since the Democratic National Committee released its 2016 platform draft July 1, she has gotten calls from Democrats that oppose abortion and say the language is keeping them from voting for Clinton.

Carol Crossed, 72, a retired elementary school professor from Rochester, N.Y., is one of those Democrats.“

They are pro-choice because they don’t want to be infringing their opinion on others,” she said. “Now their platform says if you don’t like abortions, too bad — you are going to pay for it anyway.”  – Source: USA Today Anti-abortion Dems outraged by platform change

You have to understand something here; not all Democrats are pro-choice. There are some Christians, who are very devout to their Church. But, because of their background, they are committed Democrats. I know, I used to be one of those kind of people. So, I see where these people are coming from. I mean, these people are put into a very tough position; they are horrified by what the Republican Party is running for President. But, that the same time, they are also horrified at what the Democrats are doing with abortion.

This is what happens, when a political party goes very far to the left, of what it was founded as. The Democratic Party was not founded as a “Progressive Party” in the modern day sense. It was founded as a populist alternative to the Republican Party of old; which favored the businesses tycoons of old.

Needless to say, both political parties have changed greatly as whole. The Republican Party now has many factions; you have the movement grassroots faction, you have the elitist faction; it is a sight to behold. The Democrats, on the other hand; have become this “progressive socialist” party, that seems to be anti-white, anti-police and it is, quite frankly, unnerving to people like myself, who have a keen sense of history to watch a political party like that shift that far to the left.

The Democratic Party and it’s followers, have embraced a strain of progressivism that is intolerance of dissenting views and wishes to prosecute anyone who dares to disagree with them; either by discrediting them or by violence. This is nothing more than left-wing fascism. It is the hallmark traits of communism. I have always said, since about 2007; that the distance between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party and Communist themselves, used to be the width of the Grand Canyon. Now, with the infiltration of the progressive socialists in that political party; that distance is more like a small city block.

 

A brutal take down of the so-called “Conservative Movement”

This is rough, tough, and brutal. I am in agreement with Vox Day on this one, he calls it “Devastating. Absolutely devastating” and he is very much correct. Yes, I know, I have had disagreements with Vox Day in the past. But, on this, he is spot on. (I cannot seem to locate the posts, I may have pulled them.)

This article by a John Kludge over at ricochet basically sums up my feelings as well:

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

It is this part here that really sticks out:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.

This is what you would call a political smack down and it is about time someone said it. This here too, is something that I high agree with:

Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.

I put in bold, underlined and turned that quote red to make a point. This above is what happened to the Conservative movement. It started after Ronald Reagan left office and got really crazy after the election and ultimate defeat of George H.W. Bush. After that, Conservationism went straight loony after that. Conservatives have no one to blame, but themselves. They put in a President, who went soft on taxes, and whom proceeded to usher in the “new world order.” and the Reaganites; which consisted of Fundamentalist Christians, like myself — went running for the hills. They knew then, that they had been duped.

Now, this many years later; along comes Trump and he dares to challenge those in the ivory towers that have created what we have now —- and the vultures are out for blood. They know that the current existing state of affairs in Washington D.C. is being threatened and they are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump.

The question is, can Donald Trump fight them effectively enough to win the nomination?

Hillary doesn’t deserve the black vote, says The Nation

I saw this on Memeorandum and my eyes bugged out. 😯

Via Michelle Alexander at The Nation:

Hillary Clinton loves black people. And black people love Hillary—or so it seems. Black politicians have lined up in droves to endorse her, eager to prove their loyalty to the Clintons in the hopes that their faithfulness will be remembered and rewarded. Black pastors are opening their church doors, and the Clintons are making themselves comfortably at home once again, engaging effortlessly in all the usual rituals associated with “courting the black vote,” a pursuit that typically begins and ends with Democratic politicians making black people feel liked and taken seriously. Doing something concrete to improve the conditions under which most black people live is generally not required.

Hillary is looking to gain momentum on the campaign trail as the primaries move out of Iowa and New Hampshire and into states like South Carolina, where large pockets of black voters can be found. According to some polls, she leads Bernie Sanders by as much as 60 percent among African Americans. It seems that we—black people—are her winning card, one that Hillary is eager to play.

And it seems we’re eager to get played. Again.

It gets better, go read this one. She spares no expense in gutting the Clintons. It’s that good.

Others: Mother Jones, Washington Post and Slantpoint