Kevin James doesn't know from appeasement, Chris Matthews reveals

I have to admit, Tweety does a good job in this interview with right-wing radio host Kevin James.

James starts yammering about how Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser and Chris Matthews stumps him with a very basic question: How exactly did Chamberlain earn his reputation as one of history's most notorious appeasers?

The Hardball clip is very amusing to watch. I have to respect how well James holds up under Matthews' onslaught. A lesser bullshitter wouldn't have withstood 20-plus rounds of "What did he do?"

The serious point behind this performance is that George Bush and his allies are calling Barack Obama an appeaser and likening him to Chamberlain for saying that we should talk to Iran.

Their implicit argument, if it can be called an argument, is that merely talking to our enemies is equivalent to giving in to their most outrageous demands in the hopes of placating them. Of course, Chamberlain didn't appease Hitler merely by talking to him. He appeased Hitler by letting Nazi Germany annex half of Czechoslovakia.

It's not like the truth matters. The president is just throwing out a little red meat for the Republican rubes at home. Of course the US talks to Iran when it suits US interests. This week Bush's own Secretary of Defense announced upcoming talks with Iran.

The president is just being a demagogue. There's no general prohibition against talking to regimes we don't like. There never has been. It's just a made-up rule that right wingers invented to browbeat their critics and to make war seem inevitable. It's not like the Bush administration has ever been bound by that constraint.

The US is currently negotiating with North Korea. Earlier this month North Korea handed 19,000 nuclear program documents to the US State Department. Today, the Bush Administration announced that it will be sending 500,000 tons of food to North Korea. (Officially, the aid is unrelated to the nuclear negotiations.) Point being, the US has no compunctions about engaging with hostile regimes, even to the point of supplying concrete aid.

Even Bush was for diplomacy before he was against it:

Rice’s boss, President Bush, drove the point home after a meeting with the new German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. “You’re going to see a lot of public discussion about this matter,” Mr. Bush told reporters at the White House. “You’re seeing the evolution of a proactive diplomatic policy.” Merkel, in Washington for her first official visit, left little doubt there was any distance between Europe and the U.S. “We will certainly not be intimidated by a country such as Iran.” [CBS, January 2006]

Comments

[Norman Costa]

Lindsay,

I watched the Matthews-James clip a couple of times. Kevin James' determined single-mindedness is almost as admirable as it is ridiculous and demoralizing.

Kevin James reminds me of a college senior who said he wanted to get a job as a media pundit after graduation. The complete lack of any awareness that opinions should be informed by knowledge is matched by the utter absence of embarrassment at being exposed as a talking – no, ranting – head without content.

I remember my sixth grade playground where early teen boys would debate their positions on sports, athletes, celebrities, and their congenital political views with great passion and a minimum of knowledge. This is part of our learning to spar and fight and be clever with an opponent.

In time, most of us come to know the limits of our capabilities, or that we need to educate ourselves and learn something. Anyone reading this blog can name more than a few media pundits who never made that transition. In fact, many haven't a clue that they missed something important in their intellectual development.

Kevin James deserved the outing he got from Chris Matthews. Three cheers to Chris for calling him on his ignorance and his arrogance in not reining uninformed arguments. Chris had every right to stick his nose in it. Unfortunately, Kevin James and his ilk are beyond redemption.

[jasha]

Wow, James' whole approach to the "discussion" is exactly what Orwell had in mind with the phrase "duckspeak" - just quacking out an automated reply completely without concious thought.

[Maureen Brian]

When, if ever, Kevin James does take up the study of history I have the perfect subject for his dissertation - the role of Prescott Bush and his clique in backing financially the rise of Hitler with some elucidation of how PB's company came to be seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act 1942. George W's grandfather, remember, and the source of a family fortune which pays for flash weddings in Crawford TX.

[Mary]

"Speak softly and carry a big stick."

I think the fear many have of Obama leading the talking with dictators is that his need to be liked, and seeming ability to pander to whatever group it is he is talking to, plus his pretty much untested political skills and newbie role in foreign politics (freshman senator) is that he's untested and most likely will turn out to be a gullible Jimmy Carter type. Where's his big stick hidden? And does he really think that because he's been fine in his upbringing without one, that he can do the same for the country when the competition is less welcoming and protective of a nice, likeable guy like him?

ps. It was J.C. along with plenty of the Dem talkers that Bush was referring to in Israel. Tell me exactly, what words exactly do you think Amaj. at this point in history is going to respond to ? And how much are we willing to pay for the carrots, hoping to create a nice cuddly bunny in that region, after all we've already done as a country? Big stick, people. Not needed in 2003 as I said emphatically then, but definitely don't leave home without it now. There's a reason for the anger and the hatred against us that no even steroid-sized carrots can quell.

[Cass]

"I think the fear many have of Obama leading the talking with dictators is that his need to be liked, and seeming ability to pander to whatever group it is he is talking to, plus his pretty much untested political skills and newbie role in foreign politics (freshman senator) is that he's untested and most likely will turn out to be a gullible Jimmy Carter type."

Simple-minded gullibility is indeed a serious problem in this country, but not towards foreign bogeymen.

[Sean C]

My neighbor has an annoying little dog that barks hysterically at every perceived threat, and knows as much about history as James does. The resemblance is uncanny. Mr James: valium is your friend, dude. Try one, sometime.

[The Phantom]

This clip was funny. James was indeed energetic in defending a nothing hand , but Matthews wouldn't let him off the hook. And rightly so.

Dirty little secret? I bet he has plenty of company in redio/tv/newspapers in not knowing basic and not really that long ago history. Though you would think that if he were to use "appease" as a charge, he might want to spent five minute googling as to what the f*** it was.

[Mary]

Lol @ Cass. Right, I suppose you think there are no terrorists; the U.S. staged 9-11; and we should all just join hands and sing songs to stop world hunger and keep world peace. Oh, and "big sticks are scary and should be banned", eh?

As for the freshman senator, I can tell... You like him; you really REALLY like him! Lol. He's really unifying the Dems and the country now, isn't he?

[Autumnal Harvest]

That was pretty funny, although a little painful, too. However, Lindsay, I am going to request that you not post any videos in which Chris Matthews appears to either know what he's talking about, or to exhibit any common sense. The cognitive dissonance is making my head hurt.

[Tyro]

Matthews knows exactly how to act and what to say at the exact moment it becomes politically popular to do so and will call someone on his crap when there are no consequences to doing so. Matthews made a compelling case to call out the crap that's been spewed over the past 5 years in his appearance on Countdown to discuss the incident. Personally, I highly doubt he would have, say, challenged Sean Hannity or Bill Frist in the same way on his show back in 2003 or 2004. But now, it's safe to say stuff like this, and the targets are lickspittles like Kevin James.

Also, mary, stop with the BS. If Obama were running a campaign as an agressive, vicious fighter, you'd be screaming that Obama was an angry scary black man. The difference between Obama and Bush/McCain is that Obama tries to figure out what the best method is for getting the desired result, while Bush and McCain are concerned with their insecurities about trying to avenge lost battles in their past and obsessively trying to figure out what will make them look "the toughest." Obama is actually useful, while Clinton, McCain, and Bush are playing out their personal narcissistic problems and using the world stage to resolve them.

[Mary]

Two words: freshman senator.

If he's so good, why not prove it and work his way up in the Senate. Sure do need some unifiers there, and not just good campainers with excellent oratory.

[pretzelattack]

and what, precisely, was jimmy carter naive about? had we followed his suggested policies in central american, and energy independence, we would be a lot better off today.

[Cass]

"Lol @ Cass. Right, I suppose you think there are no terrorists; the U.S. staged 9-11; and we should all just join hands and sing songs to stop world hunger and keep world peace. Oh, and 'big sticks are scary and should be banned', eh?"

I've never expressed any of these points of view here or anywhere else. This is a hallucination on your part, Mary, as surely as if you'd heard me spouting off on the glories of vanilla pudding. Now, you're perfectly free to continue raging here at this fantasy of yours, but then, I'm really going have to take issue with what you said about your admiration of Hitler.

[mudkitty]

Mathews is trying to make up for some real boners he pulled during the course of the primaries (not to mention, over the years.) He sees the writing on the wall, and he "justs wants to be on the side that's winning." And you know what, he did good. Will he keep it up, and pull the breaks on this man-crush he has on McLame? I doubt it. Still, stranger things have happened.

[Cass]

"If he's so good, why not prove it and work his way up in the Senate."

Yes indeedy. But then, of course, there's the altenate view: if he's so good, why doesn't he run for President? True, he's never served in the Alabama National Guard, picked his nose in public or finished off two dozen beers at a single party. But in desperate times, you may have to look beyond the usual qualifications.

[Davis]

I'm so glad that this is getting a lot of attention, and not just because it shows what passes for "debate" on talk radio. For a long time now, so many have claimed, and have gotten away with it, that deciding not to invade a country equals appeasement.

[The Phantom]

There's little debate on the Hannity/Limbaaa/Olbermann talk radio or TV, either. Little quality either.

If you want to hear discussion and debate on a much higher plane than that, listen to the John Batchelor radio show, Sunday nights at 7pm Eastern on WABC New York, or on KFI Los Angeles, at 10pm Eastern.

Both stations can be heard on live web stream, and KFI, I think, archives the show for at least a week.

Tell 'em the Phantom sent you. Regardless of your political persuasion, if you're a politics/news junkie like me, I bet you will find at least some of the show intriguing.

[Bob]

There is another problem with the “appeasement” cry from so many on the right. When Chamberlin “appeased” Hitler he did so for a variety of reasons, to include disgust with the horrors of WW I, the English (whom Chamberlin represented) not being overly concerned with the fate Czechoslovakia, Germany already having an obviously stronger Armed Forces, etc. The point is a hugely complex situation which has been the subject of hundreds of thousands of pages of text by some of the world’s leading historians is reduced to a bumper sticker so right wingers can feel smug. We’re not appeasers, no siree bub.
Maybe its time to treat grown ups like grown ups and address serious issues in a serious way.
And Mary, the big stick would be the Armed Forces of the United States. Hamas, N. Korea, Syria, or whatever bogeyman it is you’re hiding under your bed from actually represent as great a threat to the United States as any home-grown militia does yet strangely I hear no demands to curtail Christianity or conservative thought from you. As of the morning of 10 September 2001 the most devastating terrorist attack yet undertaken on American soil was carried out by Timothy McVeigh. Funny, I don’t recall demands for restrictions on Christianity, private possession of small arms, the forming of militias, conservative thought, etc in the wake of the Murrah bombing yet McVeigh certainly utilized and believed in all those things. Maybe its possible to accept the real threat presented by terrorists and rogue states without shredding the constitution and making fools of ourselves in the process.

[Bob]

For anyone looking for more information on the situation in the late 1930's and why it is overly simplistic to chant "appeasement" read this:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB622.pdf

[The Phantom]

Bob

The situation in Czechoslovakia was clear enough to Mr. Churchill at the time. Sometimes there is a right and wrong.

Your points on McVeigh are silly. He wasn't exactly treated with kid gloves - we executed the mother******. And the entire point is that we are not in the days before 9/11 anymore.

[Bob]

Phantom:
First, thanks for proving my point about reducing complex issues to bumper sticker slogans: oh, yeah, what about Churchill? What about him? Chamberlain was Prime Minister at the time, a relatively popular one and the English people didn’t rise up en masse when he made his famous “peace in our time” statement. They were dealing with the world as it existed at the time and an England that was in tatters. Of course the dimwits guide to history is to take the known wrong and assume any alternative proposed at the time would have yielded magic flying ponies. Let’s assume Mr. Churchill had been able to take time away from proposing the use of poisonous gas and creating concentration camps to successfully rally the English people to his side and they had stood in opposition to the annexation of Czechoslovakia. What then? How’d England do in the early days of WW II? Give them less time to prepare (the part of the “appeasement” you wingnuts conveniently overlook – and England DID step up war production and the US did move toward a war footing to the benefit of England) and getting into it with the Third Reich that much longer before Pearl Harbor forced our entry would have meant what? Move Dunkirk up 6 months, does that alter the outcome of the war? See where that whole “complexity” thing I mentioned comes into play? It is possible to make a legitimate argument that all things considered the best outcome is the one the world got just as it’s possible to argue better outcomes could have been achieved. But that’s not the reason for screaming “Chamberlain” from the rooftops. It’s not meant as a history lesson as that buffoon who was eviscerated by Chris Mathews proved. Its nothing more than a way to try and score cheap political points.
To try to draw direct parallels from that to the United States today – which sits alone, atop all nations in terms of military force - is just plain dumb.
As for McVeigh, how does his execution contradict anything I wrote? What was silly about pointing out people like you didn’t blame any of the organizations, belief systems, or amendments to the constitution he utilized, believed in AND carried out his crimes in defense of? bin Ladenists blow up the Twin Towers: Islam is evil and we must fight a never-ending “war” against some shadowy threat known as “Islamo-fascism”. A conservative Christian blows up the Murrah Bldg: execute him and it’s over.
Do you see the difference? Probably not as your comment revealed a stunning lack of reading comprehension skills, but try to sound the big words out and see if you can’t get there.

[Mary]

iAnd Mary, the big stick would be the Armed Forces of the United States. Hamas, N. Korea, Syria, or whatever bogeyman it is you’re hiding under your bed from actually represent as great a threat to the United States as any home-grown militia does yet strangely I hear no demands to curtail Christianity or conservative thought from you.

Dear Jesus, they think they're so smart, that when they get an answer correct they think they have to ... enlighten you. Well of course the "Big Stick" is the U.S. military. Duh, you think you're telling me that? It's how you use it baby. Cutting and running... knowing that millions more innocent lives will be at stake... you want that. You think the Islamic regimes that kill gays and truly treat women as second-class citizens are just invented bogeymen under MY bed? Where's the liberal compassion, bravery, and recognition that looking the other way, and cutting and running when you F-up big time and make somebody else clean up after you is just... wrong.

Sen. Obama is a campaigner. But what exactly has he accomplished in his law career, his social activism (I'm from Chicago south too; enough about his cuddling laid off steelworkers -- you people really really buy that?) Every thing this man has done in his career, the connections he has made have been to benefit ... him! What did he accomplish in the Illinois legislature exactly with these wonderful leadership skills you tout? What makes this freshman Senator with zero senatorial accomplishments, including the currently vital foreign policy necessisitiies, your man now? Hope? His biracial skin tone? Or have you just been seduced by the pretty words?

If the man is as great as you say (and I think his "unifying" skills are currently on hold as the Obama fans merely dismiss say West Virginia, the major swing states who rejected him, etc) why the heck doesn't he have SOMETHING, some accomplishment to show for it, other than being a supposedly brilliant campaigner and advancing his own political career without any solid foundation other than his chameleonlike ability to gain shady support? Riddle me that...

So he was the first black prez of the Harvard Law Review. Where are his Notes or Articles that intellect and leadership in those positions typically publish? At 28, because of the first black Law Review prez gig, he was courted to publish a book -- at 28. He missed the deadline, and yet was given a $40,000 advance to write a book on race relations, which became a personal memoir on his own father and his struggle with personal identity. Fine, if you like that kind of genre, but at 28? Where's the amazing law career with the winning cases argued and his climb up the law firm career ladder? Nada. He hides behind that "social activism" story, all the while building his ties with shady characters like the one who had to help him finance his house. Heck, at least Mitt Romney had finance skills....

You're being sold a bill of goods, because of liberal white guilt that it's time we got a black Commander in Chief. I don't think you necessarily need military background for the job, but some showing that you understand not only the way the world works, and why you don't leave a country unstabilized would be nice. I'm no Bush fan. I was against invading and occupying from Day 1. Americans can't handle a war of attrition, as shown by the likes of so many here. Of course, on their turf, all it takes is committed guerilla warfare on behalf of those DEFENDING their country; heck, history shows us that across the globe. It's very very easy to tie up occupiers with terror -- in fact, some say Ireland invented it, Michael Collins.

I don't mind ignorance. What gets me is when in your ignorance you deign to "educate" me ... as though I'm not thinking 10 steps ahead of you. If you liberals really want to close your eyes to the mess we're in now, and some other innocents in Islamic countries bear the brunt of our mistakes, come right out and say it. Because you must surely know quite well that's what will happen. (Can you say... Hmong? Know any history, Bob. How about the powerlessness America felt during Carter's Iranian hostage crisis? If you want to go there, and put up a freshmen senator with no foundation of accomplishment under him, and call the rest of us bigots just because we actually know and are comfortable with black people and don't feel the need to elevate somebody solely because of his skin tone, well so be it. I just hope to God there are enough out here that are smarter than all that, and understand you have to EARN the job and be ready for what's coming, rather than gamble on hope, all the while keeping your eyes closed to the man's career thus far.)

[Mary]

strangely I hear no demands to curtail Christianity or conservative thought from you.

If you honestly think Midwest Protestants, observant Jews, and faithful Roman Catholics (who for the record, understand the difference between sacraments and civil laws, religious teachings and a respect for science, and can confortably balance the two in our own lives) are the "enemy" that will cause more internal damage to America than what some of our Islamic brothers and sisters are suffering under some of their regimes, then I'll pray for ya, Bob. And sure do hope this summer you get out in America some, and meet some good people who people outside your own limited circles. Because the stereotypes and ignorance you're putting on display here (like I must be a "Bushie", for example) are sad really. Are you from New York City, by chance? (joke!)

[Mary]

That last one was addressed to Cass too, btw.

"Yes indeedy. But then, of course, there's the altenate view: if he's so good, why doesn't he run for President? True, he's never served in the Alabama National Guard, picked his nose in public or finished off two dozen beers at a single party. But in desperate times, you may have to look beyond the usual qualifications." I recommend a good dose of fresh air for you... sweetie!

[Mary]

"Lol @ Cass. Right, I suppose you think there are no terrorists; the U.S. staged 9-11; and we should all just join hands and sing songs to stop world hunger and keep world peace. Oh, and 'big sticks are scary and should be banned', eh?"

I've never expressed any of these points of view here or anywhere else

Don't you see though... pretending the "threats" and realities are unfounded, pooh-poohing the need to elect an experienced leader in these times, betting the country on hope without looking at track record, it really would be more logical if you did think the same things listed above that some of the far-left do. Otherwise you are acknowledging you perhaps recognize the gravity of the current situation, but just don't give a damn because somebody else will be paying the price as you skirt personal responsibility for the mess that we -- our country -- has currently created. That's Sen. Obama, in a Nutshell. His whole platform really "Had I been in the Senate then, I would have voted against the war." Yeah me too buddy, but I'm not running for Commander in Chief because I know that one fact doesn't qualify me, nor do I think this election is about yesterday, but about how we're gonna fix things for tomorrow. And the more I hear (there's very little) about those ideas of his, the more I think 2 wrongs don't make a right and we shouldn't just run out of the shop when we break something, letting somebody else pay the price...