Home > Window on Washington > Archives > 2007 > August > 28 > Entry
Armstrong Tames Matthews’ “Hardball” Style
It took the likes of international cycling star Lance Armstrong to tame the aggressiveness of MSNBC’s “Hardball” host Chris Matthews during the second day of Armstrong’s presidential forum on cancer.
“Just be a little nicer,” Armstrong advised Matthews during a break between the questioning of the two Republican presidential candidates who participated, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.
And Matthews was, at least in the questioning of Huckabee. But in the earlier questioning of Brownback, Matthews had been especially aggressive in response to the senator’s suggestions about how to find money in the federal government to wage a war on cancer.
Brownback had proposed that the next president set up a system similar to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process used by the administration and Congress to avoid political controversies over the closing of military bases around the country.
Matthews lashed into Brownback, suggesting that the senator was trying to avoid making the tough choices between competing priorities. “Leaders have to choose. You’re trying to get a machine to do it for you,” Matthews said.
Before admonishing Matthews, however, Armstrong threw up his hands and admitted, “I’ve never even heard of the BRAC process.”
Neither had many of the nearly one thousand people attending the forum. They enthusiastically applauded Armstrong’s remarks.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Ruth Knollmueller
August 29, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this
Chris Matthews only likes to hear the sound of his own voice and he blathers on and on and on. We can’t understand how NBC keeps him on the air. Thanks Mr. Armstrong of taking the time to ask Matthews to stop.
By Ruth Knollmueller
August 29, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this
Chris Matthews only likes to hear the sound of his own voice and he blathers on and on and on. We can’t understand how NBC keeps him on the air. Thanks Mr. Armstrong for taking the time to ask Matthews to stop.
By benjithewolfdog
August 29, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this
Matthews was pretty rough on Brownback but in his defense Brownback was pandering. Brownback claimed that he is sponsering a bill to create a panal similar to the BRAC commission to eliminate unneeded government programs but where was this proposal for the last 14 years and especially the last six when the Republicans owned Congress and the White House. If there are so many unnecessary federal programs why didn’t (or maybe couldn’t) he name a couple. The truth is he was avoiding taking a position because like most politicians he didn’t want to lose any voters. Matthews is a passive-aggressive at times, he was a lap dog to Ann Coulter when she of all people should be challenged for her nonsense and venom.
By Min Yee
August 29, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this
Chris Matthews is a narcissitic blowhard. He’ll outshout any and every body. He’s even worse than, God forgive me, Bill O. He will always try to be the center of attention. He totally understands the power of owning the microphone. Plus, he’s gutless. He just yells to yell; he’s not yelling about substantive issues.
By dumbikeboi
August 29, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this
Congrats Lance, you’re ignorant and probably shouldn’t be hosting a forum. That’s why Matthews is there in the first place…
By Buddy
August 29, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this
I thought Matthews was right in asking Brownback for specifics. However, I agree that Matthews tends to talk over his guests always.
By CT
August 29, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this
Matthews: Blowhard? yes… Worse than Bill O.?… NO FRIGGIN WAY. Nobody on tv is worse than Bill O’reilly. Period. Let’s try to stay grounded in reality.
By Leave Lance Alone
August 29, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
dumbikeboi, you are critisizing a cancer survivor for bringing attention to the fight against cancer, that is quite stupid. Your point that Matthews is there as an “expert commentator” is correct, Lance is using his celebrity not his expertise as a draw. What a stupid comment.
By Madeline Wall
August 29, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
Chris Mathews seldom takes a stand. He is very often on both sides of a subject. His habit of interrupting and talking over his guests is annoying, but he must have someething that the station keeps his on. His moderating the presidential forum some months ago was of very poor caliber. I was surprised he didn’t do better.
By two7five7one
August 29, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
Matthews and the rest of these celebrity news folks, live for enhancement of their reputation (and their salary), not for the presentation of valuable news for us.
If the network owners had an ounce of integrity, they would rotate these narcissistic p****** so they would have to bring some honest reporting, instead of the opinionated garbage they give us.
Matthews, Russert, Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, etc., etc., are nothing but a*-kissers, who are trying to impress the Bushites and others in power.
Get rid of those jerks.
By Eric
August 29, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this
Obviously Ruth Knollmueller likes to hear the sound of her voice too since she posted her comments twice.
By Patricia A Schwab
August 29, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
I think Chris was not pleased because none of the Republican front runners were brave enought to deal directly with Cancer research and how to pay for it.RNPatti
By ptwiley
August 29, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this
Matthews is alright - certainly not in Billo’s league where assininity is concerned. I think one of the reasons cuts people off all the time is that he is in a seriously time-compressed format. If he were to allow his guests (read - politicians) to bloviate at will, he would lose his viewership in no time. Also, remember the guy is from Philly. Not exactly the manners capital of the world!
By Maineac
August 29, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this
They’re both a couple of publicity hounds.
Lance shouldn’t get any breaks just because he’s a “cancer survivor” — there are plenty of us to go around. His ignorance on BRAC comes from living in Texas, a place where the Bush administration wouldn’t dream of closing bases.
Chris merits an occasional dope slap just on principle, seeing as how he’s even more self-righteous than Lance. However, politicians’ feet should be held to the fire consistently and regularly, and I’m surprised to find myself on Chris’ side this time.
By Chris
August 29, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this
People on both the right and left accuse Mathews of being part of the other team. What does this tell you? He is in the middle and asks hard questions; this is what ideologues that are staunchly left or right can’t handle because they are mostly simple minded. Mathews is one of the few true Journalists on cable television. If you disagree with this assessment it is because you are blinded by your allegiances. And all of this commotion is in response to the fact that Brownback is brain-dead. That wasn’t a hard question, asking someone who claims to be a small government conservative to name ONE program me could cut. That is like asking a liberal to name one program they would like to expand.
By Maineac
August 29, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this
They’re both a couple of publicity hounds.
Lance shouldn’t get any breaks just because he’s a “cancer survivor” — there are plenty of us to go around. His ignorance on BRAC comes from living in Texas, a place where the Bush administration wouldn’t dream of closing bases.
Chris merits an occasional dope slap just on principle, seeing as how he’s even more self-righteous than Lance. However, politicians’ feet should be held to the fire consistently and regularly, and I’m surprised to find myself on Chris’ side this time.
By Chris
August 29, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this
People on both the right and left accuse Mathews of being part of the other team. What does this tell you? He is in the middle and asks hard questions; this is what ideologues that are staunchly left or right can’t handle because they are mostly simple minded. Mathews is one of the few true Journalists on cable television. If you disagree with this assessment it is because you are blinded by your allegiances. And all of this commotion is in response to the fact that Brownback is brain-dead. That wasn’t a hard question, asking someone who claims to be a small government conservative to name ONE program me could cut. That is like asking a liberal to name one program they would like to expand.
By Maineac
August 29, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this
Sorry to have inadvertently posted twice — don’t know how that happened.
By Robert59
August 29, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this
If a BRAC style commission is what it will take to cut out unnecessary programs I’m all for it, but if you thought scoring military bases was tough you ain’t seen nothing.
Subsidies to farmers versus bridge repair. I know which one I’d give more value to, but I’m not the one who got elected to office by ranchers and farmers.
By Robert59
August 29, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this
If a BRAC style commission is what it will take to cut out unnecessary programs I’m all for it, but if you thought scoring military bases was tough you ain’t seen nothing.
Subsidies to farmers versus bridge repair. I know which one I’d give more value to, but I’m not the one who got elected to office by ranchers and farmers.
By Emma Lou
August 29, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this
Thanks Lance Armstrong.Chris Matthews and Tim Russett both love themselves and forget to listen to their guests.Their “egos” are showing!It’s amazing that they stay on the airwaves.
By Chris
August 29, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
Mathews is sometimes annoying, yes, that’s true. But I personally think he is too nice, too pandering. Witness his bizarre interaction with Ann Coulter, where he kept asking other people around him if they thought she was “cute.” Huh? Who cares! Armstrong is…also annoying. Why do I need to be “nice” to anyone whom I disagree with who is running for public office? Especially if I perceive them as bigotted, backwards fundamentalist-pandering jerks. It’s all fine and dandy for the ultra rich to be “nice” to each other. They can just go back to their ivory castles and let everyone else fight wars due to the chaos they create. I am not being nice to these political scumbags anymore. No way, no how.
By briggs
August 29, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
matthews can be infuriating and most of the negatives blogged here are on target, yet matthews also has a brain, most misused when he dumbs down his arguments and his audience’s intelligence and patience with it, by using simplistic, republican talking points. one example of recent weeks has been his oft stated disbelief that in polling americans are more trustful now of democrats to be the party that balances the budget. to see matthews screw up his face, get hyper and ask guest after guest, how this could be, is to see matthews look like he’s suddenly been struck dumb, or his audience has. screaming at the t.v. hey remember the clinton surplus, the locked up trillions of dollars that the bush congress spent, doesn’t of course ever seem to be spit back at him by the guests who could be heard and seen on his show,
anyone watching him turn on bush last year as bush’s numbers dropped and matthew’s opinions suddenly starting matching with facts, has to ask if he isn’t just more opportunistic than other commentators.
but if you are going to tell me that except for the lightweights, pracitcally the entire cnn lineup, and most of network journaltainment, matthews is worse than the likes of russett potato(e) on beat the press and this weak one with st. stephen on abc and about deface the nation’s news on cbs, then you are wrong. those guys don’t even try to argue, or to appear like they want to.
matthews would like to be an old fashioned journalist as the white night in shining armour that rides in on a horse called the people’s right to know, but his politics too often short circuits the questioning and his ego is left to cover for a very skewed process when that happens.
By briggs
August 29, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
matthews can be infuriating and most of the negatives blogged here are on target, yet matthews also has a brain, most misused when he dumbs down his arguments and his audience’s intelligence and patience with it, by using simplistic, republican talking points. one example of recent weeks has been his oft stated disbelief that in polling americans are more trustful now of democrats to be the party that balances the budget. to see matthews screw up his face, get hyper and ask guest after guest, how this could be, is to see matthews look like he’s suddenly been struck dumb, or his audience has. screaming at the t.v. hey remember the clinton surplus, the locked up trillions of dollars that the bush congress spent, doesn’t of course ever seem to be spit back at him by the guests who could be heard and seen on his show,
anyone watching him turn on bush last year as bush’s numbers dropped and matthew’s opinions suddenly starting matching with facts, has to ask if he isn’t just more opportunistic than other commentators.
but if you are going to tell me that except for the lightweights, pracitcally the entire cnn lineup, and most of network journaltainment, matthews is worse than the likes of russett potato(e) on beat the press and this weak one with st. stephen on abc and about deface the nation’s news on cbs, then you are wrong. those guys don’t even try to argue, or to appear like they want to.
matthews would like to be an old fashioned journalist as the white night in shining armour that rides in on a horse called the people’s right to know, but his politics too often short circuits the questioning and his ego is left to cover for a very skewed process when that happens.
By DP
August 29, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this
Like any interview format Hardball with Matthews has a limited time format. Mostly I appreciate Matthews interrupting the guests to keep them focused on the points instead of them running off at the mouth. There are few guests that are not inclined to spout off their talking points or try to slip around the question. Thankfully Matthews tries to stop the BS or challenges them to explain their BS. Of course sometimes I want to hear more from the guests and question the point Matthews is trying to make but all in all Matthews is good. I think the best is Greta Van Sustern even tho she’s on Fox- unfortunately Fox often gives her silly topics that does not challenge her capability.
By Apollo Alexander
August 29, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this
Come on folks! Apparently it’s been so long since you’ve heard a TV journalist doing his or her job challenging fatuous politicians that you cover your ears and say, “Oh my. That’s not nice.” when it happens once in a blue moon. Brownback’s proposal was evasive and lame and Matthews challenged him to be specifiC. Oh my! That’s not nice.” No, and it’s not entertainment either, it’s old fashioned Walter Burns journalism from an era when reporter were healthy skeptics and didn’t all belong to the same country clubs as the pols and their billionare briends…
By John
August 30, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
Keith and Chris should be blogging at moveon or dailykos. They wont be on much longer.