But it's interesting that you only noticed it coming from one side.

Hmmm...so his inexperience is why nobody on the R side of the aisle wants to help? I guess if he had 20 years of executive experience, he could get these idiots who don't believe what he believes to vote for a bill they write?? I'll be honest, I expected some obstructionism, after all, republicans are all for small government and reduced spending when they aren't in charge, but this is a level that I didn't expect (stopping votes so you can get your earmarks??).

And Democrats are all for ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars when they aren't in charge. This really isn't just a Republican issue...it's politics. The problem with many young people today is that they don't realize that both sides are doing whatever they can to make the other side look bad. Jon Stewart only talks bad about Republicans after all.

lol

Sorry, I might be off base, here. Jon Stewart did replace Michael Moore as the leader of the Democratic Party right?

yep, way off base. He took over from Walter Cronkite as 'Most Trusted Newscaster in America'

Poll Results - Now that Walter Cronkite has passed on, who is America's most trusted newscaster? | TIME

Head over to the Stewart/Colbert thread for plenty of examples of him skewering both sides.

I'm young? Thanks. I guess the problem with old people is that they are so set in their ways they can't adapt to anything. Rush Limbaugh only talks bad about Liberals after all.

I think I'm old enough and smart enough to know that 95% of these people are liars. I'm certainly no Obama kool-aid drinker and couldn't stand Kerry either, I just think these "I'm in the middle...really...I am" people could stand to just step back for a second. I mean, we're in the first year of a 4-year run and both sides are merely concerned with doing nothing but blaming the others. I guess my expectations changed from "something" to "not much" in the last few months.

And I was for never starting the resource consuming, endless, pointless wars.

Anyone that thinks Jon Stewart doesn't also make fun of Democrats, I lay down this challenge.

I'll post as many examples of him doing this as I can find. If I can't come up with 50 examples, I owe you $100. Otherwise, you give me $1 for each example.

Eh, that might be misplaced resentment.

Just as it would indeed be hard to rape the truly willing, I think it's probably tough to actually dupe the chronically/terminally stupid. In this subject they have a tendency to do that for/to themselves.



I'd also say partial credit, definitely not the sole reason. He could have run as a mute & gotten votes from several blocs, wouldn't have to do much to gather up the rest.

50 examples is a bold bet. Obviously my thoughts weren't fully thought through here. For a show that has run daily since 1999 (except when his writers were on strike), you would have to find over 5 examples per season.

So it looks like the President is going to try to rahm his version of health care through where they only need 51 votes.

Next we will see opponents complaining about him ramming through legislation after they criticized him for not getting legislation passed with clear majorities.

You could probably find 50 examples of Stewart making fun of Democrats in the last month. Two months, easy.

I bet I could find examples of Rush and Glenn Beck making fun of Bush. Are they fair and balanced too?

Nope, and I would never think to call Stewart fair and balanced. I didn't think that was the discussion.

Bingo.

Fox News - slant right
Rush - slant right
AM Radio in general - slant right
WSJ - slant right

What's slanted left?

Nothing.

Ugh.

That's just what the liberal media wants you to think!

No one said Stewart is fair and balanced. The comment made was that Stewart only talks bad about Republicans. Every once in a while someone makes that claim or something similar. So I figured I'd throw down the challenge. I think the people that criticize Stewart in such a manner would be surprised at how often he makes fun of Democrats.

John Stewart makes fun of everything that doesn't work within the confines of common sense.

Be it idiotic Democrats or idiotic Republicans.

I'd agree with that at some level. But even Stewart himself in his recent interview with O'Reilly openly admitted that his show had a liberal slant. He certainly doesn't hide that fact.

With partisians on each side, if you make one minor criticism of them, you're automatically on the other side. The Chicago Tribune has leaned to the right forever and has endorsed every Republican candidate in their 161 year history. They endorsed Obama in 2008 and were lambasted for it. Called liberals, left-wing, and all the other catchphrases. When they wrote a negative review on O'Reilly's book, he called them a liberal paper. You are automatically on the other team if you ever criticize someone.

As for Stewart, I'd call him a populist more than anything. Basically goes after the low hanging fruit. His audience is more progressive so he obviously plays to that. But watching his show the last couple months, he's torn Democrats apart much more than Republicans. I don't think his attacks are politically motivated, just what he thinks will be funny and get a good reaction. He's more a common sense guy who points out absurdities in our political culture.

I thought the CPAC straw poll was really surprising. Ron Paul won rather easily. Palin only finished with 7%. The odd thing was they booed the results when they were announced. I get the feeling a lot of people there like to call themselves conservatives but have no fucking idea what it means. Paul is the most conservative guy out there.

One of the biggest gripes I've had about O'Reilly was that he always pretends to be an "independent". Seriously? So if Stewart said that, good for him...these guys need to do more of that.

Stewart is a Liberal, but he badmouths the democrats all the time. That was the framework of the discussion earlier.

BTW, anyone who has HBO should make the Bill Maher show a must watch this week (premiered on Friday). They presented exactly what Obama and the Democrats should be doing. I'm not sure I disagreed with anything on that show outside of Wanda's implication that people just hate Obama's ideas because he's black. Plus, Seth MacFarlane made for a lot of really funny observations. Really good episode.

Summary of a couple things I remember:

-Stop the ridiculous 'intent to filibuster' and do it the way it's supposed to be done.
-Obama should start acting more like Bush.
-It's ridiculous that DADT hasn't been repealed yet.

Mahar doesn't understand the rules of the Senate. There isn't any way to force a filibuster the way it's supposed to be done. The filibuster agreement in the seventies made it much more difficult for the majority party to force a real filibuster and it takes 67 votes to change those Senate rules.

The Dems have done a shitty job of publicizing the GOP obstruction(can one of them say up or down vote?), but the GOP has discovered that the Senate rules make filibustering everything nearly pain free.

Wow, you watched that show awfully fast.

Bingo. There are a bunch of conservative sites claiming that Paul supporters are like sheep and just stuff the ballot box and rig the online polls. (They said 10,000 people attended CPAC and only 2,000 voted. Whose fault is that exactly?) They also say there is no way a 77-year old guy with such strong anti-government views (end the federal reserve, end middle East wars, end the war on drugs, end the IRS, etc) will ever be elected. But their conclusion is to mock Paul, mock his supporters, and then talk about Mit Romney (who came in second with like 10% less than Paul).

What? Paul has such rabid support lately because a lot of people are fed up with both Democrats and Republicans. Unelectable? IMO Sarah Palin is unelectable. Believe it or not there are actually some people who don't want to bomb Iran, who don't think spending is OK if the Republicans do it, and who don't want more Jesus in our lives. How about accepting some of his views into the mix or turning to a guy like Gary Johnson from New Mexico who actually has some executive experience with limited government ideals? No, instead they will drudge up some bullshit and try and discredit Paul, will try to keep Paul out the debates, will have someone like Palin try and adopt Paul’s ideals (even though in the 2008 debates she shared very few of them) and will act like there aren't any conservatives that actually believe in limiting government not only economically but also socially and militarily. (one conservative blogger said "Who will bring freedom to the world? China? Russia?" Do they really think that is what is happening in the Middle East? Seriously?)

If this does happen I hope Paul runs as a Libertarian and either awakens a shitload of Americans about the reality of a third party (highly unlikely) or at least fucks over the Republicans and makes them (and possibly Democrats as well) change their mind on the military industrial complex. You have the power Republicans and a guy that has some pretty intense followers. Are you going to fuck this up? My guess is yes.

I used to be a huge fan. (Love Maher's views on religion and drug policy) But during the election he kept claiming how he is a Libertarian but shilled for every single Obama view including those that fly right in the face of Libertarians. He is more than welcome to do this but I wish he would quit with the Libertarian angle.

Triple Post (I am fired up about Paul)

I think a lot of people back in 2006 and even 2007 laughed at the idea of Obama being elected president and focused instead on Clinton, Edwards, even Richardson. The tea party movement is Ron Paul's supporters creation. Palin and Glenn Beck have certainly hijacked it and there are people at these rallies who don't share Paul's views but it was him and Judge Andrew Napolitano who actually began the follow the Constitution movement. I think Paul has more strength than ever.

Of course that means more disinformation... more trying to associate him to 9-11 truthers, calling him racist for a newsletter than he didn't write from the 70's, calling him a wacko. Never a policy debate though. Because that would expose that they really don't care about the $1 trillion we spend policing the world that is a huge part of what is bankrupting this country. Take on his ideas and I will at least listen, discredit him and you are really missing a huge opportunity.

Paul can't win a Republican primary not to mention the general election. Love him or hate him, I don't understand why people can't see his base of support is relatively small. 30% of 2000 self avowed conservatives isn't the springboard to the White House.

I tend to agree that under the current system he is unelectable but how do you wish to measure support? Online polls? He wins. Straw Polls? He wins. Campaign contributions? He was actually right up there with Giuliani and in front of McCain in 2008 ($4.2 million in one day). Readership? Two New York Times best selling books. He just doesn't have corporate support because he will destroy the system that they know and love to exploit.

39% of the country opposes even the war in Afghanistan and neither party has a candidate willing to listen to this message and act on it. I think you would be surprised how well somebody like Gary Johnson or even a Democrat would do running on the anti-war message. It is a very popular message. I would argue that the more peaceful of the two candidates generally wins the election. (No doubt Obama was more peaceful than McCain, and Bush was anti-war in 2000) And Paul is one of the few who always bashes the job Congress does. What is their approval rating? 15%?

I just don't think his support is as small as you might think. Fox News, WSJ, Drudge, etc might say he is a "fringe" candidate but why would they try to promote a campaign that flies in the face of their divisive agenda? (Fox News more than the other two) He has a populist explosion written all over him. Look at his son in Kentucky or Peter Schiff in CT. Four years ago these guys would be getting 1-2% of the vote. They are winning in some polls! Hard is discount, even if you don’t like the message.

Paul's support is extremely significant for who he is, off the charts really, but he's not a serious presidential candidate.

The support definitely shows some discontent and a specific opinion about the federal government though, something that one of the parties needs to address eventually, or a real third-party threat could eventually emerge.

I wish Paul would have run once as an independent. He most likely wouldn't have won a state, but I think the total popular vote would have gotten some attention.

I think he did run once back in the 80's as a Libertarian but I get your point about doing it in 2008. I think he wants to try and push the Republican party towards some of his views knowing full well that he couldn't win on his own but if they keep attempting to discredit him there may be a 2012 third party run that will make the presidential debates very entertaining and throw a huge wrench in the Republican's ability to win back the White House. I think he doesn't have the business background of Perot but definitely knows his history and will make both mainstream candidates look really foolish. Ultimately he won't win as people will stick with the "lesser of two evils" approach to voting while at the same time standing around the water cooler saying how they agree with a lot of what Paul stands for. (Of course I didn't expect Perot to get millions of votes either so anything could happen!)

We don't need to speculate how well Paul might do, he just ran for President. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I don't think he broke double digits in any primary.

It's easy to mistake popularity online or even donations for enough mass appeal to win a general election. Paul may have thirty million ardent supporters and he'd still lose by a two to one margin to his opponent.

your shtick is predictable and just amusing at this point

Touche. Go make some out of character post about how great health care reform is or some other policy that Obama people have told you is good. Bush war bad, Obama war good. Bahhhh.... bahhhh....

So you would never vote for a candidate that had ideals you beleive in but instead will go with whatever the mainstream media throws out there? Interesting.

Like i said I don't think he will win but I think the Republicans are foolish to boo him and try and discredit his message. (Nobody has ever accused the Republicans of being all that in touch though :) )

I think he was always at like the 10% mark, sometimes a lot higher and sometimes lower. Pulling up results I see 20%+ in the Western states and around 10% on Eastern states. (16% in Pennslyvania)

Things have changed though since the election. TARP and the stimulus bills aren't doing much and while the Republicans can't say much (since they voted for a lot of this junk also) Paul can show that he hasn't. Seems like that would be a good thing? No?

I'd say I'm not alone in being more than willing to marginalize anyone who thinks legalization & isolationism are worthwhile policies. I'd prefer to see them eliminated from the population entirely but I'll settle for labeling them accurately as fucking nuts.

I have to say that him not getting your endorsement isn't much of a shock, though I did think you claimed to be a conservative. Maybe Romney will win and he can bring his state-run healthcare system to the entire country.

huh?

you've got me wrong. i don't think "obama war good." I think "wars bad."

i'd agree with you on isolationism, and maybe to some degree on legalization (depending on if we're talking just pot, or all drugs)

I'm a social conservative far more than a fiscal conservative (although I don't lack for numerous components of the latter). That whackjob could promise a foolproof method to end all taxation, magically fund the cure for cancer, and deliver perpetual motion engines but if he wants to legalize stoners & sit here waiting for various & sundry enemies to attack then I hope he takes the longest walk off the shortest pier asap. The gains on one aren't worth the losses on the other.

+1 because while I'm completely the opposite in almost every way, it perfectly illustrates why I could not tolerate a Paul presidency.

LOL. It's fun watching the neocons getting their panties in a bunch. All week it was about Romney and Palin and Cheney and who would be the darling of the CPAC straw poll. Then Paul wins and its meaningless. And its discredit Ron Paul 101.

Cure for cancer and no taxes? Not if we can't blow up dem Muslims and Russians and control what other Americans do to their own bodies!!! LOL. More bombs! More Jesus!

(for the record, if I could get a miracle cure for cancer and no taxes, I'd vote for that guy if all I had to do was legalize pot and stop our foreign wars and I'm not exactly libertarian)

SI

Bottom of screen: "Ice Dancing in 17 minutes", flip over to MSNBC: "15:35 to go in the first period"

Damn you, NBC!

SI

here comes bode's run...that's about all you need to see for downhill. prolly they will only show us 2-3 runs anyways

Does that mean I'm not a neocon anymore? Because I wasn't even aware they were having a straw poll much less going on about it all week.

Reality check: nothing that happens this week was going to mean much Presidentially, short of one or more players being caught in flagrante delicto with a farm animal.

I honestly don't know if you are a neocon or not. I thought you weren't a huge fan of Bush and he is a prototypical neocon. And I agree completely that everything will change by 2010, I just am having a fun day going around the net and realizing how meaningless this event is now to conservatives. (when just two days ago the CPAC was a "Great stand against Obama and his socialist agenda")

You know what would be the ultimate Ron Paul ticket? (Designed especially to make Jon's head spin :) ) Paul/Kucinich. They have very little in common economically but would be great for debate within the White House on all kinds of issues. Unlike Obama or Bush I would at least know what I am getting from these guys. I have never seen two more honest politicians than these two. I think those two could put together a very serious third party campaign. Though I am sure neither sets of their supporters would agree on who should headline the ticket. Can I get at least one of the liberal posters to agree that this one would be interesting? :)

Political buzzwords and labels are so misused today it's sad. Conservatives, liberals, neocons, socialists, etc.

Jon is not so much a conservative, he's more authoritarian. He has the same viewpoints as social/cultural conservatives on some issues, but I believe the reasoning as to why they reach that opinion is different.

And part of the problem with conferences like CPAC is that most of the people there aren't true conservatives. They hate gay people or something and just label themselves conservative because that's the trendy thing to do. Paul has been more conservative then anyone we've had in Congress in 80 years but gets booed because he's not a couch potatoe General.