Top Menu

Follow Taylor on Twitter

Cory Booker, Day 3

The MSNBC host attacked Cory Booker for breaking with the Democratic Party line. As a journalist, he ought to celebrate truth-telling.The Misplaced Loyalties and Dubious Code of Chris Matthews, by Conor Friedersdorf

JUST HOW DENSE is the new media elite?

The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf proves how thick today when reviewing Chris Matthews’ harangue against Cory Booker last evening. This is what Friedersdorf actually wrote today:

If Matthews were a political operative, perhaps the code he’s defending would make sense.

But he is a journalist.

Stop the servers!

Chris Matthews lost his journalist credentials in 2007-2008, during the “thrill going up my leg” primary season where he vilified Hillary Clinton at every turn and reveled in his serial political porn on the Clinton marriage, while parading every misogynist in his DC Rolodex across his Clinton hating guest roster.

What makes matters worse is that Politico’s Dylan Byers picked it up without any analysis that computes the history of Chris Matthews, and Byer’s covers media.

Chris Matthews has been a die hard Barack Obama supporter for over four years now, which is his choice. Fox News Channel is a ratings juggernaut doing partisan coverage. Are Friedersdorf and Byers really the only ones who don’t know MSNBC is now the bookend to Fox News Channel?

Of course, the game in elite new media circles is you never tell the truth about your colleagues, because that wouldn’t be cool. But writing about the shock associated with the reality that Matthews would attack someone who just took a rhetorical I.E.D. to team Obama’s entire strategy to take Mitt Romney down is analytical malpractice.

If you’re an Obama supporter, which I assure you Matthews is, why wouldn’t he be outraged?

Of course, all of this is just a side show, but for once Chris Matthews was actually arguing his own personal conscience transparently, so both Friedersdorf and Byers had it exactly backward.

Booker remains the villain in this PR disaster.

What does actually matter is the day after Think Progress reported that Mayor Cory Booker had accepted $565,000 from private equity firms and “at least $36,000″ from Bain, neither Friedersdorf of The Atlantic, nor Byers of Politico, even bothered to mention this fact, showed any interest or even knowledge that Mayor Cory Booker’s idea of “truth-telling” was to take the side of his own private equity backers against a fellow Democrat who also happens to be the President.

Now you know the dubious code of the elite media and what “truth-telling” means to them.

Hey, but maybe this will all blow over now that James Clyburn has once again skimmed the bottom of the barrel, this time by accusing Mitt Romney of “raping companies.”

The next verbal gaffe festival begins in 3…2…

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

34 Responses to Cory Booker, Day 3

  1. T-Steel May 22, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    Go get ‘em Booker and Clyburn. Black on black crime at the highest levels my friends.

    iLove It!

    As a proud American, with a caramel complexion, it causes my heart to SWELL WITH PRIDE when I see black folks acting like two-bit politicians in front of a nationwide audience….. AGAINST EACH OTHER! Once again:

    iLove it!

    Keep it coming Taylor. This is better than any reality television show.

    • T-Steel May 22, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

      Oh and for those that don’t know, “caramel complexion” means that I’m black. :mrgreen:

      So don’t go all “racial” on me… LOL

  2. fairmindedindependent May 22, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    Chris Matthews has always been a Obama fan, so for some to call him out on it now, when he has been praising him since 2008 does not make since. I was watching some Hardball today and Chris Matthews is flipping out because now former Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Randell agrees with Cory Booker and Harold Ford Jr. Like I said, the two parties when it comes to financial matters usually agree with eachother, they want to be bankrolled by big bussiness and big banks.

  3. jjamele May 22, 2012 at 9:00 pm #

    Is this a joke?

    Booker and Ford are being attacked for “breaking from the Democratic Party Line,” which in this case translates to “accidentally telling the truth.” The idea that the Democrats are opponents of the kind of Capitalism Bain, etc. practice is too funny for words. Booker and Ford’s great sin is in letting the mask slip.

    If Obama and the Democratic Party wants to be seen as anti-predatory capitalism, they should stop relying on pretty speeches and slick ads and actually act like it when they write legislation. Otherwise, cut the BS outrage when a few Dems stray off the reservation and blunder into straight talk, please.

  4. thoreau May 22, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

    Matthews has been a hack longer than the millenium. he regularly had nuts on who called clinton a rapist and murderer. he savaged gore daily in his election bid. actually the entire press core portrayed gore as a liar. sending bush to the white house and our surplus ‘up in smoke’.

    the cable news media is a hugh disgrace. left/msnbc right/fox and center?/cnn. no wonder we are in the condition we’re in.

  5. StrideHyde May 22, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    Have these guys been living under a rock? Or fo they only notice Chris Matthews’ side-choosing when an appealing man finds himself in the crosshairs?

  6. Pilgrim May 22, 2012 at 10:09 pm #

    One of the commenters on the Friedersdorf piece opined that Matthews appears to be having a nervous breakdown. I’ve said the same thing with less-nice words, i.e., that he looks to be going mad, i.e., insane.

    And thanks to thoreau above for reminding us that Matthews was pretty sweet on George W. Bush, going all sweet on his “sunny nobility” and like that. As thoreau says, he was no supporter of democrats when al gore was running, and his behaviour toward HIllary Clinton, also Bill Clinton, was despicable. Yeah, for some reason, he professes a thrill up his leg for Obama. I sometimes wonder if Obama lost would he then climb on the winner’s wagon, that is, if he is still more or less sane. I also wonder if he thinks he would like some sort of job for Obama. I watch him most evenings, with a sort of lurid fascination

  7. ogenec May 23, 2012 at 12:20 am #

    I must be dense. What, exactly, is wrong with what Cory Booker said?

    • secularhumanizinevoluter May 23, 2012 at 5:54 am #

      Well perhaps if he had started with “Now I’ve done pretty well myself from Bain Capital so I think it’s wrong for Obama….”

      • PWT May 23, 2012 at 7:54 am #

        Should Mr. Obama be held to the same standard? He’s taken plenty of monehy from Private Equity and from Bain Capital itself, not to mention an advisor.

        • secularhumanizinevoluter May 23, 2012 at 9:28 am #

          Yes he should and everyone should do full transparency.
          Frankly IF President Obama got money from Bain and then still criticized them for their actions doesn’t that speak more highly for HIM?!

          • PWT May 23, 2012 at 9:39 am #

            I don’t think that it does. I think that it makes him a typical money and power hungry politician like all the rest of the POS that inhabit Washinton DC.

      • ogenec May 23, 2012 at 9:56 am #

        I’m dismayed at the state of our discourse, I really am. So he took money from Bain – is that illegal or unethical? And surely he took money from other sources as well – small contributions, unions, perhaps? How much? And when he speaks out on their behalf, is that because he’s a paid shill? Or does that standard only apply when he says, don’t demonize private equity? If you know anything about Cory Booker’s life experiences, you know this is an absurd, trumped up charge.

        I’m not even going to be coy. Cory is 100% right on this, and Obama is wrong. I AM nauseated with the tone of the campaign. And if Obama persists with this campaign strategy, he will lose. Don’t waste time and $$ convincing me how evil and bad the other candidate is – tell me why I should affirmatively vote for you.

        • lynnette May 23, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

          I like President Obama’s strategy on this, Ogenec – I think he is right about it and I think he will win the election. The media has a hand in sensationalizing/distorting the story so as to portray Obama as devisive via Cory Booker’s comments. President Obama is anything but devisive; his comments regarding this (as to the role of a president and private equity) were right on target, IMO. He merely said that private equity gone wild has to be balanced against the interests of the whole country. I am glad and hope that he is looking out for all of us, especially those of us who don’t have great gobs of wealth and still hold out hope for the American dream.

          • ogenec May 23, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

            lynette, I think you misunderstand me. I’m in favor of the President’s statement on that point. I am a proponent of good, sensible regulation of Wall Street. Have been ever since I read Ferdinand Pecora’s “Wall Street Under Oath” (sadly, now out of print) as a 1L. Pecora’s hearings directly resulted in the establishment of the SEC, the Securities Act of ’33 and the Securities Exchange Act of ’34. All good things in my view.

            So Obama’s policy statement is not my beef. The issue is the demonization of private equity in Obama’s ads. That’s what Booker was reacting to, and I agree with him. Romney is invoking Jeremy Wright to make Obama out to be some radical black liberation leftist out to exact revenge for Whitey’s subjugation of the black man. And Obama is invoking Bain Capital to make Romney out to be a rapacious devourer and destroyer of lives, jobs, and communities. I find both campaigns very nauseating. And I’m glad Booker stepped out to call it out. What I find distressing is the rush to assassinate Booker’s character, simply because of his rather temperate remarks. I mean, it’s astounding that people are losing their sh*t because he said “It’s either going to be a small campaign about this crap or it’s going to be a big campaign, in my opinion, about the issues that the American public cares about.”

            Again, I think he’s 100% about that. I don’t need scare tactics. Just tell me your vision for the country and let me make up my own damn mind.

        • spincitysd May 24, 2012 at 7:33 am #

          I AM nauseated with the tone of the campaign.–Ogenec.

          What, already? If your stomach is already feeling queasy Ogenec, I must suggest buying barf bags from COSTCO by the case. You are going to need them. It is going to be a bitter, nasty, vicious campaign.

        • lynnette May 24, 2012 at 5:50 pm #

          Well, Booker’s moderate comments were sensationalized by the media to create a story, perhaps where there should be none. He did probably muddle up the President’s message. I guess I don’t find the campaign ads nauseating per se – they don’t bother me too much. However, I understand your point. The Rev. Wright stuff has run its course – I don’t think the Repubs will get traction on that. I still think Obama is smart to bring up Bain, etc. That’s what Romney is running on, after all. Leveraged buyouts have indeed brought destruction in many cases to middle class communities. That, and jobs gone overseas have been very hurtful to the economy. Let’s see what Romney’s record is on this.

    • PWT May 23, 2012 at 9:45 am #

      He is a Democrat who did not parrot the populist language of the President and critisize the evil 1%s, except for Warren Buffet and George Soros as they give money to Democrats and pay lip service to their causes so they are OK even though they made their money by the same method as the private equity companies that Democrats now demonize but still accept campaign donations from.

  8. RAJensen May 23, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    Harold Ford,Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton are all members or former members of the New Democrat Leadership Council. The council was headed by Clinton in 1992 as a response to the 1980 and 1984 election of Ronald Reagan and the1988 election of George HW Bush. Thet are described as centrist Democrats. The new Democrats were open to de-regulation. It was Bill Clinton who signed the Welfar Reform Act and spearheaded the repeal of Glass Seagall in 1999 that introduced the de-regulation of Wall Street, hedge funds and ‘vulture’ capitalists.

    The Presidential campaigns of Bill and Hillary Clinton were primarily funded by Wall Street operators including Clinton’s Treasury Sectretary Robert Rubin who was recruited by Clinton and who was a diector of Goldman Sachs. After Bill Clinton, who was term limited, Rubin immediatly accepted his position as a director of CitiBank.

    Corey Booker is also a supporter of the New Democratic Leadership Council and his comments that backfired was a sop to the Wall Street campaign contributors who he expects to largely fund his next campaign either for NJ Governor or NJ senator as both positions will be on the ballot in 2014 when Booker’s term as mayor of Newark expires.

    Corey Booker is not a liberal or progressive Democrat and neither is Harold Ford or Hillary Clinton as long as they continue to favor de-regulation of Wall Street.

    • jinbaltimore May 23, 2012 at 8:28 am #

      The Presidential campaigns of Barack Obama were and continue to be primarily funded by Wall Street operators including Obama’s Treasury Sectretary, Goldman Sachs.


      • Cujo359 May 23, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

        Not “fixed”, merely “updated”. Both are true.

    • ogenec May 23, 2012 at 10:02 am #

      “Corey Booker is not a liberal or progressive Democrat and neither is Harold Ford or Hillary Clinton as long as they continue to favor de-regulation of Wall Street.”

      I’m sorry, this is arrant nonsense. Where do you get this stuff from? Have you even bothered to read the man’s bio? Stop embarassing yourself; wikipedia is only a click away.

      • Cujo359 May 23, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

        Yes, for instance here, Wikipedia says:

        Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.

        Which it defines here as being the sort of liberalism practiced in the U.S.

        Allowing Wall Street to do whatever it wants to the rest of us is not a liberal position. It is, in fact, the opposite, and all the people RAJensen mentions, with the possible exception of Booker (whose views on the subject I’m not aware of), are basically of this mind.

        • RAJensen May 23, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

          The Wall Street operators and hedge fund operators also place hedge bets on both Presidential nominees. The result to look at is what they actually do in office. The Clintons financed both of their campaigns with huge donations from the Wall Street financial firms. Once elected the Bill Clinton paid off the FOB’s (Friends of Bill) by taking the lead in the repeal of Glass Segall legislation passed in FDR’s New Deal that put up a seperation between Banks and Financial service and investment banks to prevent another Depression.

          President Obama also took campaign contributions from Wall street financial firms as did Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The campaign contributions from the hedge fund operaters to the Obama are drying up and giving more money to the Romney campaign because of the actions taken by President Obama and a Democratic Congress and Senate in passing the Dodd-Franks wall street reform bill.

          The bill was a strong one passed by Nancy Pelosi buit was watered down by the Senate because of compromises that had to made to be able to overcome a Senate filibuster.

          President Obama also faced GOP obstacles that failed to confirm a nominee to be the Director of the Consumer fraud fept. under Dodd-Franks. He mad a recess appointment to the chagrin of the GOP. The GOP also hasn’t funded the committee designed to round out the regulations required.

          Wall Street is no longer a fan of the President since his actions speak louder than words and Wall Street is opposed to any regulation, in fact, they demand even more de-regulation and Romney has promised them to just that

          • Cujo359 May 23, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

            Nonsense. After the biggest financial fraud since 1929, not a single Wall Street or banking executive is going to jail. Wall Street’s money paid off big time.

            Oh, and there was no way that the reform that was really necessary, reinstating Glass-Steagall and breaking up the TBTF banks was ever going to happen. The original version of Dodd-Franks might have prevented the JP Morgan fiasco, but I have my doubts. Where there’s a will, there’s usually a way around regulations that no one running the government wants to enforce.

        • ogenec May 23, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

          Allowing Wall Street to do whatever it wants to the rest of us is not a liberal position. It is, in fact, the opposite, and all the people RAJensen mentions, with the possible exception of Booker (whose views on the subject I’m not aware of), are basically of this mind.

          Actually, I don’t care whether self-identified liberals or progressives consider Booker etc. cool or evolved enough to belong in their club. That’s not what I was reacting to. I was reacting to the notion that Booker favors deregulation of Wall Street, and the implication that his interests are more aligned with economic elites. And that’s just demonstrably untrue, if you know anything of the man. In fact, it’s untrue even as applied to Obama, Clinton etc.

          • Cujo359 May 23, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

            So, then I take it there are a bunch of Wall Street executives about to go to jail for the control fraud that caused the Crash of 2008? Didn’t think so. Obama’s views are clear from his actions. What he says in pretty speeches doesn’t matter, a fact those of us who were paying attention figured out during the health care reform campaign.

          • ogenec May 23, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

            Oh, is THAT the litmus test – whether people went to jail? Sorry, that’s just silly. And you’re shadowboxing with the “pretty speeches” reference, since I’ve never argued that his speeches proved his bona fides on the financial regulation. His actions do.

          • ogenec May 23, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

            Also, I refuse to get pulled into non sequitur exchanges. My original post was about Booker, and you’ve admitted you don’t know anything about his views on the subject. That is the end of the matter as far as I’m concerned. The whole Obama-bashing and -defending thing I leave to the rest of you, as I’m beyond bored by it.

          • Cujo359 May 23, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

            Yes, actions are a litmus test. If, after the worst financial disaster after the Great Depression, a Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or whoever Administration had prosecuted more whistleblowers than financial executives, then I’d say the same thing: their priority isn’t to protect anyone but Wall Street.

            I don’t know what actions you think that Obama has taken, but the ones I know about are:

            - made HAMP woefully underfunded and a complete mess, while neither investigating nor helping state attorneys general to investigate the rampant robo-signing and other fraud committed by various financial institutions. The only prosecutions I’m aware of are individual customers who allegedly falsified information.

            - passed meaningless “reform” legislation that didn’t even prevent the JP Morgan debacle, which is the sort of thing it was supposed to prevent. It left the larger issue of TBTF banks able to run financial casinos strictly alone.

            I could go on, and have in other comment threads, but I’m pretty sure you’ll just make equally superficial points. Obama is deeply devoted to Wall Street. He has nothing but pretty speeches to show for it. So, whatever you think he’s done, if it wasn’t based on speeches then it’s based on nothing at all.

            Oh, and you’re probably wrong about Cory Booker, too. Not that I’m the least bit surprised. How in the world did he get over $500k from the financial industry to run Newark? Looks like it was to break the unions there. Go figure.

          • spincitysd May 24, 2012 at 7:46 am #

            There you go again Cujo359 bringing in those pesky results back in to the discussion. As if results matter. Oh, wait, they do; that’s one of my major memes : Results Matter.

            What are the results of three and half years of Obama economics? The banks are whole while the public remain broke. What are the results of half a million dollars of Wall Street money tossed Booker’s way? A very sympathetic message for Wall Street from the Newark mayor. What else is Wall Street getting for its half mil?

            Follow the money Ogenec, see were it leads. Forget the skin tone, forget the party label, follow the money.

  9. jinbaltimore May 23, 2012 at 8:18 am #

    Chris Matthews is only a “democrat” in the Andrew Sullivan (i.e. Obamabot) kind of way. His show only exists because he agreed to side with the repubs in their war against Clinton in the 90′s.

  10. StrideHyde May 23, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

    Check his ed reform agenda.

    • Cujo359 May 23, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

      Do you mean this one? If so, it’s none too inspiring.

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong