Matthews, Brokaw, Murdoch Align in Condemning Potential GOP Effort to Derail Trump

"It's sort of like in Iran where the mullahs get to make decisions in the end and the voters don't really matter."

Is Chris Matthews suddenly a voice of reason or is he attempting to spin the narrative he believes might best suit Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton? Whichever the case, it took an MSNBC host to make the point many in the GOP establishment seem unfazed by -- that if the Party still challenges Donald Trump come convention time even if the candidate still has a substantial delegate lead, it will be thumbing its nose at Americans who came out in rain, snow and sleet to vote in the primaries. On March 2, the Hardball host said: 

The American people have gotten used to picking presidential nominees in the primaries. They're used to picking the one with the most votes. That's the guy or woman who wins, the one with the most votes. 

Come this summer, they all the sudden, the people who went out and voted in the snows of New Hampshire and out in Iowa when it was just as cold all went out and voted and picked, perhaps, Donald Trump as the leading candidate. 

Then they're told, no, that's not how it works. It's sort of like in Iran where the mullahs get to make decisions in the end and the voters don't really matter. 

It seems to me awful hard for people to buy, that democracy isn't democracy, it's the second or third guy really wins because somehow there was a coalition that went together and they ganged up on Trump and said, "Oh, we're going to pick Rubio," or "We're going to pick Cruz," but not the guy who had the most votes.

I don't think that's going to sell, and I think Trump will walk right out the door, and you'll have a three-way race.

Even former NBC Nightly News anchor and media-veteran Tom Brokaw noted that, if it comes to pass, an attempt by the establishment to stop a Trump-nomination "would be an attack on democracy."

Could Brokaw, too, be spinning because he thinks Hillary Clinton would beat Trump handily in the general election? Perhaps. Or he might just be stating the obvious -- that there are serious implications if the Party disregards the overriding will of the people. 

But those are voices on the Left. Even Rupert Murdoch, founder, chair and CEO of Fox News' parent company News Corp, issued the following tweet much along the same lines, stating that if Trump indeed wishes to make peace with the establishment -- as he indicated during his Super Tuesday press conference -- then the party would be "mad not to unify."



For the record, Fox News head Roger Ailes openly stated that he and his network supported Sen. Marco Rubio and had spun its coverage in favor of the Trump rival once Jeb Bush dropped out of the race. Since then Ailes, realizing Rubio will not succeed in the primary race, has "dropped" the Florida senator. 

Now is the GOP within its right to go the route of a brokered convention? As Newsbusters points out, having the "largest plurality of delegates" is not the same as having "the most delegates" to secure a simple majority: 

Yes, Trump may have a case to make on the floor that he's the best suited for nomination, and he's certainly entitled to fight to pry away delegates from other candidates to put him over the top, but the process itself is not in any way undemocratic but, as Tom DeLay reminded Matthews last night, perfectly in accord with the GOP's nominating convention rules. 

That may well be true, but Newsbusters is trading reality-talk for technical-talk. And the reality is that, as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie put it, Trump is leading "a movement." Of course we can argue whether we like that movement and what it stands for -- but it's hard to argue that he isn't leading one. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham agrees. The longtime Republican fixture, who has been vocal in his criticism of Trump in the past, recently stated that a brokered convention would be "unfair" to the GOP frontrunner and that he would be "right to leave [the party]" if it doesn't back him. 

"If he {Trump] got two thirds of what he needs, which I think he's well on his way to doing, for us to steal from him is not going to help the party," Graham said.

Trump may surprise many by actually rallying support among the GOP establishment himself. Or the Party establishment might double down in its anti-Trump efforts. After all, what does Mitt Romney's March 3 anti-Trump speech signal? We will soon see.

In the meantime we will have to continue to sift through, and hopefully see through the personal agendas and spin of network heads, talking heads, establishment and non-establishment figures alike.