Uh oh: Matthews sounding fed up with Obama’s earmark hypocrisy

posted at 8:24 pm on March 4, 2009 by Allahpundit

Buckley turning on him was predictable, Brooks turning on him was a pleasant surprise if not unthinkable — but Mr. Leg Thrill? This isn’t the first time he’s expressed exasperation with The One’s performance lately, either. If he’s losing Matthews, whither the rest of the media’s Hopenchange sycophants?

As Ace notes, Obama’s not indifferent to all extravagant spending. Just the kind that might improve America’s defense.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Chrissy’s little hardball rant has not gone unnoticed by the financial markets: the Dow is down over 240 points.

Change is coming!

Yeah, my 401(k)’s now worth change, as in small change, thanks to the new administration. Thanks morons!

Sweet_Thang on March 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Obama and his whining about inheriting a budget deficit, etc.

After Truman took over for Roosevelt did he go around whining that he couldn’t do anything because he inherited WWII from the last President?

Same with Nixon inheriting the Viet Nam war from Kennedy/Johnson. Did Nixon go around whining about inheriting Viet Nam from Kennedy?

Or did Eisenhower whine about inheriting the Korean War situation and the start of the Cold War during Truman’s tenure?

Or after Lincoln “left” office, did the next administration whine about inheriting the Civil War?

Just curious.
Don’t know all the history, but this is the first time I can recall a President (Obama) whining on and on about inheriting problems from the previous President; as if to say it is not Obama’s fault if he screws it all up and makes it worse than it is.

albill on March 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM

The President inherited a 1.4 trillion dollar debt, two wars, and close to a depression.

Stop giving w a free pass. He was a disaster.

Man up.

getalife on March 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Wise up, conservatives did not like his spending…Bush was wrong on spending, and Obama is even more wrong.
Strange that you use an example the exemplifies what Obama is doing wrong…you are correct, and glad that you admit it, government spending destroys an economy.
Finally you understand, we didn’t give Bush a pass, the conservative pundits skewered him for his spending, and his lax border policies.
Glad to see you are on our side…now let’s not see you waffle. You complain about Bush’s spending, you must be livid about Obama’s government expansion and spending.
Finally you liberals are starting to get it.

right2bright on March 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM

am shocked you are not calling your gop reps that got this pork to express your outrage.

What’s up with that?

getalife on March 5, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Most of us are calling ANY reps that are supporting this junk, be they Reps or Dems. Dang, man, get your head out of the sand.

jimmy2shoes on March 5, 2009 at 12:39 PM



kthomas8268 on March 5, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Actually, I am Independent of party and ideology.

I look at the facts, the challenges, and proposals not blinded by partisan politics.

I think we are in a crisis that wanting the President to fail is not an option.

I will support our President to try to save our country from economic collapse.

It was a nice discussion.

Have a great day.

getalife on March 5, 2009 at 12:13 PM

After reading this whole thread. The first line of this quoted post is the most ridiculous and laughable excrement I have read today.

infidel on March 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM

He will forever be Mrs. Chrissy Tingles to me.

Montana on March 5, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Debt sir is a fact on how our economy works.

getalife on March 5, 2009 at 11:32 AM

It is still economic slavery. The debtor is slave to the lender. Slaves to Chinese taskmasters, how wonderful.

jimmy2shoes on March 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

But I’m entirely miffed that he doesn’t feel the need to say “I said this before, here’s why I’ve changed my mind.”

DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 9:20 AM

He’s a liar and an arrogant, narcissistic one to boot. Once you understand that, you’ll understand him.

He’s never going to feel the need to explain himself. Everything he does or says is for him alone and to meet his need of the moment.

INC on March 5, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I saw this last night:

‘I’m Maureen Dowd, and I’ve Been Had’

A support group for bitter pundits disappointed in Obama is quickly becoming necessary.

Jennifer Rubin doesn’t mention Matthew, but she does go down the list, including Buckley, Dowd, Brooks, Gergen, Marty Peretz, Cramer and even this quote from Andrew Sullivan:

We are being presented with what can only be described as a massive increase in government spending and power with the only fiscal balance being wringing much more money from the successful. The president predicted a tight budget and spending control in his non-SOTU, and he appealed to fiscal conservatives by promising a long-term attack on entitlement spending. I see nothing here yet that fulfills that promise.

Rubin goes on to say:

All in all it is one dismayed and bitter group, filled with recriminations and a bit of self-flagellation. And it’s not hard to recognize that, as in any grieving process, they have passed through denial (when all who criticized their beloved Obama were excoriated and ridiculed) and are in the second step: anger. They were misled or deluded into believing Obama was a moderate or an indefatigable supporter of Israel or a fiscal grown-up or a reformer (take your pick).

They and the rest of the country [I would except those who did not vote for O] are figuring out the bitter truth: Obama bears little resemblance to the moderate and soothing figure who tied up John McCain in knots. He bears even less resemblance to the Agent of Change. Rather he’s pretty much the Chicago pol who went to the Senate to be its most liberal member.

And for the wounded Obama supporters, we can offer just one bit of counsel: you have lots of company…

INC on March 5, 2009 at 1:11 PM

………that thrill up my leg has stopped……….

Cinday Blackburn on March 5, 2009 at 1:20 PM

More on the Obamas’ narcissism. This time it’s Michelle. We all read about how Obama snubbed Brown, but MM had a link to this item that Stop the ACLU picked up from Ace:

And don’t think it was just the President who showed poor class. The First Lady wasn’t a model of graciousness and charm, either. While Sarah Brown came to the White House armed with thoughtful gifts for the Obama children, Michelle Obama couldn’t be bothered to do more than send an aide down to the White House gift shop for the Brown boys.

This is from the embedded link in the paragraph above:

Like all good guests, Sarah Brown arrived bearing gifts for the children, Malia and Sasha. And they were really nice presents. A bit of thought had clearly gone into choosing them: Top Shop dresses (with matching necklaces) and a selection of books by British authors. Lovely.

Mrs Brown may have two boys but she certainly knows the way to a little girl’s heart. These were gifts chosen in the true spirit of present-giving: to please the recipient, not the giver.

In return Mrs Obama gave the Brown children, Fraser and John, two toy models of Marine One, the Presidential helicopter. Fair enough on the helicopter part, always a popular choice with small boys; but Marine One? It’s not as though anyone needs reminding that Barack Obama is President or that he has his own helicopter. Short of giving the boys Action Man models of her own husband smiting the evil forces of neoconservatism, Mrs Obama’s gesture could not have been more solipsistic or more inherently dismissive of Mrs Brown.

Not only did she demonstrate that she spent approximately three seconds contemplating the needs of the Brown boys (having an aide pop to the White House gift shop for a piece of merchandising does not imply a great deal of thought), she appeared to show a most uncharacteristic lapse of judgment.

How tacky. I would only quibble with the phrase most uncharacteristic lapse of judgment.

INC on March 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM

After reading this whole thread. The first line of this quoted post is the most ridiculous and laughable excrement I have read today.

infidel on March 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM

They must have done a troll clinic over at Daily Kos, and stressed the need to claim you’re an “independant” when you’re trying to astroturf a conservative site. They don’t realize how silly they sound… but hey, let’s take getalife seriously for a minute, just for fun. If you come into a web site dedicated to freewheeling discussion of political and cultural issues, and announce your position – arrived at after considering all the “facts, the challenges, and proposals” is that only blind, unquestioning obedience to the President can save us from our current economic crisis, you’re not a very good “independant.” In fact, it would be more accurate to describe you as a “dependant.”

I’m happy to describe myself as a stalwart conservative, and I’d have tough questions for Obama if he strolled out of the White House tomorrow and announced the biggest income and capital gains tax cut in history.

The dishonesty, or intellectual arrogance, of people who proudly identify themselves as non-ideological independants never ceases to amaze me. Everyone who has given more than cursory thought to the great issues of American politics has some coherent set of beliefs to proceed from. You either think the government has first claim on the labor of its citizens, or you don’t. If you don’t, you can’t be in favor of gigantic tax increases and stifling regulations, let alone massive deficit spending, which is nothing more than a cowardly attempt to impose huge tax increases on people who haven’t been born yet.

You either believe that all essential services, including health care and mortgage lending, should be provided by the government, or you think free men and women are better able to handle these needs, and it is moral for them to do so. You either believe the government should address the “inequities of power” between its citizens, as defined by its political masters, or you believe it should be equally obedient to *all* of those citizens – regardless of color or net worth. You either believe the first, and primary, duty of government is the defense of its citizens and borders, or you regard this as merely one among many priorities. You either believe the economy is a positive good in and of itself, which should be regarded as the property of the citizens instead of their political masters, or you think the economy is just an engine that squirts out money the elites can seize to spend on what’s *really* important.

It’s especially stupid to see people claiming the mantle of perfectly balanced independent thinkers in the current situation. It’s not as if the American system is poised at the perfect center of the continuum between liberty and collectivism, and we’re debating making a fine adjustment from left of right of center to left of left of center. The President is explicitly proposing to completely remake the American system, and permanently alter the relationship between government and its citizens. If you don’t have anything better to say about that than “I will support our President,” then you’re either someone’s operative, or you’re a fool unworthy of the birthright of freedom left to you by the better men and women who came before you.

Come on, trolls, let your freak flag fly. We conservatives are supposedly powerless and out of the mainstream, right? In a few more years, it might even be illegal for us to identify ourselves in public. Drop the kabuki masks and let us bask in your wisdom. Take your best shot at convincing us we should fall in line… because if you think anyone here is going to just blindly follow your example and do so, you’re on the wrong web site – and if that isn’t what you’re expecting, then you came to a forum full of free thinkers to proudly announce that you aren’t one.

Doctor Zero on March 5, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Interesting stuff.

From hero to zero within the first hundred days.

Otis B on March 5, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned

entagor on March 5, 2009 at 3:31 PM

Also. I don’t want to have another meaningless debate about slavery. But can we agree that slavery happened? And so…we know what it actually looks like correct? I find it incredibly offensive when people declare that being taxed at a rate that coincides with significant personal income or property ownership (not possible for slaves) is NOT slavery. It may be unfair, you could even say it violates some civil right to income. But it diminishes the harsh realities of slavery to suggest that taxation = slavery. But I don’t blame you as our founding fathers often called what the British did to them as “slavery” even as they held people in actual bondage (I feel like that should be the example used in the dictionary when defining slavery). Shouldn’t we, as (hopefully) more enlightened on the immorality of slavery than they were be able to distinguish between a legit grievance against taxation and calling it slavery?

DeathToMediaHacks on March 5, 2009 at 10:34 AM

I know that this post is very old but I’ve been gone and didn’t read it before.

First, debt is slavery. In fact in ancient Russia when someone took out bankruptcy they actually sold themselves and their family members into slavery. American slavery is not the only form of slavery in the world. But we cannot allow us not to call debt what it is!!!!!

When you buy something on credit you agree to devote some labor to pay the bill. Money is the cost of labor. You are not free to not pay the bill. That is how credit works you have agreed to pay the bill plus interest, with your labor, but we do that according to our own will and choice.

However, when our government borrows money from China. Our government agrees that the PEOPLE of the United States (not the government) will spend much of our labor to pay the bill plus the interest. Until that bill is paid THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES (not the government) are at the mercy of China. In the same way those ancient Russian slaves became slaves we all become slaves.

Barack Obama is selling us all into slavery to China so that he can have a legacy. Our labor will pay for him to put logos all over stuff so that he will be a big man in history.

petunia on March 5, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Matthews is fed up with hypocricy?

Oh, the irony of that.

LoL. Getting a taste of his own medicine it seems.

Lawrence on March 5, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Even the liberals who ALL did everyting they could to ensure the win for obama
are now wondering if this moron will bankrupt the country
in the first 100 days..

obams and idiot and they all know it

jcila on March 5, 2009 at 5:46 PM

The Thrill is gone

Wade on March 5, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Lil’ Chrissy must not know much history. When Comrade Obambam starts the purge, it’s the Lil’ Chrissy types that go first. Usually sobbing and wetting themselves.

oldleprechaun on March 5, 2009 at 6:31 PM

The Thrill is gone

Wade on March 5, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Darn… I only have a minute and that is exactly what I was gonna post. Must be goin around…

RalphyBoy on March 5, 2009 at 6:38 PM

“That softball has got a wicked arch.” -Brian Regan

shick on March 5, 2009 at 8:59 PM

What happened to that thrill up your leg, Chris?

Oh, yeah?

It was just Obambi taking a leak…..

seanrobins on March 5, 2009 at 9:26 PM

And now for the ultimate in obscure logic:

I think Judge Judy just told Chrissy it’s raining.

Tennman on March 5, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Has anyone else noticed that since Rick Santelli’s famous rant, that alot of these television hacks are spouting anti-Obama rants?

Maybe its just me, but I think they noticed the following the Santelli generated and everyone is eyeballing their ratings.

EX: Jim Cramer (aka CNBC’s Obama head cheerleader)

JeffVader on March 6, 2009 at 2:47 AM

Hey Chrissy, is your leg still tingling?

hopefloats on March 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM

In a time of national crises. 9,000 earmarks. 40% by Republicans. We citizens watch as our elected officials line up to rape the thrashing body of America. When do we settle this outrage the old fashioned way?

Ernest on March 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM