Chris Matthews is a jerk, but I have to say, I don't think Kevin James knew what he was talking about, either.  I don't know who this Kevin James is (a radio talk show host?) but if Chris Matthews wants an historian on his show, then he should invite one.  MSNBC is as obviously blindly partisan (for Obama) as FOX is unapologetically skewed toward the conservative agenda.  Thanks, Chris Matthews, but I am smart enough to make up my own mind.  If Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman and all the rest of the smug know-it-alls at MSNBC were even half as smart as they think they are, they would be less obvious in their partisanship.  Their credibility takes a nosedive every time they act like this (which is becoming an everyday event.)  And they make fun of Bill O'Reilly (who is also an idiot.)  The only difference I can see between them all is Bill O'Reilly is less smug (if that's possible.)

I think Matthews was just trying to point out rightly that most of these lower level conservative talk show hosts are nothing but parrots, who have no interest in any facts, rarely investigate them in an intellectually honest way, and only care that they have their zombie minions listening to them.

O' Reilley less smug....maybe...but far more obnoxious and self absorbed....and more importantly ....wrong a lot more often.

anti -- I know you are much smarter than that (as evidenced by posts hereon) --

That is too easy.

Mathews simply got a  "gotcha" moment and exploited it.

His opponent was mostly more correct than him, in point of fact.

The fact that Mathews kept exploiting a cheap  "gotcha"  moment, however, is more telling. The man is disigenuous if nothing else.

Aside from the spittle, Mathews is just a notch above Kieth Olbermann. And that notch is a notch so low as to allow one to do pullups on toilet tissue.......................

I don't think he should raise his voice on national television about appeasement and make comparisons to pre world war II when he most likely can't pick out Austria on a map. The man is obviously a kool aid drinking wannabe throwing out the same fear rhetoric this administration has been so successful at over the last 8 years.

I find it highly ironic that a man who is the Ruler of the Free World is knocking a presidential candidate on foreign soil,when HIS OWN SECRETARY OF STATE thinks talking is the proper approach. I mean c'mon, how can you be George Bush of all people and not know that gas is 4 bucks a gallon? How can you be President and not know what your cabinet says? How can we let someone have their finger on the trigger of the most awesome weapon ever concieved, and not even know how to pronouce what it is?  If you listen to his talk in the Knesset, he brings up multiple Biblical characters to show the Israelis that .....he's one of them. I know many conservatives who are just sick to death of what Bush has done to the term conservative. If Bush thinks that talking is appeasement, then is he going to continue to ignore all the weaponry and help coming to sunnis in Iraq from the Iranians. Was he able to figure out that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we can't trace RPGS used to kill our Marines back to their source in Iran? Iran qualifies as a country that attacked us a million fold more than Iraq, but talking would be a nice precursor before we stretch our troops out even thinner.

Talking is not appeasement. Talking is negotiating and we should have an advantage in that regard because we DO have the biggest stick. We should apply force when necessary, but avoid it when possible. When Fidel bites the dust we should talk to Cuba too. I can hear it from guys like this alleged radio talk show host "Oh no, not the communists! You're a commie if you talk to the commies!"  Really, well then why does all of our stuff come from China? Are they not THE biggest communist threat? Do they treat their people better than Cuba treats theirs? Is it okay to buy lead painted toys from China, but God forbid I get a real Cuban cigar??? LOL

"mostly more correct than him"  ??????????????????????????????

You should take James' place; you would make a "good" talk show host.

It's not that neo cons like James don't understand history, they don't ~know~ it period!

Wow... Mr. James set himself up by agreeing to do the show and being "ill equiped". He didn't know what he was talking about but sadly, he just got catapulted into star status on the talk radio circuit.

In general, hosts should try to stay neutral but it's also responsible to call someone out if they are incorrect or do not know what they are talking about. With that being said, I think Chris Matthews crossed the line by calling him a "sideshow". I also think Mr. Matthews did his homework on Mr. James and let him walk into a trap. 

I agree jfrancais. Matthews may not be everyone's favorite, but James came into the OK corral with a sling shot. He got what he deserved. Unfortunately there are still people out there that think he won the arguement. Kool aid drinkers.

James would be great for ESPN with all that yelling he was doing. That is a prerequiaite to be a sports analyst on Sportscenter.

News/commentary networks seem to be enamored with radio talk show hosts, inviting them onto their panels of "experts" as though they are knowledgeable of the subjects about which they are asked to offer opinion.

The fact is, some, like James, are simply jerks with nothing intelligent to impart and who don't rate national exposure with their shrill condemnations of those they despise and their obsequious adoration of those whom they worship.

Kevin James is just another of those jerks with a microphone with which to roil the stagnant water of the equally ignorant rabble to whom he panders.

The fallacy of the notion that direct communication with our "enemies" is tantamount to appeasement is absurd beyond all rationality.

Unfortunately and inexplicably, U.S. foreign policy for the past eight years has been stubbornly based on the very flawed hawk-like premise that, like juvenile schoolyard conflicts, talking is somehow a sign of weakness and that those governments not in line with American ideology should be verbally vilified rather than communicated with and met with the angry, clenched fists of hostility rather than with the open hands of reason.

Anyway, not only did James bring nothing substantive to the discussion and nothing else of value to contribute, he sorely lacked even a basic understanding of the meaning behind his accusation of appeasement and Matthews shut him down as he should have.

Too many of these jerks get their garbage out on these television shows without prper clarification.

In this case, Matthews responded appropriately with the admonition that "you don't know what you're talking about."

More of these idiots like James should be called out similarly.

Okay, here is what I think about the issue.

I have absolutely no problem with Chris Matthews calling out James like that.  It is obvious he had no idea what he is talking about.  In similar fashion, if someone was to call Bush a fascist without being able to define fascism or give an account how fascism correlates with Bush's actions; call him out too.  Why I hate shows like Crossfire and Hardball is they try to give a discussion on an issue by having two extreme opposite views.  The interview ends up being two guys stating why their ideology is right.  Yet, you never receive a decent argument on why either side should be taken into consideration.  James was just doing what every other guest is doing.  He should at least wiki the key points that he is going to talk about, so he could have some knowledge of what he was obviously just regurgitating.

P.S.  Love the spell check feature.  Makes posting a lot easier.