The PoliBlog


academic site

rss .92
The Collective
Friday, May 16, 2024
By Dr. Steven Taylor

While I am hardly surprised that a talk show host has anemic grasp on history, it is rather remarkable that he would be willing to go on national television (well, cable) and not at least consult Wikipedia or something.

Kudos to Chris Matthew for calling him on his BS, and I wish more hosts would do the same to their guests (maybe if guests thought they might actually have to know what they are talking about, they would actually be prepared). If anything, I am so tired of people whose “style” is ranting about a topic and repeating the same tired “arguments” over and over again that this is delightful regardless of anything else. Notice that the guest (some guy named Kevin James) starts off all shouty as it seems to be his default volume setting.

h/t: John Cole

Update: Rather remarkably, NewBusters semi-defends James by noting that Matthews made a mistake about when the USS Cole attack took place and the fact that the other guest stated Bush had been in office for nine months prior to 9/11 (rather than closer to eight)-all rather thin gruel, if you ask me. Yes, Matthews was wrong-however, there is a rather substantial difference between basing an entire argument on an error and making a passing comment (and stating in that comment some lack of confidence that one is correct). Further, James, once cornered by the fact that he didn’t know what Chamberlain did would not own up to the fact. Really, trying to turn all this into some odd error equivalency argument as it one mistake cancels out the other is strained and absurd.

Sphere: Related Content

Previous Posts

Filed under: US Politics | |


  • el
  • pt
    1. Do I really have to click “play” to know what you are talking about?

      No, thanks. I think I’ll pass.

      Comment by MSS — Friday, May 16, 2024 @ 12:01 pm

    2. Dr. Shugart, you should reconsider. Well, maybe not.

      Because come to think of it, I feel stupider listening to that guy Kevin.

      Simply amazing. Every time he was asked what Chamberlin did wrong, he said “he was an appeaser”, which wasn’t what Chamberlin did, it was a label applied to what he did. You can’t just call someone an appeaser and expect everyone to agree that “yes, it is horrible to be an appeaser, we must not trust anyone you call an appeaser!”

      Comment by B. Minich — Saturday, May 17, 2024 @ 12:16 am

    3. What’s interesting is how often people try to assert validity through mention of another’s incorrectness at some point in the past. Too bad these brilliant logicians are the ones we constantly see on television-reason has no place there.

      Comment by Jeff Daniel — Tuesday, May 20, 2024 @ 12:00 am

    RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

    The trackback url for this post is:

    NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

    Leave a comment

    Take a Look At This!

    Visitors Since 2/15/03

    Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics



    Powered by WordPress