Chris Matthews Allows SBA’s Marjorie Dannenfelser Spread Breitbart’s Planned Parenthood Lie
February 20, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Someone needs to ask Chris Matthews to read this report from Media Matters before he allows wingnut Marjorie Dannenfelser back on Hardball again to tout Andrew Breitbart’s latest hit job on Planned Parenthood. A Refresher Course On Andrew Breitbart’s Dishonest Tactics : Andrew Breitbart’s website Big Government is promoting heavily edited videos produced by anti-abortion rights activist Lila Rose and falsely claiming that the video proves that Planned Parenthood engages in systemic criminal activities. Below, Media Matters reviews the dishonest tactics used in the past by Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe, and other Breitbart associates…. Here’s more from Right Wing Watch on Dannenfelser — Right-Wing Leaders Hail House Vote to Strip Planned Parenthood of Funding : The amendment to block funding to Planned Parenthood passed by a vote of 240-185, achieving a long-held goal of Religious Right groups that vehemently oppose the healthcare organization. During the debate, House Republicans frequently touted the hoax videos produced by the extreme group Live Action and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) even pledged to go after Planned Parenthood’s non-profit status. Taxpayer funding of abortion is already barred under federal law, and this new amendment would stop Planned Parenthood from receiving funds to provide the medical services which comprise the vast majority of the group’s work, like cancer screenings, tests for sexually transmitted infections, and family healthcare. But an amendment devastating women’s healthcare is a reason to celebrate for anti-choice leaders and their allies in Congress: Marjorie Dannenfelser, Susan B. Anthony List : Ending taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood is a non-negotiable,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “It must be a top priority in the Continuing Resolution battle. Taxpayers have strongly rejected their complicity with Planned Parenthood in the sex trafficking of underage girls. Pro-life America demands that our leaders in the Senate step up and take on this fight and that the House leadership holds its ground. Americans have spoken and the time to defund Planned Parenthood, a habitual and unapologetic ally of those who deal in the exploitation of minors, is now. This is a black and white issue and we will accept nothing less than the total defunding of Planned Parenthood in the Continuing Resolution. And Rebecca Traister made many of the same points Rep. Diana Degette did here about what this attack on Planned Parenthood really means; defunding health care services for poor women — This is what “pro-life” means? : House Republicans just cut off funds for abortions — and breast exams, cervical cancer screenings and STD testing As part of their stated mission to focus on jobs (specifically, the job of preventing women from getting healthcare), House Republicans this afternoon voted 240-185 to bar federal funding for Planned Parenthood. This is a big win for Rep. Mike Pence, the Indiana Republican whose deficit-minded crusade against Planned Parenthood hinges not on the argument that taxpayer money shouldn’t pay for abortions (the Hyde Amendment put a stop to that in the mid 1970s), but on the conviction that taxpayer money should not go to organizations that provide abortion services, regardless of what else they might do. Pence’s plan, which will likely stall in the Senate, would mean the end of federal support for an organization that each year provides more than 800,000 women with breast exams, more than 4 million Americans with testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and 2.5 million people with contraception, which, not for nothing, is the stuff that prevents unintended pregnancy, and thus abortion, to begin with. [..] Pence and his fellow Republicans are not simply taking aim at a particular medical procedure — one that, I would nonetheless submit is an integral component in women being able to control their bodies, their health, their careers and thus their economic, social and political freedom. But this isn’t simply about the question of abortion itself. What Pence and the House of Representatives did today was devalue women’s lives, women’s rights and women’s ability to participate fully in the democracy. The excuse used by Republicans is that we are saving taxpayer money. Saving money in exchange for breast exams, cervical cancer screenings, STD testing and care: Welcome to the movement that has long billed itself as “pro-life.” In the midst of the House battle, two congresswomen underscored precisely these points, and in doing so, offered vivid evidence of why, exactly, it makes a difference to have a governing body that includes members of differing genders, races, classes, perspectives and experiences. Much more there in all three articles, so follow the links to read the rest.
Continue reading …Scarborough: Just Because I Don’t Hate Obama, Conservatives Think I’m Liberal
February 15, 2011 No Comment
A defensive Joe Scarborough showed up on Tuesday's Hardball, to tell off all his Republican doubters as he defiantly declared: “I'm more ideologically conservative” than most on Capitol Hill “but because I don't hate the President…that makes me a liberal.” The MSNBC host of Morning Joe was pressed to place himself on the ideological spectrum as even Chris Matthews wasn't sure where he stood, which gave Scarborough the opportunity to write-off those who question his conservative credentials as “sad and pathetic” Obama haters. The following exchange was aired on the February 15 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Where do you think you are? I think you're sort of center right-right. I'd say you're about two-thirds of the way over, not all the way over. Where would you put yourself? Honestly? Talking to you I think you're not, you're not far right certainly. You're not a liberal. You're not, what I'd call a moderate, which is sort of milquetoast. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well Chris it's, it's fascinating. You've known me since 1994. I went on Hardball all the time in '95, '96, '97 and I was saying the same thing then that I'm saying now. I don't think, if you just want to talk about where the Republican Party is economically, I don't think they're conservative enough. They are talking about slashing 12 percent of the budget but they're not talking about Social Security- MATTHEWS: Touching 12 percent! They're not slashing 12 percent! SCARBOROUGH: Touching 12 percent. So I'm telling them you need to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pentagon spending, get out of Afghanistan — do all of these things that would help us become, become, get out of this debt crisis, and yet my Republican party — just like they did during the Bush era — is not stepping forward and making those courageous cuts right now. So I don't know — I mean, it used to be that, that position would make me more conservative than where establishment Republicans are in Washington, DC. But I guess since I don't run around talking about where the President was born, and because I say that he's a Christian because he says he's Christian, I suppose that's the new measuring stick for what makes you conservative. I guess these days for a lot of people online, and on cable TV, you've got to actually hate the President or [Matthews laughs] — no, I'm dead serious, Chris. MATTHEWS: I'm laughing because of the truth of what you said. SCARBOROUGH: I'm dead serious, Chris. I'm dead serious. It has nothing to do with ideology any more, because I'm more ideologically conservative on budget matters than anybody I know on Capitol Hill, other than Rand Paul, Ron Paul and a handful of people. But because I don't hate the President, because I think he's a good man and I think he's a good father and I just disagree with his policies, I guess by 2011 standards that makes me a liberal. I don't get it. MATTHEWS: It makes you a great colleague. SCARBOROUGH: It has more to do with personality than what you believe, and I think that's sad and pathetic and why the Republican Party is where it is right now. —Geoffrey Dickens is the Senior News Analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Apparently some of the “very serious” people in Republican politics have been privately urging Jeb Bush to run for president in 2012, and thus the topic of The Chris Matthews Show’s meter question for this week: “Is Jeb Bush the strongest Republican candidate in 2012?” The “Matthews Meter” regulars are split 6 to 6. It doesn’t say much for the Republican field of candidates this year if insiders are pushing for a man whose last name should be mud as their best chance to win back the presidency in 2012. Apparently Bush isn’t interested in running anytime soon. I guess he’s hoping the media will continue with their turd-polishing exercise of trying to wipe our collective memories clean of how awful of a president his brother was so he can run in 2016. Chris Matthews thinks he could be pushed into running in 2012.
Continue reading …On Monday's Hardball Chris Matthews, who devoted much of last week's shows to Egypt, got caught up on some conservative bashing as he mocked those who attended CPAC last week as “zany” and likened the conference to a “carnival act.” The MSNBC host, who was joined by fellow liberals David Corn of Mother Jones and Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, led the show by describing the event as a “right wing jamboree that puts the zany in the same room as the zanier.” The following Matthews outbursts were aired on the February 14 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: The Right goes wild! Let's play Hardball! Good evening and Happy Valentine's Day. I've got a tie for the occasion. I'm Chris Matthews in Washington. Leading off tonight – the far side. Whenever you think progressives need to calm down and get real you should head over to something called CPAC. It's the right-wing jamboree that puts the zany in the same room as the zanier. Where Ron Paul wins the presidential straw poll. Where Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld get booed, a rare moment of sanity over there. And where a real life Mitt Romney shows up, only to be upstaged by a fake Sarah Palin. Talk about switcharoos! Usually it's Romney doing the pretending. We missed a lot of the fun last week because of the revolution in Egypt. Well tonight what you need to know about how the Right plans to run against President Obama. If this is the starting lineup I can only imagine what characters they've got sitting on the bench. … MATTHEWS: Let's begin with the right wing jamboree called CPAC. David Corn is the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones and an MSNBC political analyst and Josh Marshall is founder and editor of Talking Points Memo. Here's a taste, a little collage or montage, of what we heard at CPAC during what – while interesting things were happening in Cairo, this is what we missed. Let's listen. (Begin clip) HERMAN CAIN: The American dream is under attack. But the good news is we are fighting back! ANDREW BREITBART: I don't know why I decided to make my career trying to destroy the institutional left. I thought that it would just be a fun thing to do and it would look good on a resume. And it's so fun. JOHN BOLTON: We do not accept an America that is weak and declining. ANN COULTER: What do you mean knowing that there are jailed journalists? I think there should be more jailed journalists. (End clip) MATTHEWS: You know sometimes it's better not to comment but I'm asking you guys to comment. David and Josh, that, you know, there's some people that you don't want to meet in a bar that's for sure even, if you're watching Star Wars. But what, what an amazing group of people there, David. And I think what you're seeing there is it's almost like a levitation, like in some carnival act. Like they're levitating. It has nothing to do with reality over there. DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Well maybe it's like the side show at a carnival where you go in and you see all these creatures that you don't know if they are real or not. I mean this is like, this is like a zoo where are allowed to feed the animals. In fact you're expected to feed the animals. So while you and I and Josh and others were spending Thursday and Friday thinking about Egypt. What were they doing? They were attacking Obama for being a socialist, for believing America is evil, for causing the economic downturn. … MATTHEWS: And here's former Governor Tim Pawlenty who's doing more kiss-butt than anybody I've ever seen. They're cracking birther jokes. He'll do anything to prove he's insane. And I – actually he's not. This is the sad thing about the Republican Party. Credible people, like Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota have to act zany to get the nomination. … MATTHEWS: Well here's Ron Paul. He won the CPAC straw poll. They think he should be president. And actually I respect his basic libertarianism. I don't think it really applies to real life but I like the sentiment at least, but it's not real. Here's Mitt Romney. Let's take a look here. He took second. Look at these numbers. We're looking at the numbers now. It's interesting there how poorly Palin did, Josh. I mean among the zanos. She couldn't even win among the zanos. —Geoffrey Dickens is the Senior News Analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here
Continue reading …John Heilemann: Republican Presidential Field Weakest Anybody Has Seen In Our Lifetime
February 14, 2011 No Comment
New York Magazine's John Heilemann on Friday said the Republican presidential field is the weakest anybody has seen in our lifetime. This absurd statement was made on the syndicated “Chris Matthews Show” in a segment about which GOPers will be throwing their name into the ring in the coming months before next year's elections (video follows with transcript and commentary): JOHN HEILEMANN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Here are some facts. One fact is that the Republican field is the weakest field that anybody has seen – and Republicans all agree on that – that anybody has seen that in our lifetime. There are so many ways to look at this absurd comment they're almost too many to count. Let's start with how this field doesn't currently differ all that much from the 2008 version with the obvious exemption of John McCain's absence, and he lost to Barack Obama in the biggest landslide a Republican presidential nominee has suffered since Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford. As such, you can't in all honesty say this field is any worse than the one just three years ago. Prior to that, 1996, when the primary candidates were Bob Dole, Phil Gramm, Arlen Specter, and Pat Buchanan, was far worse than what's available to Republican voters now. But in reality, that's all irrelevant, for the name of the game for liberal media members like Heilemann is to do everything possible to keep his readers and Matthews' viewers from thinking anyone has a prayer of beating Obama in 2012. The press are once again trying to orchestrate a self-fulfilling prophecy: by continually calling Obama a shoo in, they hope the public will agree with them thereby making it more likely to come true. The second-coming of Ronald Reagan could emerge in the next few months, and these folks would find flaws in him or her like a gemologist inspecting a diamond found in a Cracker Jacks box. With this in mind, readers and viewers need to remind themselves to not take any criticism of a potential Republican presidential candidate by people like Heilemann at all seriously. It's like asking a newly-divorced individual to rate his or her former spouse. In the words of President George H.W. Bush, it wouldn't be prudent.
Continue reading …
Whether it's the departure of Keith Olbermann or the weakness of the new prime time lineup, the ratings at MSNBC are collapsing. Take a look at how this so-called news network fared Thursday: As you can see from the numbers published by TVNewser Friday, CNN beat MSNBC every hour throughout Thursday's extended prime time with the only exception being Lawrence O'Donnell at 8PM. Yet even his numbers were nothing to brag about, for he has now slipped under Olbermann's typical average of roughly one million viewers. Rachel Maddow's numbers in the following hour are also well off her normal million, and Ed Shultz at 10PM is really stinking up the joint. Another concern for MSNBC execs should be their network's loss to CNN all of those hours in the crucial demographic of folks aged 25 to 54. As that is a big determinant of advertising rates, Thursday's demo numbers were a disaster. Most embarrassing for MSNBC has to be Cenk Uygur's performance at 6PM. Not only is he getting handily beaten by CNN's “Situation Room,” but he's also almost getting quadrupled by Fox's “Special Report.” And therein may lie the real mistake of MSNBC's after Olbermann's departure. Maddow, O'Donnell, and Schultz had built decent audiences – for MSNBC, that is! – in their respective time slots. By moving Schultz to 10 and O'Donnell to 8, the momentum has been effectively squelched. But the real key is Uygur. As I noted the day after Olbermann's surprise announcement, pitting Cenk against Bret Baier seemed foolish. This clearly is not a man ready for prime time, and by having him at the precipice of television's most-trafficked hours is way beyond his talent and experience at this point in his career. As a result, MSNBC is almost giving this hour to Fox and CNN while destroying any momentum the network used to get from Schultz in that slot. The time has likely also come for MSNBC to reconsider “Hardball” at 5 and 7. With Uygur's lousy numbers sandwiched by Matthews', MSNBC is basically forfeiting three straight hours leading up to the supposed heavy hitters in their lineup. That doesn't seem like a sound business model for a network that had been regularly besting CNN all these hours. Consider too that MSNBC trailed CNN in average total viewers throughout the day Thursday, and was tripled in this stat by Fox. The same was true in the all important demo. How things have changed, for two months ago I observed that with CNN's plummeting ratings, it was becoming irrelevant. With this new pathetic lineup, it appears it's MSNBC that's fast approaching such insignificance.
Continue reading …Chris Matthews on Egypt and Mubarak: ‘It Took Obama to Have This Happen"
February 12, 2011 No Comment
Chris Matthews on Friday said that Hosni Mubarak's exit from Egypt and the jubilation now happening in Tahrir Square took Barack Obama to have happen. As soon as he said it on the 5PM installment of MSNBC's “Hardball,” the host quipped, “His critics will probably say, 'Yeah, we knew this was coming'” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, gentlemen, I’m a little bit jubilant right now, a little bit frisky so I’ll say something that will bother people. But if you have, a lot of the people in this country think the President of the United States is Muslim, which he’s not, he’s Christian. They think he’s foreign born, which he’s not, he’s American born. But they have this attitude about him, the people on the right a lot of them, right? And here he is, and he comes into office, and this jubilant situation in Eqypt, with the first time in our lives we get to see people from the Arab world in a very positive democratic setting. Not as terrorists or not as people fighting Israel, or whatever. Not mouthing epithets against the West, but people like us. DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Right, celebrating. MATTHEWS: In a way it’s like it took Obama to have this happen, or it's just so serendipitous. CORN: (Laughs) Well, I mean.. MATTHEWS: His critics will probably say, “Yeah, we knew this was coming.” Not just his critics, Chris, but yours as well. Exactly what has Obama done in this region prior to the protests beginning to make this happen? Maybe more importantly, Matthews seems to be fogetting the marvelous images that we saw in Iraq in the previous decade when citizens of that nation participated in free elections for the first time in their lives proudly displaying purple ink-stained fingers. Weren't pictures like this “the Arab world in a very positive democratic setting?” How quickly shills like Matthews forget when the agenda is to help a president they adore get re-elected. One can only hope that God forbid Egypt does end up being taken over by a radical Islamic theocracy the same folks giving Obama credit now will blame him then. But don't hold your breath. It'll be George W. Bush's fault if that happens.
Continue reading …MSNBC’s Wolffe: ‘Experiment of Democracy in Mideast Best Demonstrated by Hamas in Gaza’
February 9, 2011 No Comment
MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe on Tuesday said, “The experiment of democracy, of untrammeled democracy inside the Middle East is most clearly demonstrated by the Palestinian authority with Hamas taking power in the Gaza strip.” Such transpired in the same lengthy “Hardball” segment wherein Chris Matthews called Sarah Palin “a cuckoo clock” and Newt Gingrich “a mortal enemy to our civilization” (video follows with transcript and commentary): RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: And Chris, there’s a third came here, which I think Senator Graham kind of represents here, which is conservative opinion, which is more realpolitik, more realistic in saying, Let’s deal with the world as it is out there. And there’s that tension that played out between the conservatives and the neo-cons through the Bush years. What’s remarkable is seeing the sort of conspiracy side of this take ahold Newt Gingrich who is a self-styled historian or student of history, making some of the same kind of mistakes. You cannot see this region, never mind the rest of the world, purely in terms of the post-9/11 American political framework. You cannot just project out everything from the Bush era. And if you are, at least going to study the Bush era properly. I mean, the experiment of democracy, of untrammeled democracy inside the Middle East is most clearly demonstrated by the Palestinian authority with Hamas taking power in the Gaza strip. For those unfamiliar with the term, untrammeled means “not limited or restricted; unrestrained.” If that's how Wolffe sees Gaza at this point, it is him making political and historical mistakes, for Hamas has been preventing new elections in Gaza that could result in it being tossed out. As Commentary's Noah Pollak wrote in October 2009: [One man, one vote, one time] is the oft-repeated formulation that describes the problem with the participation of Islamist and terrorist groups in elections. They pretend to be committed to democratic politics so long as democratic politics provide a vehicle for them to take power. But the moment elections no longer favor them, they no longer favor elections. This has been the case in Gaza since Hamas took over. As the New York Times reported Tuesday: The Palestinian Authority announced on Tuesday that it would hold delayed local elections on July 9. The vote was originally scheduled for last summer, but it was postponed by disagreements over candidates within the Fatah movement…Elections were supposed to be held in both the West Bank and Gaza, but Hamas, which rules in Gaza, has said it would not allow them to take place. No election has been held in either territory since 2006. According to the Jerusalem Post, Hamas is still preventing these elections to occur in Gaza: The Palestinian Authority announced on Tuesday that it plans to hold municipal elections on July 9. Hamas responded by declaring that it won’t allow the vote to take place in the Gaza Strip…Hamas’s decision to boycott the elections means that they would take place only in the West Bank. Is this what Wolffe considers “untrammeled democracy” – when the party in power is preventing elections?
Continue reading …Rush Limbaugh Advises Fox To Ignore Keith ‘Olberdork’ Now That He’s Partnered With Gore
February 9, 2011 No Comment
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday gave some advice to Fox News about how to treat Keith Olbermann now that he's partnered with Al Gore's struggling cable network. “Do not ever talk about what goes on over there and nobody will ever hear about it” (video follows with transcript and commentary): RUSH LIMBAUGH: By the way, Keith Olberdork who left MSNBC is going to Algore's cable channel, Current TV, where — (interruption) Yeah, it's still on, and I just have one piece of advice for the people at Fox. Do not ever talk about what goes on over there and nobody will ever hear about it. Olbermann wouldn't be anything today if they hadn't decided to start picking fights with those people over there. That network wouldn't have half the audience as it does now. Anyway, the Chinese opera format was not working at Current TV, the global warming stuff just hadn't caught hold so now they're all-in with Olberdork as the political director and primetime talent at Algore's cable channel. Trust me, ladies and gentlemen, as a highly trained broadcast specialist, this is a move that under normal circumstances you wouldn't publicize and you would frankly hope nobody ever heard about. But the word's out. … Indeed. Many analysts believe that Olbermann's decision to attack Bill O'Reilly worked for it antagonized the Fox star enough for him to return fire thereby drawing attention to the “Countdown” host and drive ratings. MSNBC viewers may have noticed that since Olbermann's departure, his former colleagues have been paying a great deal of attention to Glenn Beck, in particular Chris Matthews whose “Hardball” program initially airs at 5PM opposite the current object of his disaffection. Including Tuesday's program, Matthews has attacked Beck for seven straight days. With this in mind, maybe it's best for all conservatives to heed Limbaugh's advice and let Olbermann fade away as quickly as possible, for without our negative reviews, he mightn't get any press at all. Something to consider. (H/T Jeff Poor )
Continue reading …Chris Matthews: ‘Palin’s Talking to People Who Don’t Read Newspapers or Watch Serious TV Shows Like Mine’
February 8, 2011 No Comment
It appears Chris Matthews' arrogance knows no bounds. On Monday's “Hardball,” the MSNBCer actually said, “I think [Sarah Palin's] talking to people who don't read newspapers, don't pay attention to serious television broadcasts, whether the Lehrer Hour or anything like it or even this program” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I want to go back to Beck for a minute, and Palin, because they’re on the same label here. They are on the same, they ought to patent together, she’s trying to get herself patented. It ought to be Palin and Beck. This stuff about these conspiracy theories, she's got the fact that the President of the United States is sitting on these realities. I tell you, I wish I had as much confidence in the State Department as she does, they've got it all figured out who's going to win over there. What’s with the conspiracy theory all the time? Can't she just admit this is tough and they don't seem to know where they're going? That's not a bad critique, and it’s a smart one. I don't think they know where they're going, and I think they do change their minds every two or three days over there. They don't know whether Mubarak is going to last three months, six months, or two weeks, we don’t know. And basically, we’re trying to look at glass, through a glass darkly here. Your thoughts, Shushannah, why is it always the easiest thing to do is to sell a conspiracy theory these days on the Right? SHUSHANNAH WALSHE, DAILY BEAST: Well, I agree that there are other potential 2012ers which I think that she is have said the president is all over the map. He should be, you know, take a stance, and she did say that, but I think because a lot of people, people that are supporters, the media were looking at what her first comments on Egypt could be, that she should have, as I said before, I think that she should have come out not with a conspiracy, not with what she thinks the president is doing or thinking behind the scenes, but what she would have done if she was in the Oval Office. And I think a lot of her supporters would appreciate that. I think the people that, journalists that cover her and watch her would be interested in that. And I, you know, I think that would have really made her different and distinct from the president especially if she would have come out with a very strong response. MATTHEWS: Okay, do you know what I think she's doing? Hey Ron… RON CHRISTIE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yeah. MATTHEWS: …think about this, because I respect you. Do you know what I think she’s doing? I don't think she is a thoughtful politician. I think she's talking to people who don't read newspapers, don't pay attention to serious television broadcasts, whether the Lehrer Hour or anything like it or even this program, don’t pay attention to anything that’s even in the middle, who don’t have any effort at all to learn anything, believe her when she says they're keeping the truth from us when the people who believe her are making absolutely no effort to find out what the truth is. So they’re willing to believe it’s somebody else’s fault. She’s in an interesting little game she plays with people. Imagine that. Palin's supporters are basically illiterate nincompoops that don't learn anything and are making absolutely no effort to find out what the truth is by watching folks like Matthews. It must be quite a thing to believe people are ignorant if they don't watch your show. As an aside, this is now the sixth day in a row that Matthews attacked his 5PM competitor on Fox News, Glenn Beck. I'm beginning to think the “Hardball” host is taking after former colleague Keith Olbermann and believe the more he mentions Beck's name, the better his ratings will get. Of course, Matthews probably thinks the 310 million people that don't watch him are idiots, which is funny for it's the roughly 600,000 nightly “Hardball” viewers that are likely amongst the most poorly informed people in the nation.
Continue reading …