Stewart may have valid points, has he made them ON HIS show. Did he decide to put them for the viewers to hear via Rachel Maddow? What makes this news?

Loved the interview with Stewart. Who would have thought that Stewart would out Maddow ( Madcow) for the complete hack that she is. He walked all over her pathetic excuses…LOL

Never in history has an irrelevant comic , C – list actor , become so influential to soo many other irrelevants.

Righteous Jon??
The guy that plays out-of-content clips of the evil media to make college kids laugh??
The guy with a small audience on a COMEDY channel is now Edward R Murrow??

Rachel be whining too much that “we’re not a bad as FOX.

Jon Stewart exeeded my expectations that I had , and I see him a little differently . Maddow only confirmed my expectations.

I have to admit I thought this would be a Stewart-Maddow Luv fest when I first heard about it. But after watching the entire interview I came away with a different viewpoint. Stewart many times disagreed with Maddow and let her know it.

Overall I bet alot of Maddow fans will not be happy with this interview…

I sense that Jon was trying to tell Maddow that she was a nice person, but that he’s just not that into her, as his source for [real] news. LOL.

murf said:
Never in history has an irrelevant comic , C – list actor , become so influential to soo many other irrelevants.

dummy123 said:
Righteous Jon??
The guy that plays out-of-content clips of the evil media to make college kids laugh??
The guy with a small audience on a COMEDY channel is now Edward R Murrow??

jeffnsix said:
Loved the interview with Stewart. Who would have thought that Stewart would out Maddow ( Madcow) for the complete hack that she is. He walked all over her pathetic excuses…LOL

Well the gang’s not all here but the game of “shit on people who have actually accomplished something” is well under way. I just never seem to get tired of this in thread after thread here. How did they get so clever and original?

Jon and Rachel BOTH work for EVIL corporations!!!
How does righteous Jon feel about MTV enabling and exploiting our children??

Stewart doesn’t take himself as seriously as the MSM. They look to him as the sage of current political events. He looks at himself as a political Jerry Seinfeld. It’s sad that the MSM has placed him on a pedestal because Stewart is a liberal. The difference is that Stewart is not a hater. He is thoughtful and while cutting, not mean spirited. Loved how he took Maddow to task over “teabagging”. She actually believes that she is as funny as he is and models her show after his.

What a joke she is. It’s tough to be a vile, vapid person who believes herself to be an intellectual. Her dishonesty about her hypocracy is stunning.

Righteous Jon has a rally.
A huge theme of his shit rally was gonna be how amazingly peaceful and loving Islam is.
So he invites a terrorist sympathizer to appear……even worse there were UPS bombs floating around the postal system…….2 bombs with the name ISLAM!

I thought the interview was great and will be watching it in it’s unedited form on Rachel’s site in the morning.
One thing in reading and listening to various interviews of Jo is his consistency about who he is and what he does.
Over on HuffPo a lot of liberals bought into the false equivalency thing that never really happened and some posters seemed pissed that Jon had no real intention of stepping out as some liberal leader. As if he’d let them down because he didn’t do what he he’d never said he’d do, but they wanted him to do. I think they forget that just because Jon decided not to step out as an activist , they can still be one, or be involved on some level of making things better.

I just hate it when my liberal parents fight. Stop it! Why can’t you both agree! Who am I supposed to believe? I can’t disagree with Stewart, because then I’d be out-of-touch and not hip with the 18-year-olds and those in media who worship him. But I can’t disagree with Maddow, because then the pseudo-intellectual left will disown me. What am I to do? Can’t they just agree and make this easier for us all?!? I don’t want to have to think for myself!

rocky road said:
She actually believes that she is as funny as he is and models her show after his.

So you got that from her saying she knows that’s not true. Interesting.

Rachel Maddow to Jon Stewart : …….. I’m You.

Jon Stewart to Rachel Maddow : ………Yeah , No.

tigerprez said:
I just hate it when my liberal parents fight. Stop it! Why can’t you both agree! Who am I supposed to believe? I can’t disagree with Stewart, because then I’d be out-of-touch and not hip with the 18-year-olds and those in media who worship him. But I can’t disagree with Maddow, because then the pseudo-intellectual left will disown me. What am I to do? Can’t they just agree and make this easier for us all?!? I don’t want to have to think for myself!

Anybody who was at the rally and or watched it on TV knows the meme that Jon’s fans are all college kids is bullshit.

I felt it was a great show tonight, a very thoughtful and insightful interview.
Policy debate was what I thought would be on the agenda going in, but it was refreshing to get a 1000 foot view of the media and how we all should approach important debates.

Here are my initial thoughts coming out of the broadcast : http://www.doubledutchpolitics.com/

So now it’s Green Acres visiting The Beverly Hillbillies.

murf said:
Never in history has an irrelevant comic , C – list actor , become so influential to soo many other irrelevants.

Glenn Beck on line one for you…..

dummy123 said:
Righteous Jon has a rally.
A huge theme of his shit rally was gonna be how amazingly peaceful and loving Islam is.
So he invites a terrorist sympathizer to appear……even worse there were UPS bombs floating around the postal system…….2 bombs with the name ISLAM!

Never before has a moniker fit someone so well….

Jackie_Treehorn said:
Glenn Beck on line one for you…..

Hang up and call Stewart , he must not have gotten that memo. He felt it necessary to hold a counter-rally to Beck’s.

:)

What an absolutely brilliant interview, or really, what was a real, inspiring discussion between two intelligent adults. This is something that I think is way over the head of the rightwingers who populate this website. Your idea of brilliance is Glen Beck and his blackboard or puppets sharing his nonsensical insights with the angry, huddles masses. You can’t accept that people like Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Gingrich, etc are demagogues who manipulate and play loose with the truth while people like Maddow, Stewart are actually trying to understand and work out a way to live sanely. It’s a shame and that’s the problem. I don’t know what the answers are, but the right has many fewer answers than the left.

murf said:
Hang up and call Stewart , he must not have gotten that memo. He felt it necessary to hold a counter-rally to Beck’s.

:)

Actually I think Beck held the prologue rally, for Jon’s more substantial one.

ganymede said:
I don’t know what the answers are

We know, considering Beck shows more proof on one show , than Maddow does in a week.

CosmosDan said:
Actually I think Beck held the prologue rally, for Jon’s more substantial one.

I guess if you consider satirical Hitler signs , and a much more politically over-toned rally more substantial I agree

I like how the RWers on here say how irrelevant MSNBC is and how nobody watches it, but they all seem to be experts on all the shows that are on it.

I’m an Independant like the vast majority who elect the next president….I for one thought Stewart taught Maddow a good lesson…Stay moderate or you will lose the vast majority of us…

BTW, Rachel was lying. She was VERY dismissive of the Tea Party protests and did try to legitimatize them. And not just their funding the way she claims.
If she is not going to be honest I don’t know why Jon is even wasting her time with her.

I also didn’t like the way she started the show by explaining where she thought Jon was wrong. That is NOT the way you start a debate, that is the way you taint a debate. Jon didn’t get that same chance at the beginning to say “Oh btw, here is where I think Rachel will be wrong”.

She should have saved her fucking “commentary” for the end of the show.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
did try to legitimatize them

“delegitimize”

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
I also didn’t like the way she started the show by explaining where she thought Jon was wrong. That is NOT the way you start a debate, that is the way you taint a debate. Jon didn’t get that same chance at the beginning to say “Oh btw, here is where I think Rachel will be wrong”.

She had to get her Olbermann brown-nosing out of the way. Plain and simple.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
She should have saved her fucking “commentary” for the end of the show.

On second thought she should have just dropped the commentary completely. She had a chance to tell Jon he was wrong straight to his face, same as he did. She shouldn’t have given herself an extra few minutes alone to do it. That is what Fox does, like when Megyn Kelly defended herself against the infamous Kirstin Powers debate THE NEXT DAY. There is no “last licks” in a debate, or first licks.

Chickenshit.

She did say it to his face, repeatedly.

I think he did have a legitimately new and important message, but I think it’s lost on a lot of people. I think the rally did express it “inartfully,” to use his own words, but I think he stated it quite clearly in this interview, and I give Rachel credit for getting him on and pushing him to explain himself.

I think the point he’s making is one that was made a long time ago but which has been run over by the steamroller of a for-profit, monopolized media system. As I interpret it, he’s saying that the 24-hour news cycle has intensified this BS idea that “right vs. left,” “republican vs. democrat,” “conservative vs. liberal” is the story. The reality as he stated it and which I agree with is that it’s “corrupt vs. not corrupt.” Money and power are both corrupters. Big business and the influence it imposes is corruption. Politicians more concerned with keeping the money train going rather than doing their jobs and governing on behalf of the people is corruption. The media’s fixation on the superficial “republican vs. democrat” scenario increases profits and prestige but it doesn’t help the country; it doesn’t serve the public the way a free press as a guarantee of democracy is supposed to.

His comment about the headlines on cable news versus the newspapers goes to the heart of his message.

I am a fan of Rachel’s show because she covers stories that no one else does and does it in a truthful, fact-based way, but she needs to reorient herself in terms of the real fight of corruption vs. not corruption rather than right vs. left because no one in the mainstream corporate media will do it, least of all Fox, but not CNN or any of the others either. The only news sources that are actually a true source for news without potshots, snarkiness and agenda-laden opinion, come from other places, like the BBC or the Financial Times.

whytee said:
She did say it to his face, repeatedly.

Yeah I know, I just don’t think she should have reinforced w/o him.

IMO it was kind of weird to introduce the debate and where she thought Jon was wrong at the same time. Meh.

Great post btw.

I could make a long, somewhat substantive comment about the content of the above clips and even offer a couple of footnotes, but then it’d just get lost in all the commenter name-calling and really wouldn’t be worth the effort because a dialogue wouldn’t form.

Therefore, I’m going to focus on something purely superficial, which has bothered me every time that I’ve heard or have seen Ms. Maddow say something about the “false equivalency” argument or anything defensive about her perception of the rally.

I noticed it the day-of and just went back to review the montages that Colbert played (beginning around 1:37) and I can’t find any Maddow, anywhere. So, though she asserts in the above interview that “none of us are on 24 hours, we’re divided into different programs” (paraphrased), every time she makes the argument or gets defensive on the subject, she’s not reacting to cuts aimed at her as an individual, rather she’s being protective of the group.

I’m thinking Jon could maybe make Maddow jump the fence and play for the other team.

PS) Good interview. It was almost like a defensive Charlie Rose. Thanks for the clips.

Fun show. Glad Rachel devoted the entire hour to it, and I can’t wait to watch the unedited interview when it’s online.

I will say, kudos to Jon for getting through it in his condition. I watched him on his own show last night, and he looked like he was on the verge of death. Aside from him bringing it up, you couldn’t even tell he was sick during this interview.

I will say, I too think Rachel should have just dropped the commentary. They were moments of her defending herself, but she had plenty of opportunity to defend herself WHEN JON WAS IN THE ROOM. Not sure why she waited for him to leave to do that.

Still, it’s a nitpicking thing, and the interview was great, but I just felt the commentaries seemed…. odd.

Dear Rachel,

I know Jon Stewart- Jon Stewart is a good friend of mine. You sir, are no Jon Stewart.

Every time he said “our rally”, I thought I heard him say “O’Reilly”.

He might be very close to what is the essence of humor, at least Yiddish humor, in stating that there’s no honor in what he does but he does it as honorably as he can, trying to deflate the real feelings of frustration people have living in our society. Not sure if that is indeed due to the polarization in politics. If I could pick a dimension, the one and only, it would not be corruption v no corruption, it would be group polarization and -dependence v individual independence and seeking independent confirmation, which is long long long overdue in journalism, humorously or not.

It is interesting to watch Jon’s stature grow in an honorable way as Beck’s stature grows in a dishonorable way.

It makes me proud to be on his side.

Not worth an insult!

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
BTW, Rachel was lying. She was VERY dismissive of the Tea Party protests and did try to legitimatize them. And not just their funding the way she claims.
If she is not going to be honest I don’t know why Jon is even wasting her time with her.

I also didn’t like the way she started the show by explaining where she thought Jon was wrong. That is NOT the way you start a debate, that is the way you taint a debate. Jon didn’t get that same chance at the beginning to say “Oh btw, here is where I think Rachel will be wrong”.

She should have saved her fucking “commentary” for the end of the show.

That was the first thing that jumped out at me. He called her on it, and her whole dismissal of the tea partiers, and she lied. He could have hit her harder on it, but he let it go. He also made the points repeatedly that MSNBC is part of the *problem*, and she just kept denying it. She made the one point that “Keith is making lots of money, how can we recreate that” which is admitting they have gone more hysterical, loud mouth mode.

So far, I am into part three, this is a great interviews. She is living in denial. He is liberal, but he is fair. He even made some good points about the left and their over the top *war criminal* bush is hitler, code pink, Bush is a war criminal (glad he called her out on that) stuff. How can Maddow say unequivocally that Saddam was NOT seeking WMDs?

Still watching, but so far, props to Stewart for politely calling her and MSNBC out for their role in the hyperbole.

Jon is a cowardly liberal too afraid to go all-in!
He is yet another person the lefty media loves and heaps too much praise on.
The guy has one million viewers. The Monday morning hack plays out-of-context clips of the evil media….very brave and courageous.

I need to go back and look into the MSNBC criticism of waterboarding, but I think Stewart is WAY more accurate than Maddow is here. Maddow is totally dismissing and diminishing the MSNBC role in that story. I keep thinking about Olby rants calling Bush a fascist and STFU and all that…

I enjoy how Stewart relates his views about his profession and work. It’s funny, because as a satirist he shows more integrity and humility than any single personality on Fox – an actual news channel. And despite how much Stewart distances himself from practicing journalists, Maddow is right, he is not merely an entertainer or commentator but also an informer. In a way, to many people, he is an authentic newsman – precisely because of the punishing 24-hour sensational news cycle.

jeffnsix said:
Loved the interview with Stewart. Who would have thought that Stewart would out Maddow ( Madcow) for the complete hack that she is. He walked all over her pathetic excuses…LOL

She wanted so badly for Stewart to slam Fox but he was having none of it.

Some_Dude said:
I enjoy how Stewart relates his views about his profession and work. It’s funny, because as a satirist he shows more integrity and humility than any single personality on Fox – an actual news channel. And despite how much Stewart distances himself from practicing journalists, Maddow is right, he is not merely an entertainer or commentator but also an informer. In a way, to many people, he is an authentic newsman – precisely because of the punishing 24-hour sensational news cycle.

He could be called a newsman if he actually “reported” any news. His game is mocking the news people. DOn’t make him out to be any more than he is.

Stewart and Maddow chum the waters with their intellectual thoughts but no one bites!

Would this type of conversation/interview have taken place if the left had won big during the mid-term elections?
Watching the interview again, this is also Jon lecturing the lefty media focusing on MSNBC. This was Jon basically saying what you are doing, what you have done in the past 2 years has helped the Right win big during the mid-terms……and Rachel is in complete denial…;)

Dave Richards said:
She wanted so badly for Stewart to slam Fox but he was having none of it.

he does that quite a bit on his show. Jon has an interesting way of admiring the success of Fox, which is undeniable , while still pointing out the bullshit over and over. He said they were ideological rather than partisan. I think if she had asked him a more direct question about Fox she’d have gotten an honest answer. When Chris Wallace was on his show he asked Jon, “because we tell the truth?” which got a quick “No” from Jon.

Some_Dude said:
I enjoy how Stewart relates his views about his profession and work. It’s funny, because as a satirist he shows more integrity and humility than any single personality on Fox – an actual news channel. And despite how much Stewart distances himself from practicing journalists, Maddow is right, he is not merely an entertainer or commentator but also an informer. In a way, to many people, he is an authentic newsman – precisely because of the punishing 24-hour sensational news cycle.

It was interesting the way he was making the comparison with weather vs climate. I think he was saying his points are much broader and less specific. I’m not sure I agree. I also liked his analogy of shouting from the bleachers and not really in the game. I think the thing that he may have missed is that the timing of his rally, made a lot of people feel that their hero was coming to counter the Beck rally, and that wasn’t his intention. A lot of liberals feel let down.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
It is interesting to watch Jon’s stature grow in an honorable way as Beck’s stature grows in a dishonorable way.

It makes me proud to be on his side.

Watching interviews he’s given I admire the consistency of thought and honesty. Each ones reveals a few new facets that all fit. Unfortunately, reading a thread about the interview on HuffPo, a lot of liberals really wanted and expected him to step out as a leader for the left, and are now critical over what they perceive as his wanting everyone to be in the middle and that whole false equivalency thing.
Even though I lean left I’d be very happy to find a hard working honest Republican who was courageous enough to call out his own side and provide an example of integrity. I actually think our Senators from TN aren’t doing too badly. Bob Corker , still a freshman, has surprised me.

the real john t said:
I like how the RWers on here say how irrelevant MSNBC is and how nobody watches it, but they all seem to be experts on all the shows that are on it.

Kind of like you guys and Fox News….. BOOM!!!

RM to Stewart: “We are in the same game.”

Really? That’s how you see MSNBC?

LOL!

You are one dense lib.

Magister said:
I noticed it the day-of and just went back to review the montages that Colbert played (beginning around 1:37) and I can’t find any Maddow, anywhere. So, though she asserts in the above interview that “none of us are on 24 hours, we’re divided into different programs” (paraphrased), every time she makes the argument or gets defensive on the subject, she’s not reacting to cuts aimed at her as an individual, rather she’s being protective of the group.

And Jon’s point of the amplification effect is well taken. Olberman, Maddow, and then ODonnell, may have their own shows but the political effect is a Megaphone. One thing MSNBC is doing is specials on specific issues which I think is a great use of the network.

whytee said:
The media’s fixation on the superficial “republican vs. democrat” scenario increases profits and prestige but it doesn’t help the country; it doesn’t serve the public the way a free press as a guarantee of democracy is supposed to.

really appreciated your post. I agree, and it’s what I have liked about The Daily show for some time. As the press focuses on the tribal division of red vs blue, corruption remains largely unaddressed. IMO, honest conservatives , liberals, and moderates, can come together and find working compromises that move us forward, but first we have to try and encourage those elected officials who sincerely have the interests of America and Americans at heart rather than their own self interests. Both republicans and Democrats need to put their own house in order.

murf said:
We know, considering Beck shows more proof on one show , than Maddow does in a week.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….wait, you’re serious?

murf said:
I guess if you consider satirical Hitler signs , and a much more politically over-toned rally more substantial I agree

Thanks for seeing I was right.

{actually, I was kidding, more substantial is pretty subjective. the satirical Hitler signs were excellent in showing how stupid it is to go there, something you know who has done more than any other talking head}

It’s just interesting that MSNBC’s reaction to Stewart has been “You’re supposed to be one of us! You’re supposed to be 100% in our corner!”, and Stewart is just saying “Hey, just because I vote for the same people and same policies as you guys, doesn’t mean I want to do my business the same way you do yours, or even particularly agree with how you go about it.”

And it’s really hacking off Keith and Rachel, and I get the feeling that they might just be worried that Stewart, with his influence on the 18-34 year olds, could hurt THEIR image with the 18-34 year olds.

CosmosDan said:
It was interesting the way he was making the comparison with weather vs climate. I think he was saying his points are much broader and less specific. I’m not sure I agree. I also liked his analogy of shouting from the bleachers and not really in the game. I think the thing that he may have missed is that the timing of his rally, made a lot of people feel that their hero was coming to counter the Beck rally, and that wasn’t his intention. A lot of liberals feel let down.

I think part of the problem is everyone was listening to the 24-hour networks to figure out what the rally was about instead of looking at the clip where Jon explained it right when he announced it. I honestly question if the people who look to him as a “leader of the left” really watch the show. If they did, it would be obvious that he’s not.

Dave Richards said:
He could be called a newsman if he actually “reported” any news. His game is mocking the news people. DOn’t make him out to be any more than he is.

That would be a fair point, but to the people I was referring to he is the person they are actually getting this information from. Therefore, although he is parodying the journalists and is essentially an aggregator, he becomes a journalist himself. Especially when he punches wholes in their logic as he relates the news they presented – he legitimatizes them and assumes the role of the educator.

He may not agree, but this is how it is.

CosmosDan said:
It was interesting the way he was making the comparison with weather vs climate. I think he was saying his points are much broader and less specific. I’m not sure I agree. I also liked his analogy of shouting from the bleachers and not really in the game. I think the thing that he may have missed is that the timing of his rally, made a lot of people feel that their hero was coming to counter the Beck rally, and that wasn’t his intention. A lot of liberals feel let down.

Well, if you remember, their initial request was to have Colbert (whose shtick seems to be to make everyone who isn’t firmly on the left look like complete idiots) lead the rally as a direct response to/mock of the Restoring Honor rally (at least, this is the impression that I got from Mediaite).

I think a lot of people (especially people younger than 35) expected something that was more of a direct assault (not that Colbert didn’t try), a more sarcastic and snarky version of the One Nation Rally.

I strongly recommend anyone who enjoyed the interview, go to Maddows blog site, on her MSNBC show site, and watch the uncut version. A lot of good context there was cut for times sake, and watching it commercials free is better.

Kitsune said:
Well, if you remember, their initial request was to have Colbert (whose shtick seems to be to make everyone who isn’t firmly on the left look like complete idiots) lead the rally as a direct response to/mock of the Restoring Honor rally (at least, this is the impression that I got from Mediaite).

I think a lot of people (especially people younger than 35) expected something that was more of a direct assault (not that Colbert didn’t try), a more sarcastic and snarky version of the One Nation Rally.

I’m guessing that they had thought about the rally before the request went out for Stephen to have a rally. I do think the timing, and the truth of what Jon observes about left vs right, had an effect on the perception of the rally. No matter how many times Jon explained that it wasn’t a rally opposing Beck’s, people saw it that way because that’s what they wanted it to be, and then felt let down. The two people I rode with, both over 50, saw it as an anti Beck rally.
I know the left loves to think , we;re the same ones who really want good things, and they’re the crazy ones, but the reality is there are good sincere thoughtful people on both sides {and in the middle} and there are closed minded zealots on both sides. We need to find the discipline to learn how to not be drawn toward language that promotes the divide. It’s a challenge, but I think reasonable people have to participate more and not let the extremes be the primary voices.

moriarty70 said:
I think part of the problem is everyone was listening to the 24-hour networks to figure out what the rally was about instead of looking at the clip where Jon explained it right when he announced it. I honestly question if the people who look to him as a “leader of the left” really watch the show. If they did, it would be obvious that he’s not.

That’s what I thought. I think part of it was the timing, announced soon after Beck’s, but anyone who actually listened to Jon talk about it, ought to have just believed what he was saying.

Kitsune said:
It’s just interesting that MSNBC’s reaction to Stewart has been “You’re supposed to be one of us! You’re supposed to be 100% in our corner!”, and Stewart is just saying “Hey, just because I vote for the same people and same policies as you guys, doesn’t mean I want to do my business the same way you do yours, or even particularly agree with how you go about it.”

And it’s really hacking off Keith and Rachel, and I get the feeling that they might just be worried that Stewart, with his influence on the 18-34 year olds, could hurt THEIR image with the 18-34 year olds.

I think Maher , Maddow, and Olbernan have a real point {articulated by Maddow in this interview} that there’s a difference between protesters saying ugly things and people running for Senate saying them. The mistake was that Jon never did equate the two as equal. His point is that both sides in their own way , promote the red vs blue scenario which is not the only, or even the best approach, and in fact does not really reflect the reality of America and Americans.

CosmosDan said:
I think Maher , Maddow, and Olbernan have a real point {articulated by Maddow in this interview} that there’s a difference between protesters saying ugly things and people running for Senate saying them. The mistake was that Jon never did equate the two as equal. His point is that both sides in their own way , promote the red vs blue scenario which is not the only, or even the best approach, and in fact does not really reflect the reality of America and Americans.

The fact that Fox literally hires Republican candidates and transforms their narrative to make them look good also escaped Stewart.

He is a grest comedian, but he is flagrantly incorrect and naive on so many levels here it’s amazing.

Tonight On MSNBC:

Day 87 of broom to broom Witchcraft coverage!
I wish they would give me more Rand Paul causing planet Earth depression.

What If Fox did nightly jokes questioning Rachel Maddow’s Teabag knowledge?
Because after all exposed male testicles have never been a part of Maddow’s life!
……the leftys would go crazy……GLAD…..NOW….would go NUTS….pun intended!!!

Nuts on the face/mouth of a gay man or woman is amazing daily commentary when it comes from the loony left!

NewsBusters: Jon Stewart Scolds Rachel Maddow and MSNBC for Saying ‘Teabagger’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/12/jon-stewart-scolds-rachel-maddow-and-msnbc-saying-teabagger

sarainitaly said:
She is living in denial.

Sara (who loves America so much that she lives in a foreign country where she benefits from government healthcare) is the last person to accuse anyone of living in denial.

Where would we be without John Stewart

murf said:
Never in history has an irrelevant comic , C – list actor , become so influential to soo many other irrelevants.

You are one of the few people who believe Jon Stewart is irrelevant.

dummy123 said:
Righteous Jon??The guy that plays out-of-content clips of the evil media to make college kids laugh??The guy with a small audience on a COMEDY channel is now Edward R Murrow??

Hey, he has a lot more integrity than a lot of political commentators on both Fox AND MSNBC.

Kitsune said:
It’s just interesting that MSNBC’s reaction to Stewart has been “You’re supposed to be one of us! You’re supposed to be 100% in our corner!”, and Stewart is just saying “Hey, just because I vote for the same people and same policies as you guys, doesn’t mean I want to do my business the same way you do yours, or even particularly agree with how you go about it.”

Very, very well said, Kitsune.

I like Rachel and Stewart both and I appreciated the conversation they had. I have to side with Jon on this one though. The use of teabaggers and being dismissive of the tea party is a part of what the rally was against.

A lot of conservatives on here put politics aside and appreciated what Jon said. This makes stoogedudes happy :)

But for those who are still dismissive of Jon Stewart, note his defense of both Bush and the Tea Party. Yeah, he’s a liberal, and yeah he goes after Fox News quite a bit, but he is fair in who he defends.

This is an hour of television that EVERYONE should watch.

CosmosDan said:
Even though I lean left I’d be very happy to find a hard working honest Republican who was courageous enough to call out his own side and provide an example of integrity. I actually think our Senators from TN aren’t doing too badly. Bob Corker , still a freshman, has surprised me.

Dan, I usually refrain from posting when you are on a thread. Your thoughts are the same as mine, but you say them much better than I. No need to repeat. I pretty much dislike my moniker
as I think that it makes me sound like a fence sitter. Something I don’t really care for. But on the subject of politics, I really feel as you stated here, I would also welcome a hard working honest Republican who was courageous enough to call out his own side and provide an example of integrity. Even though I do lean more to the left in some areas I also think that there are many democrat leaders than need to provide honesty and integrity.

Kitsune said:
I think a lot of people (especially people younger than 35) expected something that was more of a direct assault (not that Colbert didn’t try), a more sarcastic and snarky version of the One Nation Rally.

My thought was when he announced the date of his rally and it was only a couple days from election day, that perhaps part of the reason for that date was to energize the young people to get out there and vote. Young people are less likely to vote in midterm elections, if they vote at all. It’s no secret that Jon leans to the left and this was a concern for the democrats. I also think that young people are more likely to be disgusted with the division and fighting that has now become normal business of the day. I’m not so sure I agree that it was the young people that were hoping he would slam conservatives, I think it was more the middle agers that were looking for that.

sarainitaly said:
That was the first thing that jumped out at me. He called her on it, and her whole dismissal of the tea partiers, and she lied. He could have hit her harder on it, but he let it go. He also made the points repeatedly that MSNBC is part of the *problem*, and she just kept denying it. She made the one point that “Keith is making lots of money, how can we recreate that” which is admitting they have gone more hysterical, loud mouth mode.

So far, I am into part three, this is a great interviews. She is living in denial. He is liberal, but he is fair. He even made some good points about the left and their over the top *war criminal* bush is hitler, code pink, Bush is a war criminal (glad he called her out on that) stuff. How can Maddow say unequivocally that Saddam was NOT seeking WMDs?

Still watching, but so far, props to Stewart for politely calling her and MSNBC out for their role in the hyperbole.

Normally Sara, I don’t agree with some of your posts but I think this is a fair one. I too sat there and hoped he would hit her harder about the hyperbole of MSNBC at times. On a side note, she stated she thought she was more like he, but she sucked at it. Which may explain her giggling and facial expressions. The reason I don’t care for her show. I think she is intelligent and makes good points. I just don’t care for her delivery most of the time. So if in fact she thinks she delivers with humor she does most certainly suck at it. IMO

Some_Dude said:
The fact that Fox literally hires Republican candidates and transforms their narrative to make them look good also escaped Stewart.

He is a grest comedian, but he is flagrantly incorrect and naive on so many levels here it’s amazing.

I’m not sure it escaped him. We just need a more detailed conversation than, “oh that’s wrong”
It’s great to point it out , but as old standards of journalistic integrity begin to vanish we need to have frank detailed discussions about why they are important. Such as , if an action star can run for Governor, why can’t a pundit run for Senator or President? I think we need to be smarter and more consistent to beat the game.
For instance, rather than go specifically after Fox and name them, the WH should have had their media section go after the truth and expressed the need to deliver accurate information to the voters. If you can’t do that because of things you don’t want to admit, don’t blame Fox. I think the commitment needs to be not to a specific ideology or party, but to the truth, and the need for fact based discussions.

MiddleRoader said:
Dan, I usually refrain from posting when you are on a thread. Your thoughts are the same as mine, but you say them much better than I. No need to repeat. I pretty much dislike my moniker
as I think that it makes me sound like a fence sitter. Something I don’t really care for. But on the subject of politics, I really feel as you stated here, I would also welcome a hard working honest Republican who was courageous enough to call out his own side and provide an example of integrity. Even though I do lean more to the left in some areas I also think that there are many democrat leaders than need to provide honesty and integrity.

Thanks for the kind words. I’m sincerely convinced that the left and right and middle all need each other to struggle together to find solutions to real problems, and that’s part of the genius of the system we have, {when it’s working correctly} IMO, that means we honor integrity and the sincere intent to serve the public where we find it, even if we don’t agree with all the person’s ideas. That also means we speak out against corruption and political game playing and cronyism even when it’s someone we might agree with or in our party.

Someone may sincerely believe we’re better off without any welfare programs at all. I disagree, but that disagreement but that doesn’t make either of us evil, or even completely right or wrong. It’s where we start from to work out a solution. The process of honest fact based discussion is how we grow, rather than a goal of proving “I’m right”

Ba-Da-BING!

Stewart exposed Maddow and her fellow “progressives” for being the indoctrinated, ideologically paralyzed demagogues they truly are!

He continuously referenced THEIR fixated adherence to liberal orthodoxy as a principal factor in undermining political discourse in the country. – Did you catch all that Olbermann? lol!

Meanwhile, Rach did everything she could to ingratiate herself to Stewart, perhaps indicating a potential move to the Daily Show – or, that she’ll be playing for the “straight” team from here on in!
LOL!

MiddleRoader said:
I pretty much dislike my moniker
as I think that it makes me sound like a fence sitter.

oh, and I don’t agree. I look at the issues separately and would describe myself as more of a moderate , but that sure doesn’t mean I don’t care. We can and should recognize that politics is a lot about finding working compromises and it’s perfectly acceptable and realistic to do that, and to change our minds while looking at an issue. I think it’s harder to be a middleroader who makes the effort to consider other pov and tries to communicate reasonably , than it is to just throw bombs and name call. IMHO.

CosmosDan said:
Someone may sincerely believe we’re better off without any welfare programs at all. I disagree, but that disagreement but that doesn’t make either of us evil, or even completely right or wrong. It’s where we start from to work out a solution. The process of honest fact based discussion is how we grow, rather than a goal of proving “I’m right”

In relation to welfare, I also agree that it is needed. I can understand to some degree with some of the people that disagree on the premise it should not be a way of life forever. Years ago in my state that was the norm more times than not. There was no time limit and many times it was passed from one generation to another. I’m not totally aware of what all changes have been made but I do know also in my state they do have time limits now. I believe it is two years and then they must have a job, actively seeking a job or higher education. Again, I do not know specifically what happens if this is not done. I would have to research it more. One other problem with safety nets such as this, SSI and SSD etc, there is not enough people to oversee and while many people do not want a bigger government there is less employment of the people that need to oversee and then to oversee them. I don’t have a problem with hiring more people to do the job more effectively. What I do have a problem with is that once you are employed for the govern’t, it is difficult to impossible to be fired. And as a government employee, I and others that do preform our duties to the best of our ability, cannot stand to see all the dead weight that permeates the premises. From low level employees to management. That does need to be changed. And to some degree we do see that happening more so than years ago. There is reform taking place but at a very slow pace.

I do think/hope that most reasonable people understand and hope for more give and take, fairness and accountability. It is not always represented on this blog and I have to remind myself this is a *small* representation of the whole.

valkyrie101 said:
Where would we be without John Stewart

He is so amazing you can’t spell his name correctly!

CosmosDan says:
“Over on HuffPo a lot of liberals bought into the false equivalency thing that never really happened and some posters seemed pissed that Jon had no real intention of stepping out as some liberal leader. ”

Dan, I agree with one caveat: it would not have hurt Jon’s message to discuss voting. Tony Bennett said “vote” after all was done. The weekend before a once every two year election, and the importance of voting (not FOR or AGAINST any party, just VOTING) would have kept Stewart off the playing field as he wanted. It would have increased the importance of his rally too.

Vote!

Was that too much to expect from a “restoring sanity” rally in Washington?

dummy123 said:
He is so amazing you can’t spell his name correctly!

No, I got it right. The way he spells it is gay.

CosmosDan said:
I’m sincerely convinced that the left and right and middle all need each other to struggle together to find solutions to real problems, and that’s part of the genius of the system we have, {when it’s working correctly} IMO, that means we honor integrity and the sincere intent to serve the public where we find it, even if we don’t agree with all the person’s ideas. That also means we speak out against corruption and political game playing and cronyism even when it’s someone we might agree with or in our party.

Someone may sincerely believe we’re better off without any welfare programs at all. I disagree, but that disagreement but that doesn’t make either of us evil, or even completely right or wrong. It’s where we start from to work out a solution. The process of honest fact based discussion is how we grow, rather than a goal of proving “I’m right”

MiddleRoader said:
I do think/hope that most reasonable people understand and hope for more give and take, fairness and accountability. It is not always represented on this blog and I have to remind myself this is a *small* representation of the whole.

I agree with a lot of what you both said here. One of my biggest frustrations with pols in general is the partisan quibbling over how to fix things – I don’t want a partisan solution, I want the right solution. How do we best grow the economy? Is it tax breaks? Is it tax breaks to businesses to incentivize them to bring back the jobs? How do we best get people off welfare? I personally believe in a work for welfare program.

I guess how you think things are best resolved depends on where you stand politically, ie big gov. vs. small gov…. It just baffles me that we don’t have the best minds solving these issues, and getting politicians out of it. All they seem to care about is getting elected…. I think that is one of the reasons I find myself more and more conservative – politicians drive me crazy and I don’t want them having MORE power and control. I also think welfare programs are needed for those in the most dire of situations, but we absolutely need to fix those generational and lifelong welfare recipients. With everything, you will have people who abuse the system, and the bigger and bigger the systems get, the more abuse we see. Look at the fraud they talk about in medicare/aid. They think they can pay for a large portion of Obamacare with Medicare waste? Why the hello do we even have that much waste! And that govt. employees can’t get fired? Outrageous. And don’t even get me started on unions….

Listening to Stossel, I am most definitely not a libertarian because I think we need someone doing checks and balances with industries like food and drug. The problem is, like we saw with the oil/BP thing, is the govt. agencies responsible for doing the C&B’s don’t do their jobs! That’s where the outrage against govt. agencies comes from. People not doing their jobs! SO much money and huge govt. and we still have massive problems….

it’s why i think the Govt. should get out of the *marriage*business. Have contractual civil unions for anyone and everyone, and marriages be between the couple and their church/minister.

Whenever you take emergency training, they teach you to assign responsibility to people around you, whether it be for an emergency door, or another person, because when people take a leadership role, and responsibility for themselves, and others, they step up. That’s why I am big into small government and personal responsibility. I think people do their best when they take ownership of their own lives. I think schools would be so much better if parents were more involved, if they did more volunteering, more mentoring… now it just seems like they are failing because people rely on the schools to teach and babysit and feed, etc. their kids. (one of my fav movies is Lean On Me)

Ok, i could go on and on, but I won’t. This is all over the place, and kind of random nonsense… I am trying to make a point, but not sure if I did.

Oh, I started this thinking about Stewart when he said that the cable chatter shouldn’t be about *left vs. right* but corrupt vs. non-corrupt, or something like that. he is right, and that is where, and you will disagree, but I think this is where Fox gets it right compared to MSNBC. Fox does, IMHO, focus on those types of things (with the right leaning commentary that does focus on the Obama agenda often than not).

But I find MSNBC focuses on just why the Right is wrong. If the liberal MSM ever discusses something the Left did wrong, they almost never label the party… It really does feel like the majority of the time the liberal MSM focuses on why the “Right is wrong”.

ooh, sorry that was kind of long…

It really does feel like the majority of the time the liberal MSM focuses on why the “Right is wrong”.

sara the liberal MSN focuses on why the “Right” is wrong only because the “Right” never will admit when they are wrong. If people on the right would take responsibility for their wrongs maybe I could get along with them. They never admit to being wrong they just twist to make it sound like they were right all along. You surf a lot maybe you can come up with with a Republican took responsibility for something. I will say that I was impressed with Bush on O because he kind of took responsibility for his decisions. I say KINDA only because he was arrogant about it but hey he did it and for that I give him credit.

MiddleRoader you are right on with all of this.
In relation to welfare, I also agree that it is needed. I can understand to some degree with some of the people that disagree on the premise it should not be a way of life forever. Years ago in my state that was the norm more times than not. There was no time limit and many times it was passed from one generation to another. I’m not totally aware of what all changes have been made but I do know also in my state they do have time limits now. I believe it is two years and then they must have a job, actively seeking a job or higher education. Again, I do not know specifically what happens if this is not done. I would have to research it more. One other problem with safety nets such as this, SSI and SSD etc, there is not enough people to oversee and while many people do not want a bigger government there is less employment of the people that need to oversee and then to oversee them. I don’t have a problem with hiring more people to do the job more effectively. What I do have a problem with is that once you are employed for the govern’t, it is difficult to impossible to be fired. And as a government employee, I and others that do preform our duties to the best of our ability, cannot stand to see all the dead weight that permeates the premises. From low level employees to management. That does need to be changed. And to some degree we do see that happening more so than years ago. There is reform taking place but at a very slow pace.

I do think/hope that most reasonable people understand and hope for more give and take, fairness and accountability. It is not always represented on this blog and I have to remind myself this is a *small* representation of the whole.

I think that finally state government is doing much better at getting rid of the dead wood but it has taken a long time. Government does take forevr to do anything. What problem I have now that they have (most states) done away with welfare for ever is that many of these people are collecting SSI.

Lets give the conservatives a choice. Either pay government workers( or contractors) to weed out the cheaters. I would bet that it is cheaper to let them cheat than it is to hire compentent people to deal with the problem. Now that is NO excuse as far as I am concerned. There is such a waste in all governments. I know I worked for one for 30 years. That is my problem with BIG government. To much waste that could be used in so much better ways. To much work to little people and time and it was only getting worse. When I first went to work the agency had 25,000 employees. When I left that same organization had 12,000 but they also used a lot of contractrors. Although when it is contractolrs you don’t have to provide retirements and benfits so it does save money.

I have yet to see anyone in state/federal government anything about the waste because the people in congress could care less. They are the spoiled workers.

BlackWidow said:
the liberal MSN focuses on why the “Right” is wrong only because the “Right” never will admit when they are wrong. If people on the right would take responsibility for their wrongs maybe I could get along with them.

Cheney admits he was wrong:
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070731_cheney_admits_he_was_wrong/
Rove admits he was wrong:
http://angrywhitedude.com/?p=3508
Bush admits he was wrong:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-12-13/news/bush-admits-he-was-wrong/
Bill O’Reily admits he was wrong:
http://www.seattlepi.com/tv/160422_oreilly13.html
Jan Brewer admits she was wrong:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/04/jan-brewer-admits-she-was_0_n_705722.html
Rush Limbaugh admits he was wrong:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022510/content/01125109.guest.html
Michelle Bachmann admits she was wrong
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/03/michele_bachman_59.php
Glenn Beck admits he was wrong:
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/glenn-beck-s-week-of-corrections-part-one-video
Sean Hannity admits he was wrong:
http://www.fancast.com/blogs/2009/tv-news/fox-news-sean-hannity-admits-jon-stewart-was-right/
Joe Miller admits he was wrong:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/126013-in-documents-republican-joe-miller-admits-he-lied-to-former-employer
Mark Sanford admits he was wrong:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8117807.stm

sarainitaly says:
“It just baffles me that we don’t have the best minds solving these issues, and getting politicians out of it. All they seem to care about is getting elected…. I think that is one of the reasons I find myself more and more conservative”

What makes you think that conservatives don’t want to get re-elected? If you want solutions to problems, then you should be getting more and more liberal. Conservatives don’t have real solutions to problems. Reformers (liberals) are the people who solve problems. Conservatives are corporate shills; reformers will step on corporate toes if needed to get solutions.

Part of the problem, Sara, is the democratic nature of our Republic. It always involves compromise, so we don’t get the best solutions. We get the best that compromise allows. Crappy solutions are part of the system until we dump the least bad system of gov’t (democratic orders — see Aristotle) and accept a more effective form of gov’t (philosopher king — See Plato). The philosopher king could offer compromise-free solutions to the debt, to unemployment, to climate change, to virtually all problems. Then, no one would be happy. (Who the hell wants a king?)

Please note: I can respect the baffled Sara much more than the strident, partisan Sara who makes claims like the nonsense we hear on FoxPAC.

what GBR?

what cjd ohio 1?

Sara was baffled; I was explaining the sloppy, baffling nature of democratic orders. This discussion goes back at least to ancient Greek philosophers.

You left out my main points in your clever little editing job – that dems want more and more government involvement, larger government. i want smaller, smaller, smaller – thus have become more conservative.

sarainitaly says:

“If the liberal MSM ever discusses something the Left did wrong, they almost never label the party… It really does feel like the majority of the time the liberal MSM focuses on why the ‘Right is wrong’.”

1) MSM does label the Dems when they’re called out a wrong about something, but not every time. Fox on the other hand, doesn’t criticize Republicans. They never took issue with Bush when he was in power. They are far more biased to the right than MSM (excluding MSNBC) is biased by liberal thinking.

2) Maybe MSM focuses on why the right is “wrong” because they lie far more often. If by “wrong” you mean inaccurate, that’s why. MSM will point to when Dems or the President gets things wrong; ut just happens far less often.

Sara, do yourself a favor and subscribe to MRC (conservative media watchdogs) AND Media Matters for America (liberal media watchdogs). You’ll have a better understanding of the distinction between bias and deception.