Just emailed hardball

[ewagner]

here's the text:
Hi Chris,

The Texans for Truth ad really has nothing to do with Viet Nan; it really doesn't have anything to do with the Viet Nam era. What is does concern is credibility.

How many times can George W. Bush's word be proven false or at least exaggerated before we abandon him? He has equivocated on everything from his military service, to 9/11, to the health risks in NY after 9/11, to WMDs, to job numbers, to....well there's lots more.

The point is that his word means nothing. These recent ads are not retribution for Swift boat ads;, they are another lesson in Bush's untrustworthiness.

signed...

Subtle and not angry and vindictive (like I wanted to be)

[Catfight]

1. Very good, too bad Lard Ball won't care. n/t

[dennis4868]

great letter....

i hope someone reads this....

[cheshire]

2. We should all do the same.

[kentuck]

3. Excellent letter ewagner !

Good for you to put it in perspective for them.

[papau]

4. Someone should ask Hardball to read this pdf at the New York Times link

.....www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf

[Spazito]

5. Agree, it is excellent!

Thanks for posting the link.

[City Lights]

6. I already sent him the Colonel's conclusion. eom

[Zookeeper]

7. Very good!

That is the point we should be making, "it really doesn't have anything to do with Vietnam." Too many people dismiss his poor behavior from the past because he stopped drinking and "found Jesus." Well, folks...he's still lying. Can a Zebra change its stripes?

[alcuno]

8. * said, "I did my duty." NOT just that he was honorably discharged.

I emailed Matthews, the little nitwit.

[cthrumatrix]

9. everyday we should write these scumbags...nice letter ..to the point

he knows it too...he's owned..he goes to bed as a whore...disgusting.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

10. Matthews should rename his show SlimeBall

Really, if you think back to the fact that Matthews gave about 3 solid weeks of coverage to the SwiftSmearers on a nightly basis, it should be apparent even to a dispassionate non-partisan what a GIGANTIC WHORE Chris Matthews is.

A glance at the Hardball website lists recent available transcripts. Looking through them, one can see virtually wall-to-wall coverage of the SwiftBoaters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710/

August 25th, Matthews devoted his ENTIRE SHOW to the SwiftBoat controversy. He interviewed Federal Elections Commissioner Bradley Smith on the issue of 527s. He discussed Bush lawyer Ben Ginsberg's resignation from the Bush campaign for conflict of interest issues. He made the following statement to Smith: "So you think on its face there's no case to be made for coordination simply by reason of a shared lawyer."

He then had Laura Ingraham and J.C. Watts on his show to further discuss Kerry's Vietnam background. Here's the most interesting statement made by Matthews (please forgive my use of capitals as I don't know how to use bold and italics at this website):

"WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS THE MODERATOR HERE IS A DEBATE BETWEEN JOHN KERRY AND GEORGE W. BUSH OVER JOHN KERRY'S WAR RECORD."
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IN-FUCKIN'-CREDIBLE now that Matthews suddenly says "who gives a rat's ass" about something that happened 30 years ago when it comes to Bush's war record or lack thereof. Why isn't Matthews now calling for a debate between Kerry and Bush on BUSH'S war record????????????????

On August 26, Matthews again devoted most of his show to Kerry's Vietnam service. He had John Barry of Newsweek on to discuss it as well as Pat Buchanan and Howard Fineman. His statement to Pat Buchanan: "The question is whether John Kerry could have written the report based on not having seen the incident". Suddenly, now that Bush is involved in a similar controversy, Matthews says "who gives a rat's ass" about what happened more than 30 years ago.

August 27th, with an interview with Pete McCloskey, a Kerry supporter and Retired Admiral William Schacte who says Kerry didn't deserve his medals. He also had Roger Simon on to discuss Kerry's war record, the an Editor with U.S. News & World Report.

This just covers the recent transcripts that are available. Matthews has been talking about Kerry's record for the last 3 weeks. Recall that he had an entire panel discussing it when Michelle Malkin was on the show on August 20th. He had John O'Neill to get his take on August 12th. He had Larry Thurlow, another SwiftSmearer to get his take on August 19th.

Again, someone with no stake in this race, with no political side, from another country in fact, would see from miles away what a turd and whore Chris Matthews is for now saying "who gives a rat's ass what happened 35 years ago" when George Bush has his own record examined.

[Spike from MN]

12. I emailed them too...

and don't worry ewagner, I covered the angry and vindictive part for you. I figure they won't listen anyway and I'm really tired of Tweety using his hour to stump for the Bushies every night. It was bad enough when he was kissing major Swift Boat ass but tonight was the last straw. I have had it with him and let him know in no uncertain terms just what I thought of him.

At least we still have Olberman so that's a plus. I just wish they'd dump Joe "where'd that body come from?" Scarborough and put in Ron Reagan instead. Not THAT would be a show I'd watch.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi Spike from MN!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Armstead]

11. Here's mine on his Bush pimping

I wrote him tonite on his pumping up a Bush victory.


Can we at least have an election before you call the vote?

To Chris Matthews,

I realize you love to give your opinions -- and your
opinions seem to change every day.

However you have been going too far when you
practically call the election for Bush two months
before the polls are even open. Your statement today
that the election is "over" if people decide Kerry is
too "weak" to fight terror is completely bogus.

This perception of Kerry as weak is largely a media
creation. It's typical of the way you smirking,
self-satisfied pundits create a perception and then
feed off it by talking to yourselves.

You people constantly ignore things candidates say,
and then you complain the candidates are not saying
anything. Although Kerry has not run the greatest
campaign so far, he HAS been talking about real
issues, and stating repeatedly a fairly consistent
position on Iraq and a specific plan to actively fight
terrorism. Read his damn web site.

Maybe if you damn pundits would stop obsessing about
the horse race, and start talking about substance,
this mighgt be an actual election.

And stop telling us how "likable" Bush compared to
Kerry. Bush makes the skin crawl of at least half the
populAtion. Most people I know (of many political
persuasions) can not stand Bush as a person. People
think he is creepy and phony.

[IdaBriggs]

13. Good Job!

I sent an e-mail, too; I was (and am) so disappointed in him. I didn't want him to shill for our guy, but I had expected him to display integrity. :( I know -- how naive can I be? Sigh.

[Shopaholic]

14. I e-mailed him too

and told him I was disappointed in tonight's show. That he complained loudly along with his panel of talking heads that the campaign wasn't about issues but when he had a real issue in his hands (Senator Graham) he basically blew him off with this rushed interview. I pointed out the connections between the Saudis and the Bush family and 9/11. I asked him why was he so fascinated with the Swift Boat Veterans and what happened 35 years ago when it was an attack on Kerry but suddenly, when something from 35 years ago cropped up and looked bad for Bush, it wasn't worth anyone caring about.

[GalleryGod]

16. Got a link to SlimeBall?

Thanks!

[underpants]

17. My letter to local NBC television station

As a loyal viewer of your morning show it is discouraging to continue to hear Republican talking points and spin on what is offered as a news program.

During the Republican convention in New York WWBT reporter Mike Porter reported that New York had been chosen as the convention sight BEFORE the horrible attacks of 9/11. Not only does this not make any sense (planning your convention in the first year of your term?) it is false:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/gop.nyc /

The Bush team used the convention to continue to take credit for the worst failure of US national security in history.

This morning Aaron Gilchrist said the following (close quote)
~"The Kerry campaign, once again, is questioning whether President Bush fulfilled his service requirements in the National Guard"

That is flatly not true. The "Texans for Truth" are no more a part of the Kerry campaign than the thoroughly discredited "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth" are a part of the Bush campaign, right?

Finally someone in the media is looking into exactly how George W. Bush leapt ahead of 500 other candidates to get into the Texas Air National Guard on the same day he applied- May 27, 1968. The lead on this story has always been the Boston Globe. That publication had the first definitive research and reporting on this matter in May of 2000. It is important to note that there was little if any reporting on George W. Bush's actual guard service before and during the 2000 election or on his actual biography. So now someone is reporting on it and your telecast suggested that it is part of the Kerry campaign. Perhaps you should read the links below and report on that and not try to associate this with the Kerry campaign. Oh and include some clips of the Texans for Truth ad just as you did when "reporting" (read: broadcasting) the Swift Boaters misleading and debunked ad.

9-8-04 Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/arti... /

5-23-00 Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/arti...

[ewagner]

18. Excellent

You raised critical points and documented your position.

Better journalism than we see on ANY TV.