Saturday, May 17, 2008
Righty talker gutted like a perch
God bless Chris Matthews.
Who is Kevin James?
Ignorance gone to seed. Perfect representative of right-wing talk radio.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
I saw this yesterday, and couldn't decide whether to laugh or just shake my head. First, Matthews asks the guy why he's shouting, and he gets a cute answer ("Cause you excite me so much, Chris"). Then, he simply refuses to answer a direct question, shouting the same thing over and over. Mark Green sits patiently, and I think he's a bit embarrassed by the guy's behavior. When he finally up and admits he has no idea what the hell he's talking about, it's almost anti-climactic.
Now, on the one hand, I would say this only proves that Matthews' producers on Hardball managed to find an ignorant right-winger to represent that side of whatever "argument" was going on. I am quite sure there are ignorant lefties out there as well, so this proves little.
On the other hand, since this entire episode has been all over both the internet and TV news and political columns, and the Chamberlain/Munich analogy has been around since the Cold War (everyone from Eisenhower to Reagan got branded "Chamberlain" by the far right for sitting down with the Soviets, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, whomever), it is a pertinent question to ask, not just of those who toss it around, but of journalists who cover the story, and columnists who comment upon it.
An interesting aspect of the Munich episode is that Pres. Roosevelt desperately wanted an American presence, yet also knew it would be political suicide to do so. He wanted the negotiations to be someplace neutral, so that an American diplomatic presence would be less odd to the American people. He also sent a long letter to Chamberlain in which he tried to tell the PM not to give an inch to any German demands. Chamberlain dismissed Roosevelt's letter (which was one in a series he sent to the British government urging them to find some balls to deal with the Nazis) as the workings of a diplomatic amateur, then flew off to Bertechsgarden and handed off the Sudetenland to the Germans as if it was theirs to give, browbeating the Czech representative who was present but not included in any negotiations.
So, I suppose Roosevelt was an appeaser, too, even though he was also Commander-in-Chief during the largest, most complicated military venture in American history, with American troops dying above the Arctic circle and in the Sahara.
Now, on the one hand, I would say this only proves that Matthews' producers on Hardball managed to find an ignorant right-winger to represent that side of whatever "argument" was going on. I am quite sure there are ignorant lefties out there as well, so this proves little.
On the other hand, since this entire episode has been all over both the internet and TV news and political columns, and the Chamberlain/Munich analogy has been around since the Cold War (everyone from Eisenhower to Reagan got branded "Chamberlain" by the far right for sitting down with the Soviets, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, whomever), it is a pertinent question to ask, not just of those who toss it around, but of journalists who cover the story, and columnists who comment upon it.
An interesting aspect of the Munich episode is that Pres. Roosevelt desperately wanted an American presence, yet also knew it would be political suicide to do so. He wanted the negotiations to be someplace neutral, so that an American diplomatic presence would be less odd to the American people. He also sent a long letter to Chamberlain in which he tried to tell the PM not to give an inch to any German demands. Chamberlain dismissed Roosevelt's letter (which was one in a series he sent to the British government urging them to find some balls to deal with the Nazis) as the workings of a diplomatic amateur, then flew off to Bertechsgarden and handed off the Sudetenland to the Germans as if it was theirs to give, browbeating the Czech representative who was present but not included in any negotiations.
So, I suppose Roosevelt was an appeaser, too, even though he was also Commander-in-Chief during the largest, most complicated military venture in American history, with American troops dying above the Arctic circle and in the Sahara.
Well, of course, there's ignorance on both sides, But only the right wing showcases it on talk radio and in the punditocracy.
This dude's not just ignorant; he's an ignorant blowhard.
Matthews is a blowhard, too, but generally has his stuff in order before he goes to blowin'.
This dude's not just ignorant; he's an ignorant blowhard.
Matthews is a blowhard, too, but generally has his stuff in order before he goes to blowin'.
skoxdawIt should be unbelievable.
Why dose this not shock?
Still on Sunday there was a Washington Post reporter using the same word about the Democratic Party.
In 1938, Roosevelt was worried about the very existence of America. From his viewpoint it would give us time to prepare, and it did. Did he want to go to war? No he did not. Did he know he would anyway? Yes, he but wanted to delay it as long as possible. His advisers wanted it sooner rather than later. The Japanese shortened his time line a whole lot.
What Bush did in Israel, was beyond the pall for a sitting President to do. Boy I hope he and Cheney and Rove keep right on helping the Republican Party in this campaign. Please dear Lord keep these boys talking and we will have a 62/38 Democratic Senate and a 70/30 Democratic House.
Why dose this not shock?
Still on Sunday there was a Washington Post reporter using the same word about the Democratic Party.
In 1938, Roosevelt was worried about the very existence of America. From his viewpoint it would give us time to prepare, and it did. Did he want to go to war? No he did not. Did he know he would anyway? Yes, he but wanted to delay it as long as possible. His advisers wanted it sooner rather than later. The Japanese shortened his time line a whole lot.
What Bush did in Israel, was beyond the pall for a sitting President to do. Boy I hope he and Cheney and Rove keep right on helping the Republican Party in this campaign. Please dear Lord keep these boys talking and we will have a 62/38 Democratic Senate and a 70/30 Democratic House.
skoxdawIt should be unbelievable.
Why dose this not shock?
What the....
It should be unbelievable. Why does this not shock?
Why dose this not shock?
What the....
It should be unbelievable. Why does this not shock?
Ignorance, indeed. We're talking about Matthews, right?
Bring a guy on to play gotcha like you're Alex Trebek on meth (1930's history for 500!): "Why are you yelling," he yelled...and then to let it go on for a good 75 seconds? Tom Cruise to Matt Laurer had more pellucidity. (You don't know history Kevin, I know history!) Jeez, this is why my remote needs new batteries. Yeah, James (who looks frightening like the Kool Aid-pushing Joel Osteen to me) is obviously a one-trick pony, banging out "appeasement" like the one note Gyorgi Ligeti soundtrack to Eyes Wide Shut. Why not actually discuss the issue? Matthews waits all of four seconds into James' response before interrupting, and never seems to discuss if Bush's statements seemed viable. Mark Green and the entire argument got lost in this crap. Geoffrey gave an excellent example of how this discussion could have been presented and would have actually been worth a damn.
Bring a guy on to play gotcha like you're Alex Trebek on meth (1930's history for 500!): "Why are you yelling," he yelled...and then to let it go on for a good 75 seconds? Tom Cruise to Matt Laurer had more pellucidity. (You don't know history Kevin, I know history!) Jeez, this is why my remote needs new batteries. Yeah, James (who looks frightening like the Kool Aid-pushing Joel Osteen to me) is obviously a one-trick pony, banging out "appeasement" like the one note Gyorgi Ligeti soundtrack to Eyes Wide Shut. Why not actually discuss the issue? Matthews waits all of four seconds into James' response before interrupting, and never seems to discuss if Bush's statements seemed viable. Mark Green and the entire argument got lost in this crap. Geoffrey gave an excellent example of how this discussion could have been presented and would have actually been worth a damn.
You and GKS are right, sort of, really, I guess.
But for sheer voyeurism, it was deelish. ...
I watch "Hardball once in awhile, is all. For pretty much the same reasson people watch Jimmy Huston or Bill Dance.
But for sheer voyeurism, it was deelish. ...
I watch "Hardball once in awhile, is all. For pretty much the same reasson people watch Jimmy Huston or Bill Dance.
There are any number of right wing pundits who could have answered the question calmly and succinctly and likely made Matthews asking of the question look as foolish as it did. Yeah, James is an idiot. Never heard of him. Perhaps that was Matthews point of having him on. Pretty goofy, though, for Matthews, of all people, to be asking "why the yelling?"
Now I couldn't watch the whole clip, but in fact, "appeasement" was and accurate answer by itself, for as most people know, what Chamberlain did that was wrong was to accept terms that allowed for the invasion of Czechoslovakia(sp) and subsequently the whole danged shootin' match. But as suggested, James the idiot was "got" by the question and it showed. Horribly so. But far from typical of the better rightwing pundits. But if it makes you feel better, ER...
Now I couldn't watch the whole clip, but in fact, "appeasement" was and accurate answer by itself, for as most people know, what Chamberlain did that was wrong was to accept terms that allowed for the invasion of Czechoslovakia(sp) and subsequently the whole danged shootin' match. But as suggested, James the idiot was "got" by the question and it showed. Horribly so. But far from typical of the better rightwing pundits. But if it makes you feel better, ER...
Well, I shouldn't have included pundits. I mean, Charles Krautheimer (sp?) makes my head hurt sometimes, but he's lucid.
I stand by my judgment of righty radio talksters, though. I don't think any of them are thinkers except for Rush. And I think he thinks about himself most of all. If he could have found similar success as a lefty, I think he'da done it. I know you disagree. But I think he is all showman.
Post a Comment
I stand by my judgment of righty radio talksters, though. I don't think any of them are thinkers except for Rush. And I think he thinks about himself most of all. If he could have found similar success as a lefty, I think he'da done it. I know you disagree. But I think he is all showman.
<< Home
