Pennsylvania being the bona fide blue state that it is just might be in the mood to oust the second of what used to be its two Republican Senators in 2010. A moderate in name and sometimes in deed, Specter is certainly more representative of his state than Santorum ever was but apparently not enough so as to avoid what looks to be at best a tough re-election fight.
The latest Research 2000 numbers that kos unveiled this morning show Specter under 50% against any Democratic opponent. Chris Matthews, as the one candidate with the most name recognition, performs best against Specter.
Specter 45 Matthews 44
Specter 48 Murphy 36
Specter 49 Schwartz 35
What should perhaps be even more worrisome to Specter is that he can't even break 50% in a Republican primary
Specter 43 Toomey 28 Undecided 29
29% undecided among Republicans he's been representing since 1981? That's really bad.
This is going to be a top tier race next cycle and I'm looking forward to ousting yet another of the faux moderates that enabled the radical agenda of the last 8 years.
Although Chris Matthews has not confirmed it, he reportedly is planning to run for the Senate seat from Pennsylvania in 2010. He apparently has been meeting with Democratic leaders and is shopping for a house in his old home town, Philadelphia.
Matthews has been advised to resign soon from his position as host of MSNBC's popular Hardball program. This seems wise since the longer he stays there, the more likely he is of making a statement that could jeopardize his campaign. In fact, odds are high that, during a campaign, he will say something that could derail his election chances.
However, I hope that he runs and that he wins. One thing for sure, a debate moderator will not have a problem, as Jim Lehrer did, in getting Matthews to engage directly with his opponent. Note also that his likely opponent, Senator Arlen Spector, is no shrinking violet.
Then if he wins, it will be a treat seeing Matthews in the Senate, continually interrupting senior Senate leaders as they speak. The interruption may well be in the form of a long question that Matthews will then proceed to answer.
Chris matthews has, for whatever reason, decided he's had it with republicans on the economy. at about 8 minutes in he just tears into this guy and demands that the the republicans hold themselves to account.
i've never seen anything so funny.
Chris demands that this guy account for what the republicans have done, and then demands to know where the president is and why he isn't saying anything about the economy.
apperantly when the guy said that we need to stop with the blame game chris snapped. <iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26761964#26761964" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
by MainStreet, Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:02:45 PM EDT
The US has no prerogative to question Israel's decision to bomb Iran? That's what she said folks, even if the foreign policy and economic consequences for the US would be disastrous. It could have military consequences as well if the US got involved. Another war.
Philip Weiss at Mondoweiss published this comment yesterday stating that Chris Matthews Suggests AIPAC Scripted Palin's Rote Answer on Israel.
Damn, when Chris Matthews is pissed, it can be good television, and today he was actually visibly angry that the McCain campaign was trying to portray Barack Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comments as an attack on Sarah Palin. Repeatedly he asked Republicans "Do you think that Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig?", which really is the pertinent question, and none of them could answer "yes." In fact Matthews' questions were met with much stammering. Here's the first part of the interview:
Update [2008-9-11 2:37:48 by Todd Beeton]:Matthews:
"This game that's being played is not an insult to a candidate, it's an insult to the intelligence to our democracy."