« The Secret History of Secret Surveillance | Main | In Re: Gant » Yglesias vs. Kirchick08 Jul 2008 01:31 pm The BHTV crew talked me into doing an episode with Jamie Kirchick. I haven't actually seen it, but highlights suggested by the staff include me describing John McCain's history of warmongering and talking about how the neocon conception of the Iranian state prevents good-faith bargaining. Also -- allegations that Barack Obama flip-flopped on Iraq: Or see the whole thing here. Comments (51)
So thats what Mini-me looks like. 
The BHTV crew talked me into doing an episode with Jamie Kirchick. Unless you walked out, got in a cab, found Kirchick, and punched him in the face, you got rolled. Legitimization of Kirchick is a win for Kirchick, however he performs.
Good for you, Matt. Liberals refusing to take shit from conservative douchebags is the ideal function of bloggingheads. It gives them practice for the cable talk shows. Next I would like to request Spencer Ackerman vs. Glenn Reynolds or Jonah Goldberg, if possible.
Good for you, Matt. Liberals refusing to take shit from conservative douchebags is the ideal function of bloggingheads. It gives them practice for the cable talk shows. Next I would like to request Spencer Ackerman vs. Glenn Reynolds or Jonah Goldberg, if possible.
Good for you, Matt. Liberals refusing to take shit from conservative douchebags is the ideal function of bloggingheads. It gives them practice for the cable talk shows. Next I would like to request Spencer Ackerman vs. Glenn Reynolds or Jonah Goldberg, if possible.
Why would you ever agree to this? K-tard already has like-minded people he can watch on FoxNews. Treating him like he's a thinker only helps him. He's a fool without an intelligent thought in his head. He has only three answers to everything: 1) leftists suck 2) Israel rules and Muslims suck and 3) "I am the most moral person alive!"
This happens every damn time! I swear I only hit submit once!
Boy, that guy (Kirchick) is appalling. The New Republic should be ashamed to be associated with him. Carter as bad as Helms? I think you lose by accepting this equivalence on any level.
Reality Man and SCMT, I think you are overestimating the "legitimizing" function of Bloggingheads, and underestimating the entertainment value of having smart liberals smack around dumb conservatives.
I'm really torn on the value of having actual policy types debate issues with cretins and blowhards like jamie kirchick. peter beinart jumped the shark when he started appearing with jonah goldberg, and his reputation was tarnished as much as jonah's was enhanced. and beinart's no great shakes to begin with. however, using the opportunity to verbally abuse and belittle rightwing rageaholics and feces-slingers is worthwhile. the only time it's worthwhile, imo.
Agreed on Goldberg/Beinart. I'm thinking more Perlstein/Frum.
Facial hair, please. Too much pastiness.
You did as well as you could given that this Kirchirk guy is such an idiot.
i'm at 6:30 and matt's patriotism has (just) been deemed adequate by mr. kirchick. what value this exchange creates is questionable. what exactly is the point of appearing with a table-pounder with the apparent objective of getting him not to pound the table? the only thing missing are two little captions: the one under matt saying "good faith" and the one under kirchick saying "bad faith". and, finally, the definitive story of kirchick's obsession with jimmy carter has yet to be written, and, god willing, that will always be the case.
I second the muppet comment. The first second I saw Matt's picture here I thought it was the Sesame Street character "Matt Ygelsias."
Boy, that guy (Kirchick) is appalling. The New Republic should be ashamed to be associated with him. I'd wager much (all?) of TNR's staff is ashamed. Unfortunately, TNR's part-owner really, really, really likes little Jimmy, as little Jimmy quite neatly parrot's all of the part-owners demented points of view. So the smart, capable, interesting TNR staffers are stuck with him in their midst.
So, THAT's the boy-child that Marty has to kiss his butt twice daily! Jamie is the perfect nick for his appearance and persona. He's soo cute: just like a puppy that just shat on the floor, and then pushed it around with his tongue (and then wanted to kiss you). Someone should sue The New Republic for stealing the trademark on what was a vital liberal magazine. Reminder to self: Don't let my subscription auto-renew again. The embarassment of being on their subscription list is truly unbearable.
Reality Man and SCMT, I think you are overestimating the "legitimizing" function of Bloggingheads, and underestimating the entertainment value of having smart liberals smack around dumb conservatives. Man, if we're going to say that McCain is foolish for refusing to talk to Iran, when McCain says talking to Iran would only legitimize them, then I guess Matt has to talk to the likes of Kirchick. (And I agree--a couple of feet of beard would give Matt a lot more authority in his public appearances.)
Matt, I'm troubled by this sort of contrarian, flip attitude that Jamie seems to exhibit here, but on the very specific point of Iran he is correct on most points. We certainly do have some leverage over Iran, however, somewhere in the ballpark of 40% of Iran's trade is done with Europe. Historically, when Europe and the US have spoken with one voice on Iran we've seen a clear change in Iranian behavior (which I would assume we can agree is a good thing). Also, the devate over national interests is sort of moot. The real problem with Iran is that they have no clearly defined national interests--their constitution is the relic of a dead man, and those in power are merely interested in keeping it. Then you have rouge elements like the IRGC, who have traditionally lived by the motto that it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission. They operate somewhat autonomously, and even the Supreme leader can't control Jafari all of the time. That's why the Iranians can say "in good faith" that they don't sponsor terrorism, or that they aren't fueling chaos in Iraq. This may be true for the Khatamis or the Rafsanjanis of the world, but they have no control over the Quds. In order for the US to really negotiate the republic will need to get a handle on their own internal elements, which may be rather difficult. The notion that a "grand strategy" would work with Iran is unfounded--it has been offered, attempted and ignored before. Iran responds to the threat of force and economic coercion. That is their "good faith," and we saw it in the 90's during Operation Praying Mantis. We can talk to them about rewards for good behavior, but the conversation must begin with the consequences for not adhering to the demands of the UN, EU and the US.
Kirchick is the worst. Not an honest bone in his body.
Mark Steyn : Conrad Black :: Jamie Kirchik : Marty Peretz i.e. scrote-bathers.
Matt, Did you by any chance use the word "inconceivable" during this debate...? http://www.parseerror.com/images/moments/inconceivable/inconceivable-1.jpg
something happen to the video?
You got rolled. Carter is not as bad as Helms. That is the difference. Carter, was a mediocre and unlucky president. He tried to do his best and made some mistakes, he did more good things than Helms ever did. I think when Carter dies democrats will generally celebrate the best of his legacy. So I think you are wrong and miss the point. Carter is a good man with flaws who seeks to do good. Helms hated blacks and fags.
"The notion that a "grand strategy" would work with Iran is unfounded--it has been offered, attempted and ignored before." Really? When Iran was offering us useful intelligence on al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, Cheney shut down those contacts.
Matt - if I may, I was disappointed with a couple of things. I think you should really cut down on the "you know's" as its distracting and tends to lessen the value of your arguments. Also, when Kirchik said 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been "completed," by which I'm guessing he means met or achieved, you should have corrected him. Fifteen of the 18 benchmarks haven't been met; the Bush Administration has recently argued that "satisfactory progress" has been made on them. Maybe Kirchik got his info from Fox News, which put a headline that was contradicted by the actual story here
Do you think there would have been parliamentary democracy in Britain if our own form of democracy hadn't taken shape it had in the US. Bloody hell, Kirchik doesn't know ANYTHING about British history.
Matt - if I may, I was disappointed with a couple of things. I think you should really cut down on the "you know's" as its distracting and tends to lessen the value of your arguments. Also, when Kirchik said 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been "completed," by which I'm guessing he means met or achieved, you should have corrected him. Fifteen of the 18 benchmarks haven't been met; the Bush Administration has recently argued that "satisfactory progress" has been made on them. Maybe Kirchik got his info from Fox News, which put a headline that was contradicted by the actual story here
Do you think there would have been parliamentary democracy in Britain if our own form of democracy hadn't taken shape it had in the US? James II is rolling in his grave about now . . .
Beinart, Goldberg, Kirchik, Yglesias.... where is the DIVERSITY? No Christians, Hindus, muslims, females, blacks, Asians need apply.
I love you, Matthew, but nothing could induce me to watch video of Jamie Kirchik.
I refuse to watch this thing, but did Matt actually agree with Kirchik in comparing Jimmy Carter to Jesse Helms? jesus h. christ, that's a hanging offense. Tell me he didn't.
I reached 3:22, and heard Matt say "I'm not an historian." I stopped there because I knew then that nothing that followed could have possibly been enlightening. (Seriously, sometimes I wonder if the thirty-something crowd of up and coming punidts at the Atlantic, TNR, NRO, and other sites really is qualified to do anything except argue among each other.)
Kirchik introduced Carter as I recall, and kept reverting to saying nasty things about him. Yglesisas didn't want to defend Carter and instead kept trying to make the point that when Carter dies, liberals will (he says) admit Carter's flaws while eulogizing him, unlike the conservatives currently writing about Helms. I hope I have that right, I'm not going to watch it again. As I noted, accepting the comparison and working with it was a bad mistake imo. You don't need to imagine how liberals will react to Carter's passing in order to be disgusted by the current celebration of Helms. Yglesias should have kept to the subject of Helms and not allowed Kirchik to introduce Carter.
Kirchik introduced Carter as I recall, and kept reverting to saying nasty things about him. Yglesisas didn't want to defend Carter and instead kept trying to make the point that when Carter dies, liberals will (he says) admit Carter's flaws while eulogizing him, unlike the conservatives currently writing about Helms. I hope I have that right, I'm not going to watch it again. As I noted, accepting the comparison and working with it was a bad mistake imo. You don't need to imagine how liberals will react to Carter's passing in order to be disgusted by the current celebration of Helms. Yglesias should have kept to the subject of Helms and not allowed Kirchik to introduce Carter.
Kirchik introduced Carter as I recall, and kept reverting to saying nasty things about him. Yglesisas didn't want to defend Carter and instead kept trying to make the point that when Carter dies, liberals will (he says) admit Carter's flaws while eulogizing him, unlike the conservatives currently writing about Helms. I recall having said repeatedly that liberals will admit Carter's flaws, but also defend him as not nearly the monster conservatives make him out to be. That was followed by a qualified defense of his inflammatory Israel: Peace not Apartheid book title.
Sure, Matt. But given Kirchik's claim that Carter's presidency was worse than his post-presidency, and that you are an admitted "apologist for the Carter administration," we could reasonably have hoped for a better defense given the awful slander that is equating anyone with Jesse Helms. Your reasoned defense of the book's title notwithstanding, you conceded too much. The thorough demolition of Neoconservative talking points on Iran was really excellent, though, if perhaps a bit too easy given Kirchik's obvious ignorance.
Ugh. Kirchick came across as a smug douchebag, while Yglesias seemed ignorant and shrill. I feel dumber for having watched that.
Good job Matt, but when you were trying to illustrate the failures of Bush vis a vis Iran, you should have stood up and said North Korea Motherfucker! Next time.
wait don't you guys completely hate each other? i feel gypped.
"(Seriously, sometimes I wonder if the thirty-something crowd of up and coming punidts at the Atlantic, TNR, NRO, and other sites really is qualified to do anything except argue among each other.)" Nicely put - I agree 100%. Particularly telling is this crowds' total inability to think original thoughts about anything. They simply continue to parrot the horseshyt "left vs. right" crap they inherited from their elder pundit heroes.
I didn't listen to the whole thing, I just concentrated on the part about Iran. But in general, it's clear what the problem is. Matt, your ability to argue with opposing parties is severely hampered by your SCREECHING and your stuttering. You're thinking too fast to try to counter the opponent in real time and you're not that good at it. So don't do it. Kirchick came off as controlling the conversation and you were constantly reacting - and noisily. You were really bad. Calm down, lower your voice to a deeper octave, and respond more slowly. Just look at how Kirchick works and duplicate it. Don't react immediately to anything he says, sit back, consider it, then butt in when you get the chance. Deal with one concept at a time. You have to keep control of the conversation by deliberately ignoring stuff that isn't relevant and concentrating on making your own points, not merely reacting to your opponent's points. This is basic martial arts. Another guy you should study is George Galloway, the British MP. He can BURY an opponent. He did a credible job of beating Christopher Hitchens in a debate. Watch it here: On the whole, however, this sort of nonsense conversation doesn't do much good at all. It looks like an argument in a bar between two drunks or two religious fanatics or a Windows vs Linux argument on Slashdot.
Well done Matt. There's no doubt Kirchik is a straight up asshole. But his kind of assholery is standard issue, and Matt dealt with that as well as I've ever heard anyone. Bullshit like that is tough to entangle. It was impressive. The Iran section was especially good.
I really enjoyed this. Good stuff, Matt.
Yeah, what's up with the autorenew on the subscription? I don't remember signing up for that.
saw the bloggingheads segment and i have to say that it was just outstanding to see matt pound the heck out of the vapid kirchik.
I think Matt did better than some of the naysayers here are arguing, but I think the key piece of advice that I would agree with them on is not to accept faulty premises -- the Carter/Helms equivalency being the key example here, but there were others. I think the sense of Kirchik's controlling the conversation came from that -- Matt would respond within Kirchik's framework, and that often led to accepting some real bullshit. (Although, to his credit, Matt also used that word to describe at least one thing Kirchik said... as Atrios would say, More like this please.)
Matt, your ability to argue with opposing parties is severely hampered by your SCREECHING and your stuttering. You're thinking too fast to try to counter the opponent in real time and you're not that good at it. So don't do it. I think this gets it exactly wrong. To me, Matt comes across as fast on his feet. His ability to effectively introduce, frame, and present arguments in real time is all the more apparent when you put him next to Kirchick, who seems incapable of any of those things. Kirchick's inquisition-like rhetorical stylings amount to a lot of profoundly irritating and vapid sloganeering. I'm no sycophant, but I think Matt completely dismantles him here.
Matt, your ability to argue with opposing parties is severely hampered by your SCREECHING and your stuttering. You're thinking too fast to try to counter the opponent in real time and you're not that good at it. So don't do it. I think this gets it exactly wrong. To me, Matt comes across as fast on his feet. His ability to effectively introduce, frame, and present arguments in real time is all the more apparent when you put him next to Kirchick, who seems incapable of any of those things. Kirchick's inquisition-like rhetorical stylings amount to a lot of profoundly irritating and vapid sloganeering. I'm no sycophant, but I think Matt completely dismantles him here. Also, Matt's repeated use of "bullshit" is immensely satisfying. More of this.
sorry for the double post. that last para was crucial. ;)
Comments closed July 22, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I always think newly clean shaven people look like muppets. I'm sure I'll get used to it.
Posted by mike | July 8, 2008 1:39 PM