Chris Matthews Has Right Wing Radio Host For Lunch

[Eldritch]

Normally I'm not much of a Chris Matthews fan, but it was refreshing this afternoon to see one of the many know nothing, right wing, radio talk show "Bush apologists" get called on his patently pathetic lack of historical knowledge and context.

Calling him a "blank slate," Chris Matthews chewed right wing radio host, Kevin James, up—and then spat him out.

**SPLAT**

If you're short on time, fast-forward to the 4:10 mark on this video, where the confrontation begins in earnest—but if you have the time, then you might find the entire clip worthwhile:



Even Wikipedia has weighed in with this:

On May 15, 2008, James was badly humiliated when he appeared on Hardball alongside Mark Green of Air America Radio to debate host Chris Matthews in support of the remarks made by President of the United States George W. Bush on May 15, 2008 during a speech to the Knesset in Israel. Bush implied that there was a connection between Britain's pre-World War II Conservative Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement towards Hitler and the policies of leading Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, in reference to Obama's expressed willingness to meet with the leaders of certain American adversaries in the Middle East. James was challenged by Matthews to explain exactly what Chamberlain did, which he was unable to do, instead repeating, "It's the same thing" in a loud, high-pitched voice during five minutes of repeated questioning. Fellow guest Mark J. Green of Air America radio was clearly embarrassed for Kevin James' glaring lack of knowledge, and urged James to stop digging himself further into "a hole". Green also explained how Conservative talking heads often know nothing about what they're saying, but merely repeat buzzwords designed to frighten and mislead Americans. Although claiming to reiterate what Bush said, he eventually admitted " he did not know" what appeasement meant, nor who Neville Chamberlain was, leading Matthews to state: "if you don't know what appeasement is about then don't talk about it." Matthews dismissed James as "pathetic," going on to draw a distinction between appeasing one's adversaries (by giving them something) and simply talking to them. Matthews was clearly disappointed in his guest, and explained the difference between historical appeasers like the conservative Neville Chamberlain (who handed Czechoslovakia to Hitler) and modern leaders like Barack Obama who favor negotiation. Matthews also pointed out the Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates both favored engagement with Iran. Matthews accused James of being a "blank slate" in regard to American and World history, much like White House spokesman Dana Perino, who in an earlier public appearance had no idea what the Cuban Missile Crisis was. The episode continued on for about 10 minutes.

Kevin James is a bully—but today he met his match. And then some.

[Jeff]

Kevin James is a bully—but today he met his match. And then some.

Ouch, that was brutal. Even before he was taken apart. The screaming. Jesus.

[thegovernmentflu]

Usually I feel bad for someone who's being publicly humiliated, but Kevin James seems like the biggest fucking weasel of all time. I can't even begin to imagine the inhuman drivel that comes out of his mouth during his radio show.

[justdrew]

actually Chamberlain knew exactly what he was doing and did the best they could have chosen to do. Brittan needed time to prepare it's war machine for the fight, they were not ready and had to stall for time as possible. Had they started war with hitler earlier, we might all be speaking german today.

[Jeff]

actually Chamberlain knew exactly what he was doing and did the best they could have chosen to do. Brittan needed time to prepare it's war machine for the fight, they were not ready and had to stall for time as possible. Had they started war with hitler earlier, we might all be speaking german today.

I find alt WWII histories endlessly fascinating, but I'd have to disagree with you on that one. I think Britain and France were better placed to defeat Germany in a limited war in '38 than they were a year and a half later. The German military wasn't ready for a major conflict, and they hadn't secured their flank yet with the Soviet Union. I don't think Chamberlain knew what he had done until early in '39 when Hitler showed he wasn't satisfied with the Sudetenland and seized the balance of the Czech half of Czechoslavakia. That was the first time he'd incorporated non-ethnic German territory into the Reich. It was only then, I think, that most appeasers realized war was inevitable and started steeling themselves for the next line in the sand.

[justdrew]

I'm basing that on this expert opinion in Harpers Magazine 2006-07:

Code: Select all

Geoffrey Wheatcroft's wise warning
to the neocons not to appropriate
Churchill in the service of ideology
might be complemented by a
warning not to use "Munich" as a
synonym for "capitulation," or to
make Neville Chamberlain the symbol
of cowardly, Willfully ignorant
appeasement. To do either reveals a
genuine ignorance of the social and
economic realities of the period.
In 1936, when the economy was
recovering, the then Chancellor of
the Exchequer Chamberlain complained:
"If only it wasn't for Germany,
we would be having such a wonderful
time just now.... What a frightful bill
do we owe to Master Hitler, damn
him!" The comment shows he was
keenly aware of the drain on national
resources imposed by rearmament, a
process the financing of which he was
supervising. By 1938, Britain was
spending 38 percent of government
revenue on defense.

In 1937, now prime rmruster,
Chamberlain saw that war with Germany,
Italy, and Japan at once was
physically and financially impossible;
a political approach was the only one
feasible. In October 1939, Chamberlain
wrote that it would be "madness"
to slacken the effort to rearm. Nor
was this said with the benefit of hindsight:
as Chamberlain drove away
from the airport on his return from
Munich, having declared "peace for
our time," his private reaction to his
enthusiastic welcome was: "All this
will be over in three months!"
C. A.
Professor of Classics
UCLA
Los Angeles

and from the wiki:
None of the powers in western Europe wanted war. They severely overestimated German dictator Adolf Hitler's military ability at the time, and while Britain and France had superior forces to the Germans they felt they had fallen behind, and were undergoing massive military rearmament to catch up. Hitler, on the other hand, was in just the opposite position. He far exaggerated German power at the time and was desperately hoping for a war with the west which he thought he could easily win. He was pushed into holding the conference, however, by Italian leader Benito Mussolini who was unprepared for a Europe-wide conflict, and was also concerned about the growth of German power. The German military leadership also knew the state of their armed forces and did all they could to avoid war.

and also:
However, from 1935 on, financial strains grew as the government proceeded on a programme of rearmament.

Chamberlain, aware of the strain this was placing on the Exchequer, found himself being attacked on two fronts: Winston Churchill accused him of being excessively frugal with defence expenditure, but the Labour Party attacked him as a warmonger in the 1935 general election. In the 1937 budget, Chamberlain proposed one of his most controversial taxes, the National Defence Contribution, which would raise revenue from excessive profits in industry. The proposal produced a massive storm of disapproval, and some political commentators speculated that Chamberlain might leave the Exchequer, not for 10 Downing Street but for the back benches.

Despite these attacks from the Labour Party and Churchill, Chamberlain had adopted a policy that would serve to be vital to Britain during wartime. This process was called rationalisation. Under this policy the government bought old factories and mines. This was a gradual process as the depression had hit Britain hard. Then the factories were destroyed. Gradually, newer and better factories were built in their place. They were not to be used when Britain was in a state of depression. Rather, Chamberlain was preparing Britain for the time when Britain would emerge out of the depression. By 1938, Britain was in the best position for rearmament, and thanks to this policy Britain had the most efficient factories in the world with the newest technology. This meant that Britain was able to produce the best weaponry quickly, and they had the best technology available.
====

So clearly, he knew a storm was brewing and did the most best thing possible to prepare. a fully hawkish policy would have been voted out of power, he was only just barely able to accomplish the preparations. An earlier war would have stopped rationalisation dead in it's tracks.

[smiths]

i also love alt wwII history and this seems like a great start for an interesting thread, keep it going or i'll scream endlessly like the twat on that video

and references please

[justdrew]

http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GM1050.aspx
Neville Chamberlain and British Rearmament Pride, Prejudice, and Politics
John Ruggiero
Book Code: GM1050
ISBN: 0-313-31050-5
ISBN-13: 978-0-313-31050-8
DOI: 10.1336/0313310505
272 pages, photos
Greenwood Press
Publication: 11/30/1999
List Price: $131.95 (UK Sterling Price: £75.00)
Availability: In Stock
Media Type: Hardcover
Trim Size: 6 1/8 x 9 1/4
A reexamination of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy, this study challenges prevailing images of Chamberlain as a tragic hero--a man of peace, naively impressed by the dictators, who did his best under difficult circumstances to prepare his country for war. Instead, the author suggests that Chamberlain dominated his government and demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate those around him in support of his own personal vision of Britain's national interest. The failure to rearm to a level consistent with imperial obligations presented a formidable problem. The British Government admittedly, had no good option available to it; however, Chamberlain was prepared to endure the humiliating consequences of appeasement, even if it meant peace at any price. He did so for personal, political, and prejudicial reasons. This study analyzes Chamberlain's role in the rearmament program and sheds new light on appeasement by illustrating the connection between the policy and Britain's attempts to rearm.

[justdrew]

I think Britain and France were better placed to defeat Germany in a limited war in '38 than they were a year and a half later. The German military wasn't ready for a major conflict, and they hadn't secured their flank yet with the Soviet Union. I don't think Chamberlain knew what he had done until early in '39 when Hitler showed he wasn't satisfied with the Sudetenland and seized the balance of the Czech half of Czechoslavakia. That was the first time he'd incorporated non-ethnic German territory into the Reich. It was only then, I think, that most appeasers realized war was inevitable and started steeling themselves for the next line in the sand.

you're right about all that, but they didn't _know_ they could, well... might have won, and it wasn't politically feasible to just attack Germany at that time.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

"Don't...take...my...stereotypes! I neeeeeed them!"

Sad how ignorant people are of history. Didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was?
uuuugggghh.

And this is why cover stories and inaccuracies get preserved in the amber of a convenient phrase.

To add to the discussion of Chamberlain's position-
What was the English people's attitude about war?

Was Chamberlain's timing influenced by knowledge that the American people were 85% isolationist so FDR couldn't come running with Yank back-up?

The American people were gently propagandized towards war from the mid-1930s on but to no avail. They wouldn't budge.
Everything changed with Pearl Harbor which is why it was allowed to happen.

[Searcher08]

That guy reminded me of the old Monty Python sketch where a boxer is fighting against himself - Michael Palin hopping around a boxing ring, punching his OWN lights out

[Eldritch]

OH yeah. That was such a great sketch, Searcher.

And you're right. This was a lot like that.

LOL

[Sounder]

That was a hoot, thanks Eldrich.

Pretty wild how irrational people can get when emotion and a poor premise are combined.

Kind of reminds me of the Big Bang, (and any number of other community mind farts.)

[pepsified thinker]

Watching that, the image that comes to mind is holding a writhing, hissing, spitting snake--but keeping a hold of it and pinning it with a forked stick.

[ShinShinKid]

Pearl Harbor was a sucker-punch...for the Japanese. I think they hit us much harder than anticipated and an unintended consequence was a more strategic entry into the Asian theatre for the US.
The Germans lost as soon as we entered the war, for we mirrored and made truly gigantic their model of a war "behemoth". For what the US lacked in training, it easily made up for in raw materials and production flow linked to capacity. A manufacturing triumph that only now are we starting to feel the decline of. No small thanks to the blood, sweat, and tears paid by the workers in the process...and decline.