I’m no fan of Chris Matthews — not by a longshot — but we need more of this (video via TPM). When some pinhead — and I don’t care if he’s from the left, right, or center — goes on and obviously doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about, he needs to be called on it. And when somebody uses rhetoric that’s obviously bullshit, that needs to be pointed out, too.
Now if only more of the media would do it, and do it less selectively. I long for a news media where guests know that they’d better not go on expecting to be able to parrot talking points, and where they know that they’d better know what the hell they’re talking about. But I’ll never see that day, I’m sure.
leanleft
Kevin
tgirsch
Kevin T. Keith
Judd
The great thing about what Matthews did there was that it wasn’t *just* a gotcha. He called the guy out on his ignorance, and did it beautifully, but he did it in the service of a real substantive point — that negotiation and appeasement are two very different things.
Excellent television on every level.
Well, I suppose it’s understandable that a dude like Kevin James would totally discount the value of talking to an adversary, given the extraordinarily low signal to noise ratio associated with what comes out of his own mouth.
As Paul Begala points out, I guess Bush us an appeaser too:
“Iran. Bush sent Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, then posted to Baghdad, to negotiate with Iran over security issues affecting Iraq. Bush’s current Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told ABC News, “We are willing to sit down with Iran face to face for talks on Iraqi security at the invitation of the Iraqi government. We’ve had three rounds of those talks and we’ve told them we are ready to again.”
Libya. Although Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was behind the December, 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans, the Bush Administration conducted months of negotiations with the terrorists, culminating in a 2003 agreement to dismantle Libyan long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction;
North Korea. The Bush Administration, led by Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, has held numerous direct negotiations with the North Korean regime, a charter member of Mr. Bush’s “axis of evil.” “
What a bunch of whiny crybabies Barack and his crowd are. Barack is the one who made a political point by saying he would negotiate with terrorists. Then he and his cohorts cry and wimper when someone responds to his immuturity. Is President Bush supposed to get Obama’s approval before he makes any statement on foreign policy? Bush is still the president. Barack is just a childish wannabe. Grow up, democrats.
Morris, see comment #2. OK for Bush to do it, but not OK for Obama to say he would do it?
Oops, too quick on the trigger there…
Please also note you have substituted “negotiate” for “appease”. An informed person understands the two are radically different, especially in the pre-WWII context that Bush was highlighting.
“Please also note you have substituted “negotiate” for “appease”. An informed person understands the two are radically different, especially in the pre-WWII context that Bush was highlighting.”
I can understand why Barack thought Bush was talking about him. He has made it clear that he would meet face to face with terrorists. Why does he get so upset when people tell the truth about him? There is a world of difference between having behind the scenes talks with someone and giving them prestige and credibility by face to face talks with the president of the most powerful country on the earth. An informed person understands that.
Barack and the dems would have been better off not to have a childish tantrum over this matter. It just highlights the weakness of dems in dealing with terrorists. Does anyone really thing that terrorists will change their ways if only Barack Hussein Obama could talk to them. He may have great persausive abilities to get the dem lemmings to follow him, but that is not the way the real world works. An informed person understands that.
“Please also note you have substituted “negotiate” for “appease”.”
Good grief! Reread your post in post number 2. Please note that you have substituted “negotiate” for “appease.”
Of course, we know that Obama has negotiated with at least one terrorist, Bill Ayers.
Morris, let me try and explain the appease/negotiate situation to you.
Bush said some people today would negotiate with terrorists. He went on describe this as appeasement.
I then wrote that since Bush has negotiated with terrorists, by his own definition he has practiced appeasement. The point here was not to equate negotiation and appeasement, but rather to point out the utter hypocrisy of Bush’s position (hence my phrase “I guess Bush is an appeaser too”).
Rational, informed people do not confuse appeasement and negotiation. Kevin James, the guy this thread is about, did that. He went on and on about Obama being an appeaser.
You then seemed to take his side, blaming Obama for saying he would negotiate with terrorists. By doing so, you seem to be conflating negotiation and appeasement. They are different; they are not the same.
Let me ask you a question. When a child is kidnapped, do the police refuse to talk to the kidnappers? What happens when a group of people are held hostage after a robbery goes bad? Do the police bring in a negotiator? How about when prisoners take over a prison. Are there negotiations that follow? Or maybe a war. Were there negotiations with the enemy at the end of the Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and virtually every other conflict in American history?
“You then seemed to take his side, blaming Obama for saying he would negotiate with terrorists.”
It not up to me to blame Obama for saying he would negotiate with terrorists. He has said it. Look it up.
I am not taking anyone’s side. I’ve never heard of Kevin James.
As to your question, you don’t bring in the president to negotiate with kidnappers, etc. I actually agree with diplomats negotiating as long as the negotiations don’t lead to appeasement. I believe Barack Hussein Obama is an inexperienced weakling who would not stand up for the values of this country. Yes, he would be an appeaser.
I still don’t understand why Barack would want to remind people of his promise to negotiate face to face with terrorists.
See, Ted, the mistake you keep making is thinking that what Morris/Fred writes has anything at all to do with the topic at hand, or that he actually followed the link. In fact, he’s more like a trained monkey: he sees key words, and mindlessly parrots Republican talking points, with little regard to relevance or content.
I don’t know why you keep trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Tgirsch, good point. I certainly would not have a debate with a grade schooler in person, I’m not sure why I bother online. I guess I’m still not sure if Morris is as stupid as he comes across (not because of his positions, but the way he defends them) or if he is more lazy than stupid and just feigns stupidity to avoid engaging in actual debate.
Speaking of which, did you catch Jon Stewart’s piece about WV voters the other night? Funny, but also rather sad.
Why are liberals so nasty?
Yeah, because you’re the picture of politeness and cordiality…
Who isn’t aware that in the GOP’s perpetuation of their intellectual constipation and moral vacancy needed to be in the party and for the world to read in screaming headlines
. . . that their talking heads and journalists are disqualified if in fact they have an education or any knowledge of the world they live in let alone anything historically documented?
I think the Republicans are exactly right on this one. First, there’s Eisenhower who personally punched Kruschev in the throat when he wanted to visit the United States. Next, when Nixon dropped trou and mooned the Chinese in 72, that made the difference in the cold war. Not to mention the way Reagan gave Gorby a wedgie when it came to an IRBM treaty, reducing the chance of Nuclear war! Bush has shown us the only way to beat the terrorists is to be just as batshit insane as they are!
Tim C,
You should send an app to The Daily Show or The Onion. Good job.
Morris,
Just for your edification, Kevin James is the portly comedian who co-starred with the smoking hot (but unfortunately, Scientologist) Leah Remini in the long running, hit sitcom, The King of Queens.
It’s not enough for Obama to whine about someone disagreeing with his foreign policy. Now he wants to make responding to his wife and her statements off limits. He cries about some ads in Tennessee that show Michelle’s lack of pride in her country until her husband became a viable candidate for president. Are these people ever going to grow up and quit whining?
Are these people ever going to grow up and quit whining?
Said the kettle to the pot.
No, seriously.
Morris – When did Obama ever “cry” about the TN GOP ads? Or anything else for that matter? I have seen him be strong, be firm, and be passionate – but never “cry and wimper” as you have claimed. Right-wingers complain that liberals are always crying, but it’s the GOPs who act like little preschoolers boohooing because they don’t want to share – “it’s my money, which I deserve because I worked hard in a job that my Daddy lined up for me” or “it’s my country! Tell them to get out! They should have had the sense to be born American like me!” or “It’s too bad if poor sick kids die because they have inadequate healthcare; I don’t want to help them! Whaaa! Whaaa!” My five year old has more maturity and compassion.
Back at you. If you are such a literalist, which conservative said, “it’s my money, which I deserve because I worked hard in a job that my Daddy lined up for me” or “it’s my country! Tell them to get out! They should have had the sense to be born American like me!” or “It’s too bad if poor sick kids die because they have inadequate healthcare; I don’t want to help them! Whaaa! Whaaa!”?
You can’t literally boohoo anything but “boohoo,” can ya?…
I think it was quite clear that Elaine was being figurative when she referred to crying and boohooing.
As opposed to, say, me being literal when I tell you to go step in front of a speeding bus…
“I think it was quite clear that Elaine was being figurative when she referred to crying and boohooing.”
And I was being figurative when I said Obama and his minions were crying. She wanted to take it literally; not I. See post #21. In fact, she makes up a quote that says I claimed Obama wimpered.
“As opposed to, say, me being literal when I tell you to go step in front of a speeding bus…”
Wow! Another compassionate, openminded, diversity-loving liberal.
“it’s the GOPs[sic] who act like little preschoolers boohooing because they don’t want to share -”
Since I’m not a member of the GOP, I can’t answer for them, but I do know the generosity of conservatives, especially religious conservatives. In my previous job, I helped to raise about $2 million dollars a year for a women’s shelter and a children’s home. Our most generous donors were conservatives. Our problem is with you taking our money to do your charitable work. You don’t teach people the value of sharing by you taking from them by force.
You just have to love it when someone uses [sic] and two sentences later writes “$2 million dollars”.
“…two sentences later writes “$2 million dollars”.[sic]
I’m so ashamed!
…and then in his comeback, messes up his quotes…
Hey! Thanks for all the great info. I was browsing through a bunch of political websites and blogs (mostly liberal ones) and I came across your blog and find it to be very interesting. There are a bunch of others I like too, like huff post, and other news sites like politico. Do you know of any that cover politics and the environment? I saw earthlab.com which has mostly environmental info but some politics. I took EarthLab.com’s carbon calculator (http://www.earthlab.com/signupprofile/). I was pretty easy to use (and it doesn’t make me feel guilty after I take it). Are there any other blogs you would recommend? Can you drop me a link to your favorites or any ones with green info?
Wow! Another compassionate, openminded, diversity-loving liberal.
I claim to be none of the three; I think every regular on this fucking board knows that except for you. Then again, I think every member on this board has exceptional reading comprehension skills, except for you. So, it’s par for the course.
Oh, and as far your wonderful anecdote about collecting money; I won’t even address the perversion of “generosity” it is to apply the term in the sense you did. Suffice to say, that even accepting your story at face value (surely there was no selection bias in the solicitation process), the plural of anecdote is not data.
“I claim to be none of the three;”
Sorry for misidentifying you. You are just a plain lowlife jerk.
“I won’t even address the perversion of “generosity” it is to apply the term in the sense you did.”
I’m glad you won’t address it. If you don’t think helping battered women and abused children is generosity, then you aren’t worth much. As far as bias in the selection process, we had donors from every political persausion. Your ignorance is profound.
You are just a plain lowlife jerk.
Takes one to know one, I guess.
(And, for what it’s worth, I doubt digg will even dispute that classification. Certainly not the “jerk” part )
“Takes one to know one, I guess.”
I think the last time I heard that childish comeback was in middle school.
As most of your arguments and logic are straight off the middle school playground, I will deem you expert in this particular identification,
You are so predictable.
I’m supposed to be disliked by people like you, Morris. Your contempt is just affirmation that I’m doin’ my job.
“I’m supposed to be disliked by people like you,”
Don’t flatter yourself. I don’t like you or dislike you. I don’t know you. In fact, I lean slightly toward liking you because you are great entertainment. You serve a useful purpose. Thanks.
“You are just a plain lowlife jerk. …Your ignorance is profound”
immediately followed by
“I don’t like you or dislike you. I don’t know you. In fact, I lean slightly toward liking you”
with friends like that…
Grow up.