Profile
Search
Register
Log in
chris mathews vs. neocon
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
3flip



Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 2201
Location: Minneapolis
chris mathews vs. neocon  Reply with quote  

<object><param></param><param></param></object>
Post Mon May 19, 2008 5:21 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Oh Daesu



Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 1848
Location: Vancouver
 Reply with quote  

POSTED
Post Mon May 19, 2008 5:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Hahaha. It's not Chris Matthews vs. a Neocon. It's Chris Matthews vs. a talk radio idiot blathering on with party propaganda completely without thought.

It's incredible just how dumb of a country we have become.
Post Mon May 19, 2008 5:38 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
benjy compson



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 1178
Location: cliffs of opal
 Reply with quote  

wow. that was extremely frustrating to watch.

& that guy has a radio show? & people actually listen to him & consider his viewpoints?



DAMN
Post Mon May 19, 2008 6:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

My favorite thing was when he said "why are we shouting?"
And I was like "YEAH WHY ARE WE SHOUTING? YOU CAN'T EVEN HEAR ME!"
Post Mon May 19, 2008 6:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
benjy compson



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 1178
Location: cliffs of opal
 Reply with quote  

when you are uninformed & asked to answer a question but obviously can't, turn yourself into a spectacle


i still wanna know how he got that radio gig
Post Mon May 19, 2008 6:18 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
breakfast



Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 2895
 Reply with quote  

energized! legitimized! energized! legitimized!
Post Tue May 20, 2008 7:35 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Lusid
http://youtube.com/watch?v=skCV2L0c6K0


Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 5081
Location: Dr. Pepperland
 Reply with quote  

Mathews could have been a little more mature there.
He came off sounding like a kid that just learnt how to tell time and is grilling the other kid who's pretending to know how so he doesn't get punked on the playground.
"you can't even tell time"
"yeah huh"
"then what time is it?"
"It's uh.."
"What time is it???"
"This is a rolex"
"You're not answering my question, because you don't know the answer"
"yeah-huh"
"what is it then?"
"uhhh...."
"See! you're an idiot"
Post Tue May 20, 2008 7:43 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2001
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

This wasn't journalism and it wasn't insightful commentary. It was one grown man using his air-time to make a fool out of another grown man who probably shouldn't have been allowed on the show in the first place. Which is fine and even funny in that "oh, shit, he's playing rough with that guy!" sort of way, but leaves me wondering why I should watch his program in the first place.

If I had, by some fluke of the winds, been watching Chris Matthews on that day, he would have had about 90 seconds to get me to keep watching, and I would have changed the channel at the end of it here. This kind of ambush hasn't made for compelling television since Dan did it to Casey in the second season of Sports Night.

Around 5:40, Matthews says: "We're talking to people with blank slates in terms of history here." And he's right about that, but that's a rant he should be directing at his producers off-air for asking him to preside over a 12-minute shouting match with that blank slate in the first place. Using that rant to try to make some point on TV just makes me want to change the channel.

Kevin James is an idiot who can't think on his feet, but Chris Matthews has spent more than ten years on the air trying to prove that a sufficient level of belligerence can be a substitute for gravitas. I don't think it can, which is why I don't normally watch his show, and also why I had a hard time getting through this clip.
Post Tue May 20, 2008 9:33 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6303
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

all i know is im riding for phil donahue. he's been taking it to the streets lately. you dont want it with phil, trust me.

oh and no, these guys do, in fact, need to be told to their face that their line of logic is embarassing and irresponsible. they are ruining this country. im completely down with that being done with an appropriate lack of respect for them and their shitty views. these people shouted the country down after 9/11, you can't have a conversation with them.


Last edited by shambhala on Tue May 20, 2008 9:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue May 20, 2008 9:38 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Scottie



Joined: 18 Jul 2003
Posts: 2829
 Reply with quote  

Mark in Minnesota wrote:
This wasn't journalism and it wasn't insightful commentary. It was one grown man using his air-time to make a fool out of another grown man who probably shouldn't have been allowed on the show in the first place. Which is fine and even funny in that "oh, shit, he's playing rough with that guy!" sort of way, but leaves me wondering why I should watch his program in the first place.

If I had, by some fluke of the winds, been watching Chris Matthews on that day, he would have had about 90 seconds to get me to keep watching, and I would have changed the channel at the end of it here. This kind of ambush hasn't made for compelling television since Dan did it to Casey in the second season of Sports Night.

Around 5:40, Matthews says: "We're talking to people with blank slates in terms of history here." And he's right about that, but that's a rant he should be directing at his producers off-air for asking him to preside over a 12-minute shouting match with that blank slate in the first place. Using that rant to try to make some point on TV just makes me want to change the channel.

Kevin James is an idiot who can't think on his feet, but Chris Matthews has spent more than ten years on the air trying to prove that a sufficient level of belligerence can be a substitute for gravitas. I don't think it can, which is why I don't normally watch his show, and also why I had a hard time getting through this clip.


Chris Matthews is a political junkie. He has been obsessed with politics and the history of them since early ages. There are hints he is thinking of a senate run.

I think we are starting to see him crack a bit this election season. He truely loves politics and to hear someone just trying to feed the echo chamber with talking points with no knowledge beyond them really pushes his buttons.
Post Tue May 20, 2008 9:42 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2001
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

scottie: Like I said, I think Matthews is right when he complains about the quality of the commentary that makes it on to allowed on his program. My objection is that he's directing these complaints to the wrong people; there are conservatives capable of insightful debate that could have been sitting in that seat instead of Kevin James. Matthews has a passion about these subjects that I can't help but respect; I just think that his television show is a poor use of everyone's time when he uses it for things like this.

shambhala: If people truly can't have a conversation with neo-conservatives (or whatever they are), Chris Matthews doesn't need to let them on the air. He could have made his point about the flaw in Bush's position more eloquently with a 90-second editorial. That would have let him move the show on to actual debate about whether or not Bush was addressing Obama with those remarks, and whether that hurts Obama or helps him. There's interesting conversation to be had there, we just never got to it in this YouTube clip because Matthews thinks that instigating one of the guests on his show to an on-air meltdown makes for good television. I think that meltdown says less about the validity of the neocon position than you would like it to.
Post Tue May 20, 2008 10:03 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Scottie



Joined: 18 Jul 2003
Posts: 2829
 Reply with quote  

Mark in Minnesota wrote:
scottie: Like I said, I think Matthews is right when he complains about the quality of the commentary that makes it on to allowed on his program. My objection is that he's directing these complaints to the wrong people; there are conservatives capable of insightful debate that could have been sitting in that seat instead of Kevin James. Matthews has a passion about these subjects that I can't help but respect; I just think that his television show is a poor use of everyone's time when he uses it for things like this.



The question is does he book Kevin James or does the network?
Post Tue May 20, 2008 10:08 am
 View user's profile Send private message
phataccino



Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 4772
 Reply with quote  

Most likely, it's his producers who book guests.
Post Tue May 20, 2008 10:11 am
 View user's profile Send private message
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6303
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

Mark in Minnesota wrote:
shambhala: If people truly can't have a conversation with neo-conservatives (or whatever they are), Chris Matthews doesn't need to let them on the air. He could have made his point about the flaw in Bush's position more eloquently with a 90-second editorial. That would have let him move the show on to actual debate about whether or not Bush was addressing Obama with those remarks, and whether that hurts Obama or helps him. There's interesting conversation to be had there, we just never got to it in this YouTube clip because Matthews thinks that instigating one of the guests on his show to an on-air meltdown makes for good television. I think that meltdown says less about the validity of the neocon position than you would like it to.


yeah i just don't agree. i think that people really backed down to those guys for a number of years because they weren't used to dealing with the aggression and lack of self reflection they bring to the table. chris matthews is a dick, i'm not really defending him, and i think there was a more skillful way to do what he was trying to do, but i wholeheartedly am down with the belief that when these dudes open their mouths it is an obligation to challenge the shit out of them and not let them get away with saying ridiculous and offensive bullshit just because they can yell louder than you. it blindsided everyone after 911 because most journalists didn't have a relationship with conflict. we wouldn't be watching this if it was a 90 second editorial.
Post Tue May 20, 2008 11:33 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  

All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:47 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon