Chris Mathews vs Van Taylor

Chris Mathews and Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett tore into pro-war Congressional candidate Van Taylor on Hardball. It looks like the only tool the GOP has left is the “war on terror”. Are you scared yet?

posted by disinter
  • Stephen

    I almost feel sorry for these politicos, who do nothing but blindly support, but then I remember that they’ve been bought and all sympathy washes away. Kudos to Mr.Hacket for invoking “false choice,” it’s always nice when a pundit can spot and out a logical fallacy.

  • Peter Borah

    Utterly ridiculous. It’s hard to remember that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans when you have to listen to something like this.

  • Timothy West

    Hackett was running himself until his own party forced him out of the race. The guy he speaks of at the end is his own democratic party handpicked replacement. He speaketh no ill will of another Democrat. They never do.

  • Zander C

    And neither do we, Tim. That’s how politics works in our country – not just in the realm of electoral politics, but in sports, in the workplace, etc. You cheer your own team and heckle the others. Why? Because bystanders will call you a turncoat and judge your whole team if you are overly harsh in the criticism of your own team. Perhaps someone should call Mr. Hacket now that he’s been forced out of contention by his own political party and ask if he shares libertarian values.

  • TerryP

    This just goes to show that when you tow the line of the party (ie you can’t make up your own opinion) someone will burn you with it. Just like when Bush said that Al queda had nothing to do with going into Iraq. He changed the tone of what he had been saying. Now all those people who had been towing the line with their party have no idea what to say because the party leadership hasn’t told them what to say. These politicians need to grow a backbone and start thinking and making decisions for themselves even if it goes against what the party leadership is telling them. In otherwords, they need to become more like libertarians who value individual thinking and decision making.

  • Jim

    Libertarians sure can learn a lot from Democrats about being team-players. How often do we see Libertarians bail out if they don’t get their way at a state or national convention? How many blogs are set up that primarily bash other Libertarian efforts? How many times have you heard a libertarian say they won’t support a candidate because he or she “isn’t libertarian enough”?

    We blame our failures on a whole lot of outside things. We blame the media for not reporting about us. We blame the R/Ds for ballot restrictions. That all may play a part, but we can’t change that. What we can change is our uncooperative attitude, but that is seldom mentioned as a cause of our failure.

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    Libertarians are individuals and think independently.

    I encourage all libertarians to continue playing for the only team that matters: yourself.

  • IanC

    Chris — I agree withou you on that one, with the following proviso; Learn that Adam Smith is not the end of economics.

    Learn that sometimes you advance *yourself* by advocating something less than what you prefer — because you will never, ever get what you prefer if you only go for what you prefer.

    It’s simple economics, really. The key is to discern those situations where going for broke is the best way, and when it’s not.

  • Jim

    Unfortunately, US politicis is a team sport, not an individual sport. That is why Libertarians are so terrible at it!

    I’m sure that some Libertarians like to play fantasy-role-playing political party. They like having titles like “vice-chairman” or “director”. They’ll even go so far as to create their own political party just to have those titles. Every once in a while, the will get to see their name in the papers as a candidate or perhaps the subject of an interview. And it gives those people a sense of accomplishment and pride.

    That’s fine, whatever makes people happy.

    But let’s not forget the larger issues here – the growing size of government. A fantasy-role-playing political party cannot stop real live government growth. It takes a real-live political party – a team of activists – to make change. The Libertarian Party or any off shoots have yet to score a point in the real-live game of politics.

  • http://21cr.blogspot.com DaveT

    I’m getting tired of all the video clips in place of real blogging. Some of us read the blog from work you know! :)

  • http://360.yahoo.com/pong_god Robert Mayer

    LOL! What a blithering idiot Bush apologist. PWNED!

  • Pingback: Right Of Texas » Matthews vs. Taylor()

  • David Roberts

    The war in Iraq, the backing of Israel against Hezbolah, the delay in a ceasefire, a military solution to all our national self-interest has exposed our weakness. We cannot dilute our resources militarily, we cannot forsake our allies, we walk heavily with a hard stick, and our illusion of military power has evaporated. Every one in the World now knows it, and they are impowered. The UN knows it, Çhina knows it, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbolah know it, and Israel, a country of six million people know it. We have lost our Leadership role, cannot use our Nuclear Weapons, and cannot divert our resources into the War without sacrificing the American people, empowering the wealthy. Now start to work in the world strongly, cooperatively, and with respect for all nations. Our money should go to homeland security, a phased withdrawal from Iraq, taking care of our wounded soldiers, international diplomacy, and health care, a living wage, education, and peacetime economy

  • http://www.DownsizeDC.org/ Alex Peak

    That guy (the anti-war one) made a lot of good points that I’ve never thought to make. His distinction between mthod and philosophy, for example, and his subsequent willingness to call the war on terror a sound-bite. Also his recognition of the false choice argument stunned me. It was particularly interesting to see the pro-war candidate avoid important questions–he essentially admitted, although not in words, that he had no justification for the start of the war. Unless we are to accept the implication that it’s valid to indiscriminately attack a nation in the hope that al Qaeda will invade said nation, and thus begin to fight us in said nation (which of course would be absurd to accept).