I was the split-screen bystander on Hardball last night when Chris Matthews exposed Kevin James as the quintessential right wing slandering bloviator.
James was of course pathetic but his -- and Bush's and McCain's -- strategies aren't so funny. Basically, when you've lost an argument because facts and history aren't on your side, resort to unprovable guilt-by-association or, as in appeasement, guilt-by-analogy.
It was bad enough when McCain tried to link Hamas and Obama because Hamas said it preferred Obama. And if the Klan endorsed McCain because he wasn't the black guy, would McCain have a problem if someone said that McCain and the Klan are one and the same?
Then Bush makes his instantly famous appeasement attack at the Knesset on Obama. We've seen this movie before. Whenever conservatives can't win an argument on the merits, they attack some real or perceived enemy as Hitler. So Ho Chi Mihn was Hitler. bin Ladin was Hitler. Ahmadinejad was Hitler. Of course Hussein was Hitler. And anyone who does something to try to resolve conflict short of more war is Neville Chamberlain.
Beyond the fact that Mr. President 28% has next-to-credibility on much of anything, least of all in the Middle East, the attack on Obama is ridiculous.
As the late PM Yitzhak Rabin famously said, you negotiate not with your friends but your enemies. Was Israel -- with far more experience and its survival at stake in dealing with war and terrorism -- wrong to neogtiate with former enemy Egypt, with successful result...wrong to negotiate with former enemy Jordan, with successful result... now wrong to talk to Syria about peace in exchange for the Golan? Churchill rightly understood that at times of potential or actual conflict, it was better to "jaw jaw than war war."
Given where Bush's ready-fire-aim approach has gotten us in Iraq, it's good for the next president to pursue a strategy of common security when it comes to such inter-border problems as terrorism, pollution, AIDS and nuclear proliferation. Bush and McCain's military-first impulse has proven a calamity for America and the world because, to quote even a momentarily cogent Don Rumsfeld, "we can't kill them all."
Take Iran and Ahmadinejad, the newest "Hitler." Iran can't stop laughing at Bush's foreign policy. He attacks its long-time enemy Iraq, allowing Iran's Shia majority to have far more influence in a Shia-majority Iraqi government. And Bush at the same time provides an unpopular Iranian government with a convenient outside enemy to rally nationalistic support to its side. Which is why Secretary Robert Gates himself has advocated talking more to Iran. What an appeaser!
Related: Chris Matthews Eviscerates Right-Wing Host Kevin James Over Obama "Appeasement" Claims
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It seems as though Kevin James took public speaking lessons from Bush.
What do the late John Gotti and Barack Obama have in common? They both utter cries of "guilt by association" (albeit one from the grave). And both have so many, many unsavory associations to cry about. At least Obama has united so many disperate factions. Let's see, he's probably infuriated some Nation of Islam members, Arian Brotherhood members, Jewish Defense League members, and some radical Muslims (by leaving what they see as his inherited Muslim faith). Most of this is because he just tries so hard to please everyone! OK that's fine, but please Barack, not by (what I see as) the flat out attempt to deceive. So it goes as the fans cheer on. It's straight out of Mad Magazine. Please be real Barack! To thine own self be true! Then let us decide based on the real you if you even know who that is.
Unfortunately, some Democrats have also resorted to the "guilt by association" strategy of the Republicans when they are unable to argue on facts. It's bad enough when Republicans do this, but when Democrats use Republican tactics to attack one another, it becomes very disheartening and frustrating. Thankfully, America as a whole is becoming more and more immune to the Republican tactics of their politics of fear and swiftboating, and this is particularly true of Democrats, which is why we have become stronger as a Party over these last seven years.
Nonetheless, I think even the Karl Rove Republicans are beginning to recognize that this is not going to work for them like it did in the previous presidential elections, but they've played dirty for so long, they don't know how to do it any other way.
Unfortunately, Bush and McCain won this round. Obama's intellectual reply did not create the sound bite that he needed. Unless the Dems can kick Bush and McCain in the ***** over this, we are destined to see 1988 and 2004 all over again. The Repubs are building the their case, step by step, inch by inch that Obama will be soft on terrorism and only McCain can protect America. In 2004, we scoffed at the swift boat ads until it was too late. By the end of the summer of 2004, if you said Kerry to the average American they had been trained well to think "Flip flop, flip flop." If not is was "self inflicted wounds got him his purple heart". The pavlovian responses were planted successfully by the conservatives and we lost the election. This year, they are training the pavlovian dogs to bark at the phrase "soft on terrorism". We can write a million posts on liberal web sites about how stupid the conservatives are but they will take the brainwashing of the American people to the bank every time.
I don't think they "won," and the evidence of this is their attempt to turn the story around and suggest that Bush wasn't talking about Obama. Because of Bush's carefully crafted speech in which Obama's name was not directly mentioned, they expected Bush's remarks to be hailed, but they never expected a response from Obama, and certainly not the timely and pointed response he gave. This threw them off, and since his response, their rebuttal is to say that Bush could have been talking about "anyone," and Obama's response was presumptuous. Yet, had he not responded, they would have been criticizing him for being "weak."
It's going to be very vicious in the general, but if the Democrats stand together and stand firm against the GOP assaults, we can beat them. In the past elections, many Democrats defected, either in fear or because of "religious" concerns (gay marriage, abortion, etc.). But hopefully, we've learned our lesson. We have the numbers. We have the momentum. And we have an incredible candidate in Senator Obama. The Republicans fear him, and they will use everything to bring him down, but it's up to us to hold him up and to win this election!
anyone left in America who wants to continue APPEASING the NeoCon Regime?
It also concerns me that many people are buying into this right-wing lunatic fringe lie that the US is now at war with Iran. It is telling that the Pentagon had to cancel a news conference in Iraq the other day because they learned that the caches of supposedly Iranian-supplied weapons weren't Iranian after all. McCain's assertions about the enemy getting all their training from Iran is ludicrous, and he needs to be called out on his sources and asked to show proof.
Yeah, that whole "the explosives weren't from Iran" thing didn't get a whole lot of play in the MSM...and the GOP & Admin are still saying that Iran is exporting weapons to Iraq.
Obama is following the foreign policy of Carter and Wright: Appease your enemies and stab your allies in the back. There's no doubt if Obama began CIC, he would negotiate a surrender with the terrorists.
What "terrorists" would those be? Are we, as a country, going to actually surrender to our government?
your name [resident chimp] says it all.
Mr. Green:
The look on your face during that "appeasement" episode was Priceless.
MY first impulse, as I watched Kevin James rant with Chris Matthews, was: Why doesn't SOMEone, ANYone say something to that windbag..But then I saw that gaseous look onK. James's face, the bulging eyes and that mouth on AUTO, that coupled with that certain "LOOK" on Chris' face.....and it became clear that we were witnessinga complete, total self-immolation.....PRICELESS......The only scary thing about people like Kevin James is the fact that
SOMEONEentrusted him with a microphone with which to spread his inane utterances over the airwaves, no doubt connecting with likeminded MT heads who sit in their caves, throwing brickbrats at this evil "liberal, elitist" world...
Mark, thanks for sitting quietly while Kevin James hung himself. I know you could have stepped up to the plate and explained appeasement for the little dittohead, but then we wouldn't be having all this fun if you had!
But guilty none the less.
The really sad part about this long range attack on the Dem candidate is that our president used the name of an Englishman to do his dirty work . Apparently he has no respect for the English or the German people .
. This is not even passable by a fifth grader; not knowing the definition of words and garbling history to fit the idealogy of the right.
It is also dangerous as people who watch TV expect to see EXPERTS. That's why when Matthews called him out - I was right with him.
And I was glad Mr Green that you didn't join in the shouting - so that Kevin whatshisname will be seen to be what he is - a mouthpiece for the GOP and not a good one.
All the pundits on the news talk shows are not actually putting the stock of the Bush's claim about appeasement in the right box. Such tactics, which we have seen before is to accuse your opponents of what you are guilty off, thereby taking it off the table of your opponents' credibility.
The intelligence report and several news stories have said in the recent times that in Iraq, the Bush administration is appeasing the so-called "terrorists", by paying them monthly salaries or stipend to stop killing American troops, as well as stop fomenting troubles. This way, they have claimed that the surge is working, as there are less killings and violence in Iraq. However, they didn't say at what cost= Appeasement. Terrorists on their payroll for terrorism acts reprieve is the quintessential definition of appeasement!
I find it odd that it is a staple of the right to make this chamberlain analogy yet it is virtually forbidden to compare the preemptive war doctrine of Bush to the conduct which Chamberlain was appeasing. The German preemptive wars and militarism did not lead to their safety. It led to their eventual invasion and conquest by a coalition of nations.
America is very good at being in denial about the truth of our own politics, yet pointing out the faults of others.
The simple facts are that no human conflict in history has been resolved without negotiation. When you refuse to talk, you are condemning yourself to perpetual war! If Kennedy had not talked to Kruschev, there would very likely not be a human alive today. If Nixon, detestable as he was in other ways, had not opened a dialog with China, there would probably have been a Soviet-Chinese alliance within a decade. What that would have brought the world we can never know, but peace and freedom, I think, would be unlikely. The pundits like to call the current regime "Cowboy Diplomacy," the good guys in those movies always insisted on a fair fight, we have not. What we have done they prophetically called Bushwhacking! It is an attack on a rival without cause,(Evidence) and was universally reviled.
I always look forward to hearing from you Mark, as the voice of sanity, reason and graceful debate.
del8300
ie7
By the time this is over, Sen. Obama's little dustups with Bill and Hillary will look like a walk in the park.
The Republicans are clearly hoping that they can rerun the 1988 and 2004 campaigns. Unless they have an October Surprise that ends all October surprises, it ain't gonna work.
October surprise? Oh, they're going to let us know they have Osama the actor already?
I am betting that any "October Surprise" is not going to work this time. People are so much smarter and informed now.
By October, Obama should be so far ahead in the polls that any "surprise" would have to be extreme to change things.
I hope you are right, but that October surprize may come in the form of a mushroom cloud, in Tehran! These nutjobs really believe they have a mandate from God to start Armageddon.
Bush is the one with Nazi ties
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
Bush comes by his foreign policy skills honestly. His grandfather Prescott Bush banked with the financers of Hitler's Nazi Germany DURING THE WAR, to the point of having assets of the bank frozen by the US government because it was aiding the enemy.
More about Prescott Bush:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
yea, I saw you on that show. That guy was a real trip! I laughed so hard when chris mathews shut him down!
You democrats need to get tough with these thugs and criminals. Of course since Bush and Cheney committed crimes, impeachment is the best option, but since the party is too spineless to do such a thing, I'd say put ads in major newspapers with pictures of Bush and Cheney and a caption "Wanted for High Crimes."
In the recent back and forth as to Iran, what is next by McCain and Bush - that they will bomb, or will support Israel bombing the nuke facilites in Iran? That it would happen before the November elections? That could kill many 1,000's in Iran if nuke materials were to be leaked out and could trigger an expansion of their generations of hate toward us. The USA and the 'west' supported the Shah and other leaders in those countries as part of Cold War strategy. Those hand picked leaders had domestic policies that repressed minorities, the religious as well as more potential democratic leaders and supressed human rights that led to the govenments they have today.
I would rather take my chances to have tough negotiations with the Iranian leaders - as anti-Israel and hateful toward the west as they are -as they want to keep in power too and need access to the world to sell their oil and use the income for the needs of their country.
Before we praise Mathews any more, let's remember what he said on his program just yesterday.
"The Republicans strength is still on national security. This is the only area in which they have an advantage."
After 7.5 years of a foreign policy that has just made us weaker and Al Queda and Iran stronger? What "advantage" do they have? Is their judgement wiser, their leaders braver and more effective?
And then when a politician is outspoken and tells the truth, Mathews is the first one to defend the orthodoxy and denounce the truth tellers - until it becomes more widely known what the truth is.
That's the difference between him and Olbermann. If he were consistent he would have denounced almost everything Olbermann has been saying for years, because it was not acceptable on the D.C. cocktail circuit. Now that it is, Mathews is also a "truth teller" all of a sudden.
Except that he will still readily denounce any courageous remark made by anyone about Republican policy.
Also, he smacked down Ed Schultz yesterday for saying "Bush is an idiot". At the same time denouncing Republicans for doubting the patriotism of their critics for years - those Republicans who still can't refrain from labelling their critics as unpatriotic, Hamas and terrorist supporters, don't want to win in Iraq etc.
Ed should have defended himself and said the Republicans have said much worse for years thanks to people in the media like Mathews who tolerated it until now.
republicans strong on national security? yeah, and pit bulls are strong on unexpectedly mauling infants.
"national security" to a republican is shooting pat tillman in the back.
I totaly agree, Mathews is a "swinger" so he's always looking for a confortable position to swing on any side .... that's a main reason I stoped watching him. But Olberman - he is my hero!!!!
I took what Matthews said to mean that the PERCEPTION by many voters (such as the so-called "low information voters") is that it's still the GOP that is tougher on national security. Now, you have to figure that there's some truth in this interpretation, since Bush is polling in the basement on everything EXCEPT fighting terrorism. This, in spite of the fact that terorism has increased for all the reasons we all know so well. Obviously those being polled are still in a 9/11 mindset and don't get that the GOP has done absolutely nothing for national security. Seems to me that the Dems need to attack Bush's perceived strength while tying McCain to him. And they need to do it in a really straightforward manner.
that is exactly how i saw it... he was referring to how well the candidates were polling on specific issues.
the low information voters are the ones most vulnerable to the 30 second sound bite and the resultant spin.
This story was released the same day Bush gave his speech in Israel, but I never seen any coverage of it in the media.
The Washington Post reported that Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that the United States needs to "sit down and talk with" Iran. Not only that, Gates added, "We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander."
You need to start watching Keith Olbermann. He mentioned it more than once.
Posted May 16, 2008 | 12:16 PM (EST)