Chris Matthews | News | Religion | Tony Perkins

Chris Matthews Says Gay Activists Make "Good Argument" On Tony Perkins Protest: VIDEO

MatthewsFaithful

The gay Christian group Faithful America has been tenaciously asking MSNBC host Chris Matthews why he continues to host Tony Perkins, the hideously homophobic head of the Family Research Council.

Matthews sort of blew the group off during their last encounter, which you can see here, but their most recent exchange seems far more fruitful, for Matthews admitted that Faithful America, and other activists trying to get Perkins off their air, may have a fair point.

Here's a partial transcript of the latest incident:

MATTHEWS: Why don't you think I should have him on my show?

Q: You said that you wouldn't have Franklin Graham on your show earlier this year because he tells hateful lies and I was wondering if you thought that was a different standard.

MATTHEWS: Well you got to make your case, you know. I talked about this with my producers last night and we're trying to decide how to deal with it. My view is I don't like censoring opinion and Tony Perkins has been on this show and he hasn't said something like that on my show, he doesn't talk like that on Hardball.*

Q: Do you think it gives him credibility when he's on Hardball though, for what he says off Hardball?

MATTHEWS: You know I think that's an argument -- that's a good argument. I'm thinking about it. You're doing the right thing, you're doing the right thing keep it up. You know where I stand on the issues that I care about, you know. And I'm probably with you on these issues but I got to think it through.

Watch video of Matthews and the Faithful America activist chatting it up, AFTER THE JUMP.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Give me a break. What is there to honestly think about. Perkins isn't an expert witness on the subjects they have him commenting on. He lacks any qualifications, and the crap he spouts is easily proven to be false. That fact alone makes his opinions worthless. If someone is intent on providing an opposing voice, it should at least be that of someone who is capable of giving qualified opinions.

    I think the real question Matthews should be considering is why is he so intent on treating a proven liar as a competent opinion giver?

    Posted by: LiamB | Apr 12, 2012 8:24:59 AM


  2. Mr. Matthews, knowing that Tony Perkins tells these horrible and dangerous lies about gay people when he's NOT on your show (as well as when he is if you were truthful) then why don't you confront him about these lies while he's on your show? You know, the way you do others who appear on your show. You never seem to be shy about nailing your guests to the cross so why do you treat Tony Perkins with such kid gloves?

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Apr 12, 2012 8:26:51 AM


  3. "he doesn't talk like that on Hardball.*"

    What is the asterisk for? Is there an instance cited where he does talk like that on Hardball?

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | Apr 12, 2012 8:39:39 AM


  4. Matthews is two scotchs away from being Ron Burgundy.

    Posted by: Dearcomrade | Apr 12, 2012 10:01:26 AM


  5. Matthews is the Peters Principle writ large. He knows that he gets rating from controversy, so he's not giving it up easily. Otherwise, what does he really bring to the table?

    Posted by: anon | Apr 12, 2012 11:52:41 AM


  6. Here we go again tearing down our allies.

    Posted by: Aaron | Apr 12, 2012 12:02:52 PM


  7. In what way is having a rational conversation about legitimizing homophobes "tearing down our allies?" Matthews himself says it is a good point and that he will think about it. If presenting a viewpoint, and having someone consider it valid, is "tearing down," then I don't know what you mean by the phrase.

    Posted by: Miguel R | Apr 12, 2012 2:43:41 PM


  8. Does Matthews expect people to believe that what Perkins says off the show is not their reason for inviting him on the show? Why have him on the show otherwise? And if his off-show remarks are the reason for having him on, shouldn't those remarks be the subject of every interview?

    Posted by: JJ | Apr 12, 2012 3:41:35 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Mitt Romney's Anti-Gay Politics Clash With Donors' « «