What adjectives do you use to describe Chris Matthews?
About The Author

BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
You may remember the Monty Python skit about the show “Prejudice,” where this week’s quiz is to come up with an epithet for Belgians, and one contestant gets honorable mention for the answer, “Let’s not call them anything — let’s just ignore them!”
That’s my policy regarding Chris Matthews.
where’s the fun in that?
good call, l’d forgotten about that one.
here it is:
lTMF’sA
Thanks! It’s been many years.
I don’t think I’d realized before how prescient that sketch was.
Spitball. Spittlehead. The Gusher. Lying sack of shit. Asshole. Nimrodic Nincompoop. Chunklehead. Fromunda. Fucking Moron.
Oh, I can go for days.
those are all nouns, BooMan asked for adjectives.
though I gotta admit, “lying sack of shit” is my standard all-purpose comment on Tweety and all pundits.
I’ll start with: lying, vacuous, idiotic, war-mongering, sexist…
useless, embarrassing, bombastic, horsing, braying, idiotic, over-priced…
That last one oughta get NBC Universal interested in saving money.
I always use the word Chris after it.
increasingly irrelevant
Clinically insane.
lTMF’sA
Mute Button
Vapor lock (no oxygen left in room whilst he speaketh)
man-crush
more in keeping with the question: florid, inane, off-base and off-kilter.
Wanker!
Oh shit. You asked for an adjective.
Fucking wanker.
“Wanker” can be used as an adjective. OED lists Elmer Fudd, 1947: “You aww wanker than any wabbit I have wated for wankness.” You can look it up.
No listing from the same authority on “fucking wanker”.
No adjective…I just think of him saying “Can’t you just smell the English Leather?” in reference to Fred Thompson and want to throw up.
The inability to distinguish the odor of cologne from that of formaldehyde is actually a well-established olfactory malady. We should pity the poor man.
There is only one adjective that described that which haunts us as Chris Matthews
TWEETY
and in his case it is both an adjective and the best that can be said about him.
“stupid”
“ugly”
“waiting to keel over from insulin shock”
“decrepit”
“closeted self-loathing homosexual”
“shit-eating”
“lying”
“craptacular”
“immoral”
“insane”
I could go on all day really.
Is “fuckwump” a word? If so, then that’s what I’d call him.
“fuckwump” – it’s a word now
I usually settle for douche-tool or fuckwit. My kids laugh every night at him – we always get the last 30 seconds of the honking twit on the DVR before “Countdown” starts.
Transparently clueless while unabashedly arrogant.
That almost sounds like an acronym waiting to be born. God forbid that it is.
Think positive.
So, I’m idly reading Tapped and come across this:
Curious as to what a combined primary/caucus system would look like (and wondering if it really could help Obama) I clicked the link which ended up like falling down the rabbit hole. Texas really is a whole ‘nuther country.
I think this is how it works, but if anyone’s from Texas and thinks I have it wrong, please set me straight. I haven’t decided if I think it helps Obama because I’m not sure I have it straight.
Texas has 168 “base” delegates and chooses them in a 2 part system. By law 75% of them (126 delegates) have to be apportioned among candidates based on the presidential preference primary to be held March 4. Delegates are allocated by Texas State Senate district using a formula that takes into account how the district voted for the Democratic nominee in the 2004 presidential election (John Kerry) and the last Democratic nominee in the 2006 gubernatorial election.
The remaining 25% (42 delegates)are apportioned using a county convention system that starts with a precinct level convention held at each precinct on the night of the primary election after the polls close. Anyone who voted in the primary election can participate in the precinct level convention.
This is a caucus type proceeding where each voter comes back to the polling place and signs in for a candidate (in effect getting to vote twice that day for his candidate) or can sign in as uncommitted. The state party sets a formula for how many sign-ins are needed to get a delegate. If a candidate group is too small to elect a delegate, individuals from that group may join another candidate’s caucus.
So it sounds as if Obama can potentially get additional bang for the buck if the campaign can organize its voters to not only show up at the polls but also come back that night and caucus for Obama.
Here are some links:
Texas Observer and Burnt Orange Report.
Thanks. I’ve already spent a lot of time reading. But I really just want someone from Texas to show up who’s been through the process.
Where’s Refinish69 when you need him?
no one has been through the process in thirty years.
I don’t understand what that statement means.
In the last 30 years there are people who have voted in Texas Democratic primaries and then shown up for the caucus. It may not have mattered in 30 years. And the turnout may be immense this year. But people have been through the process.
If there are no Texans here, I’ll force myself to look over at dKos.
you need to follow the links, but no one really has any experience running big caucuses in the state. The number of people that have experience is small, and their experience won’t equip them for the turnout.
I’ve followed the links. What part of that don’t you understand?
I was looking for confirmation from someone from Texas (not you) or someone well versed in Texas politics (presumably not you) that after following all the links (not just yours, but multiple links such as this very informative pdf) that I’ve got the process down.
I understand the turnout problem. I’m looking for someone who’s been through the process even though the turnout will not be comparable. Not every comment in an open thread is meant for you.
Go back to your Hillary hatred threads.
Mary-
I found this informative, and this was funny – and critical for anyone planning to campaign in Texas. Considering how neglected Texas has been by Democrats since, for some time, they haven’t felt it important to campaign everywhere, it would be very worthwhile to build a real campaign ground organization there. They’re hungry for it.
Thanks Randy.
Interestingly – the blogger from The Field apparently got the process wrong in the original blog post and then his commenters set him straight and he posted a correction. I’m glad I’m not the only one who found this confusing.