I’d thought Chris Matthews, via his excitement over the election of Barack Obama, was currently filled with Hope. But apparently he’s also filled with Bitter Resentment—this latter, unsurprisingly, toward the outgoing president. Matthews, punditing about President Bush’s farewell speech last night—as a commentator, not an anchor, so he can say whatever he wants!—told his own, vitriol-dripping version of the Bush Creation Myth:
He was a rich kid driving his father’s car. He got to be President because of his father, let’s face it, the same way he got into school and everything else, the same way he got his car probably. But the scary thing about Bush is somewhere he came to meet people like Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby and Paul Wolfowitz and Feith and the rest of them….
The scary thing about Bush is he picked up on—almost in the way that a hermit crab does—another identity in becoming President….He became this new scholar of freedom, and he’s going to spend the rest of his life selling this stuff. This stuff cost the lives of 100,000 Iraqis, it cost the lives of 4,000 U.S. service people….
The idea that we have some brand new neo-conservative ideology of freedom that’s going to bring peace over in that part of the world is not true, and he’s still selling it, and that’s the tragedy of the last eight years.
Thanks for your restraint, Chris.

How wonderful that Chris Matthews tells us this now, when he spent years calling Al Gore all kinds of names and licking Bush's shoes. When Bush pulled his "Mission Accomplished", Matthews practically was drooling over how manly Bush was, and said even in 2005 or so that everybody likes Bush except a few left-wing nuts.
I guess he knows which way the wind blows and can suck up to power no matter who's in charge.
#1 Posted by Reid S., CJR on Fri 16 Jan 2009 at 11:31 AM
The problem with this form of punditry is that it is impressionism masquerading as analysis. But it really isn't that much different from what we get on the Sunday morning yak-a-thons. It's just a question of degree.
To be fair to Chris, the problem with asking "why?" concerning anything Bush did is that Bush was not firmly grounded either in philosophy or empirical data. He was at sea from the moment he took office. Trying to get a handle on his motivations is a futile activity even for the most insightful political analysts.
I think that this is one of the better attempts: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
#2 Posted by Adam Holland, CJR on Sat 17 Jan 2009 at 12:47 PM