A couple of notes re: RR, Jr. & Matthews

I was surprised to visit the blog this morning and find that Bo had already discussed the question that has been driving me absolutely nuts this week: what in the hell did Ron Reagan, Jr. do to make him qualified to offer "analysis" of the RNC on one of the most prominent cable news networks? If that guy weren't Dutch's son, he'd be lucky to get on the air on WOWL-TV 15 in Florence, AL. Not only is he unpleasant to look at (looks like a malnourished baby bird--I keep waiting on Matthews to spit chewed up worm in his mouth...I know that I'm cruel) with an abrasive personality, but his analytical skills are piss-poor. I have yet to hear him make one single coherent point, much less an astute observation, during MSNBC's RNC coverage.

Although I never gave him much credit to begin with, his exchange with Matthews and Ed Rollins last night was astonishing. After Rollins had rightly pointed out that Dubya was, politically, more like Reagan than his own father, Chris asked RR2 if it bothered him when people compared GWB to President Reagan (referencing a piece that referred to W as "Reagan's son"). Reagan, Jr. proceeded to offer some borderline-unintelligible response in which he conceded the ideological consistencies between the two, but pointed out that his father "didn't have a mean bone in his body," and that he heard "a lot of anger coming" from the stage last night, particularly from Zell Miller. When Rollins and others pointed out that A) Miller was a Democrat, and B) Miller isn't Bush, RR2 offered yet another ambiguous response, first explaining that he didn't mean GWB specifically and that he was simply comparing the current party to his father (again, Ron: see item "A)"), and then maintaining that the comparison of Bush to Reagan on a personal level was not valid and (at least as anyone could tell) implicitly suggesting that Bush was a mean or angry person. At this point, the whole panel (undoubtedly as confused as I was at RR2's "yes, no, maybe bowl of mush") acknowledged that, love him or hate him, it is hard to construe GWB as "mean" or "angry." Matthews then, having seen his ally look foolish enough, mercifully (for all of us) changed the subject. Unfortunately, MSNBC has yet to post the transcript from this portion of their coverage, but I'll link it once they do so you can observe Ron Reagan's idiocy for yourselves.

Sorry to go on and on, but this exchange was just unbelievable. I mean, "I wasn't talking about GWB specifically...I was comparing the party." Well, shitfire Ron! I could've sworn Matthews asked solely and explicitly about the comparison many make of W to Reagan. Was it that difficult to understand? Bottom line is that Reagan, Jr. is a tool and, accordingly, is being used by the media to help achieve their agenda. Let's be very clear: Reagan, Jr. isn't on MSNBC covering the RNC because he's Reagan's son; he's on the air because he's Reagan's son and he isn't voting for Bush.

With regard to the Matthews-Zell Miller altercation, I did happen to see the replay of it, and I just wanted to make one quick observation about CM that I have no tolerance for. The series of questions that, understandably, frustrated Miller went something like this: "Do you really believe that John Kerry doesn't want to defend this country?" 3 times in a row, with virtually no opportunity for Zell to respond, followed by "Do you really think Kerry wants to defend this country with spitballs?" Matthews actually asked that last question multiple times and with a straight face. I've never heard a more disingenuous series of questions in my entire life. Maybe someone should let Chris know that Zell's reference to spitballs was a rhetorical device, not meant to be taken literally, but--strangely--something tells me he already knew that. People can say what they want about O'Reilly, but he's got nothing on Chris Matthews in the gotcha journalism department.