Tuned In

Wrongest Name in Cable News?

OK, so cable-news pundits bluster, shoot from the hip and end up hilariously, spectacularly wrong occasionally. Or more than occasionally. It’s pretty much the job description. And Chris Matthews—well, God love him, he’s very good at his job.

But this clip is really something. It’s like a gold-medal performance in wrongness. It’s like automotive engineers built a supersonic Wrong machine, filled its fuel tank with high-octane Liquid Wrong, hauled it out to the Bonneville Salt Flats, and attempted to set the world record in wrong.

On Jan. 22, just after Scott Brown’s election victory in Massachusetts, Matthews talks to Rep. Alan Grayson. Subject: Where does health care reform go from here? In the interview, Grayson essentially gives Matthews precisely the strategy the Democrats will use, successfully: pass the Senate bill and change it using the reconciliation process (which is filibuster-proof). And Matthews proceeds to spend several minutes mocking Grayson for the naivete of the idea.You can’t do that! You can’t create a new program using reconciliation! It’s not how the parliamentary process works! I used to work in Congress! You have no idea how the Senate works!

Well, it turned out somebody had no idea. (In fairness, the Senate hasn’t passed the reconciliation package yet, but its intention and authority to put it to a vote is pretty much obvious to anyone now covering the health-care issue. Update: Oh, and further fairness—Matthews was hardly the only Washington journalist who “knew” that you could not pass health care using reconciliation back in January and earlier.)

If you have a few minutes, the interview starts about 1:00 into this clip. You are unlikely to see such a baroque example of a cable-news pundit being wrong in his conventional-wisdom interpretation of “how things work” anytime soon.

With the possible exception of whatever happens to be live on cable news right now. In a few minutes, it’ll be time for Hardball!

(Thanks to Jay Rosen for the pointer. Update: His tweet, by the way, leads to this Daily Kos writeup on the clip, which is worth a read.)

Related Topics: chris matthews, politics, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Entertainment

    IFC Films

    Kerouac's On the Road Comes to Cannes: Where's the Beat?

    Walter Salles’ film of the Beat Generation classic wastes a strong cast, including Twilight‘s Kristen Stewart, in a needless tribute to ’50s wanderlust

    Adele Crosses Huge MilestoneHuffington Post

    Adam Rose/FOX

    Glee Watch: NYADA, NYADA, NYADA

    Spoilers for the season finale of Glee below:

    One beef I often have with Glee episodes is that they move too fast, go in too many directions, try to cram in too much at once. You might say that about “Goodbye,” the season 3 finale, but in this case that approach seemed about right. It’s an episode about graduation, and graduation is something that, no matter how much you plan for and anticipate it, still goes too fast. Graduating is something you do, but in the moment it feels like something that happens to you, suddenly and all at once, like going over a waterfall.

  • anon76

    Keep it up, JP!
    Public ridicule is the only recourse we have against a chattering class which has been consistently wrong about everything for as long as I can remember. I guess the only recourse short of just not watching them.

  • evietoo

    Chris Matthews is a paean to Conventional Wisdom. It’s a pity he doesn’t try to find out the truth.

    I really hope he steps up and admits he blew it. Since you put it on your site, the mea culpa is probably more likely.

  • georgiac

    It was the long-ago combination of Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson that drove me from MSNBC altogether (though I do watch the delayed “Meet the Press” there and occasionally–and guiltily–”Lockup”). Matthews’ parents must never have schooled him on the rudeness of interruptions; I cannot imagine why any guest would agree to be on the show. Well, unless it’s Elizabeth Edwards, whom Matthews fawns over. He’s abominable.

  • jfornof

    Actually, if you listen carefully, Chris is right. However smug and pretentious he sounds…he is correct in saying that the Senate cannot use reconciliation to create new government programs.

    This is precisely why the President was forced to first sign the Senate bill into law, thus legally creating the new programs, before reconciliation changes could be debated and approved with in the Senate with only 51 votes.

blog comments powered by Disqus