DELAWARE WATCH
Speaking of smacking down blowhards:
Did Dave Burris lie when he indicated to Matthews that there was an ongoing FBI investigation?
Bwwwwwwaaaaahahahaha...!
Dana: I saw that yesterday. However, I noticed (and Mike Matthews noted it elsewhere) that Matthews (Chris, that is) demonstrated ignorance of his very own during that very smackdown: He said that the USS Cole attack happened under George Bush, saying "I mean, I don't know what I'm talking about here."
Hube, I don't think the issue per se is not knowing a historical fact. That would be disgustingly elitist if it were.
I think the issue is using an historical allusion analogously, about which one doesn't know the relevant historical details, in a way that is erroneous at worst or misleading at best as the basis for a political attack.
C. Matthews did nothing more than say he didn't know when the USS Cole was attacked and, importantly, he didn't use what he didn't know to make a political point. James, on the other hand, did.
James could have easily said I don't know what happened w/ Chamberlain at Munich but I think Obama's position is appeasement. In short, he could have said "Perhaps Bush drew the wrong lesson from history (I can't say because I don't know it myself), but drew the right conclusion about Obama."
I would have disagreed w/ that analysis, but it would have spared him all this unnecessary embarrassment.
That's how I saw it for what it's worth.
I certainly don't disagree w/that. James came off right from the start as a blowhard -- he was yelling from Matthews' first question -- but Matthews has made so many inane comments over the years he's not one to make fun of others for not knowing something.
"but Matthews has made so many inane comments over the years he's not one to make fun of others for not knowing something."
You certainly have a point there that is impossible to dispute.
Matthews wasn't making fun of James. He was exposing him as a poseur. I was unaware that being exposed by a fellow poseur somehow changed the point, that conservative polemicists tend to be parrots rather than intellectually curious people.
I was unaware that being exposed by a fellow poseur somehow changed the point
You were "unaware" because, again, you jumped the gun, Al. Try reading thoroughly for once. I never "changed the point;" I merely showed that Matthews' exposure of James didn't do anything to lessen his own idiocy.
conservative polemicists tend to be parrots rather than intellectually curious people
Yawn. You rip others for making completely unsubstantiated statements; try following your own rules, Mascitti. I know plenty of cons who are much more intellectually curious than you, if the questions you "ask" on your show are any indication (and why wouldn't they be, right?).
Commenting by HaloScan
