Wow, Stewart Is Really Underwhelming

[KingOfLostSouls]

in trying to restore sanity and moderation, seems like jon is excusing things in the sake of moderation.


um, sorry jon, bush did lie and his administration did evil things, many of which will have long term effects on the lives of millions upon millions of people. iraq wasn't some success, its a satellite state for iran basically. hurricane katrina? waterboarding WAS evil and wrong, and it didn't do anything, the FBI didn't even want it done since it damages evidence.

moderation is great when you're dealing with moderate people, not war criminals, madmen, and teabaggers. you can't really compare the truth tellers to the liars, and sometimes there really isn't two sides to the argument.

[DontTreadOnMe]

1. "criminals, madmen, and teabaggers"

Sound like a good name for a new rock band. :)

[Oceansaway]

2. such fugging hype over this lame

interview ?


edit...and the whole fugging show...

[MadMaddie]

3. You have nailed it!

<snip>
in trying to restore sanity and moderation, seems like jon is excusing things in the sake of moderation.
<snip>

This is exactly what is wrong with his theory.

In my mind if someone is kicking you in the face you better figure out a way to knock them off their feet to get an equal fighting ground.

I am tired of him comparing Rachal to Faux..

[KingOfLostSouls]

5. yup

you don't see liberals stepping on women's heads.

if you're outraged and have the facts, you have a reason to be.

if you're outraged because you believe glenn beck, you're an idiot.

[alfredo]

4. He is suffering from the intestinal flu, so yeah he is not at

his best right now.

[PufPuf23]

14. He compared himself to the Smothers Brothers and Bill Maher

Felt very mixed about the interview in emotion.

Wish Stewart had not been so stiff but the flu mitigates.

Rachel and Jon are professionals.

Stewart likes Maddow.

November so far has me flummoxed me except I liked my votes in California as every candidate from county district supervisor to state rep to state Senator to US Rep to Governor (Jerry Brown is a competent pol at governing and smart and more often than not liberal) and the State Democratic ticket sweep esp Bowen. I was disappointed in some of the referendums, notably pot and state park funding. I voted yes for pot but thought it flawed legislation.

Ooops OT but I don't post much and I do feel more positive for California and that generally we are a good influence on the USA.

[alfredo]

15. I think the interview went well.

Every candidate I voted for won except for the big one, the Senate race between Conway and Paul.

[nashville_brook]

6. he's confusing real people's resistance to the war with the Koch Bro's subsidized teabaggers

just b/c it looks that way on the teevee box. he's been watching too much FOX.

[KingOfLostSouls]

8. yeah

I think he's jumped the shark.

I'd say a fair share of the daily shows viewers are liberals and democrats, its like attacking us for being the "professional left."

we're not the ones stepping on women's heads or who believe in death panels and shit.

[nashville_brook]

13. it's classic comic anxiety -- that you might lose your mojo if you let your real feelings show.

it's pretty hacky, too. the best comedy is fearless and naked. it's like he doesn't want to confront the realities of our world b/c that might make him seem too angry ergo less funny, ergo less powerful in what he does.

[Mojambo]

7. I think Jon Stewart would kind of just like to go back to doing the funny

I think I'd like that too.

[deutsey]

31. I think he and Colbert stumbled onto their rallies initially as a joke

that had a serious undertone, which is what some of their best moments on TV are.

I think they should've retained that approach with the rally...another satirical "joke" that had a serious underlying message, and then just go on with the show (kind of like Colbert did with his speech at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner).

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. Beck's rally led many on the internets to suggest a counter-rally.

When TDS/TCR picked up on it I think many thought they'd take a different tone than they wound up taking.

[RoccoR5955]

9. He's a regular snoozefest. n/t

[Raschel]

10. I agree.

[rusty charly]

11. He's rationalizing.

Big time.

[skip2]

12. now I'm sick..someone hold my hair back, please.

horrible.. like a watered down Charlie freakin Rose episode (and that's saying something)..a co-ego-strokefest in the Twilight Zone. And Rachel was hideously obsequious.

The Daily Show at its best was a million times darker, sharper and funnier than Seinfeld at his peak AND it was about real things that had happened. The only answer to this freakishness that makes any sense is that an amazing key writer has left in the last year and whoever's left is letting Jon make it all about him.

[SoCalDem]

23. Welcome skip2

:hi:

I never liked Seinfeld.. he was my least favorite "character" on his show:)

I think Jon should have not gone to see rachel.. He muddied the water, and added nothing to the mix..

[Major Hogwash]

16. It was sad to watch.

He's not nearly as smart as I thought he was.
He was there, with no net, but he still failed to measure up to the level of dialogue I thought he would have with Rachel.

She is intimidating, smarter than anyone I know personally, a Rhodes scholar and you could see that she felt sorry for him. She was nice, and didn't rip his jugular vein out of his neck, but she could have, so you have to respect her for restraining herself.

Rachel is an amazing person, such a good heart.

[donheld]

17. Sorry, I couldn't watch it all. Too sickening.

[shireen]

18. he was really sick

he should not have done the interview today. he was clearly not at his best. i have a feeling that he's regretting some of the things he said.

i can empathize with that ... i've said dumb stupid things when i was sick because my brain was totally scrambled.

Get well soon, Jon.

[shireen]

19. deleted duplicate. nt

[PerpetuallyDazed]

20. Stewart was definitely in over this head on that Bush question

While I'll continue to be a staunch defender of the Rally for Sanity (I was there, loved it, saw beyond the "false equivalency" indictments), his interview w/ Maddow changed my opinion of him. He definitely lost me on that one.

On defending Bush's rationales for going into Iraq: Stewart's argument was incoherent and I kept asking my hubby to explain exactly what he had just said?? At one point Stewart made a comment/analogy pertaining to his 6 year old son "planning on buying a car" -- and he totally missed the point. This is the kind of Neocon ideology that got us into Iraq and continues to actively engage us in wars overseas: "They MIGHT be accumulating WMD ("mushroom clouds, oh noes!") so we need to STRIKE PREEMPTIVELY in defense!"

I have not heard consistently on the news the "Bush is evil" mantra Stewart claims has come from the left. I don't think Bush is evil; I think he's definitely psychotic (think sister-fetus in a jar). This is a sentiment shared by many sane people, without turning it into an epic "good vs. evil" argument. In many ways, it's similarly "crazy" Obama has not pushed for war crimes investigation regarding the former regime ("let's look forward, not backwards," he says).

But are all of these actions "evil"? No, Jon, but they certainly are out of the realm of what is held to be normal and moral by the consensus of Americans.

(Edited for clarity)

[DirkGently]

21. I took his points, sick or no. It's not his job to conclude Bush is evil. That's not satire.

As he said, Stewart's job is not to "take the field" in a battle over between liberals and conservatives. He is practicing a very specific art form that involves pointing out the ridiculous. If starts explaining everything, the whole thing falls apart. We, the viewer, may notice that, for example, the "Rally to Restore Sanity" was notably bereft of conservative participants.

But if he SAYS that, he's now telling us what he thinks, when he's supposed to be showing us. His filter is comedy. If you're silly, you get nailed. It's funny because it's true, and to the extent it's true.

I agree that Stewart's strained recently trying to demonstrate that he's willing to see the ridiculous in liberal punditry -- the jab at Rachel over her Haiti story was a head scratcher. It also fell flat comedically, because Rachel wasn't being ridiculous.

But false equivalency is a two-way street. It's not like Fox and MSNBC are equal targets on the Daily Show.

Stewart's job is to ruthlessly point out the ridiculous, period. He's not supposed to stop in the middle and reassure everyone that he understands that Keith being a bit shrill or melodramtic is not the same as Glenn Beck outlining the liberal conspiracy to destroy America. People are supposed to be *smart enough* to understand that. If he has to stop and say it, it stops being comedy and becomes punditry therefore not effective in the same way.

We have enough pundits. Jettisoning a brilliant satirist for not toeing an ideological line to everyone's satisfaction rather misses the point of the joke.

[no limit]

22. Is Obama evil and wrong for continuing rendition?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

24. moderation is great when you're dealing with moderate people

that is a great line, such a truth that is forgotten in this time of false equivalencies.

I'd ask to "borrow" it for a new sig line, but I'm not ready to part with mine. ;)

[pacalo]

25. No, he just revealed himself to be out of his territory.

He's good at the comedic role he plays & he's very popular because he's laid out the idiotic irony of the Twilight Zone we've been in since the SCOTUS put Bush's cabal in the White House -- though he seems to be unaware of where his popularity came from now. That's the impression I got from the interview: he's out of his element when discussing our country's predicament as Jon Stewart, the person.

Stewart the person believes we should all hold hands, sing Kumbaya, stop calling teabaggers "teabaggers" because "it's derogatory", & Fox News doesn't lie but simply strives for higher ratings.

Other than that, I saw a man with an overblown sense of importance pontificating in incoherent circles, seemingly trying to school a patient Rachel Maddow, a Rhodes scholar, about her not doing the news the way it should be done.

Blah.

[no limit]

26. "Stewart the person believes we should all hold hands, sing Kumbaya"

Give me a break. Never does Stewart advocate holding hands and singing Kumbaya. His only point is not to approach arguments from the point of view of left vs right. Which is what our cable news networks do.

Your characterization of what he said is either arrogant or totally dishonest. And I can't believe that some one so important in our national debate has been thrown under the bus by the majority of DU because he dared to point out that the left has a few minor problems too that they could work on. It really is disheartening.

[pacalo]

27. He shouldn't have done the interview. I know he had the flu & wasn't at his best

but he was incoherent to me, talking in circles. Want to talk about arrogance? My idea of arrogance is the way he came off in a smug, egotistical manner of sage wisdom, pontificating to Rachel as if he were schooling her & MSNBC.

Jon has the goods on comedic timing & delivery, but it may very well be his writers that deserve at least as much of the credit for the good done by The Daily Show.

That, of course, is my opinion, just as my previous post was.

[no limit]

28. But see, now you are getting off the points he was making and attacking him personally

you think that is fair?

You earlier stated he wanted all of us to hold hands, he doesn't. And you are right, the fact he felt like shit during that interview probably made his points harder to grasp. But his points were there, especially if you watch the unedited interview. And I think the reason he didn't cancel the interview was for two reasons, he was dead serious about addressing Maddow's and Keith's criticism dead on (which I think we can all respect) and he wanted to be fair to Maddow. She had scheduled him for an entire hour of his show and to reschedule would have been a real problem for her logistically.

The one main thing I got from the interview was the point Stewart kept making about MSNBC and many on the left defending themselves from criticism that wasn't made. Rachel Maddow kept insisting Stewart was saying that MSNBC and Fox both the same. He kept trying to get her to explain when he actually made such a suggestion and she couldn't. Yet she kept repeating it. A lot of people have it stuck in their head that he was saying Fox and MSNBC are exactly the same but they can't point to a single example.

[pacalo]

29. Your first paragraph is very convincing & maybe I was too harsh.

I didn't see the unedited interview, so maybe I will -- I want to be fair. I do love Jon Stewart in his own venue & he's been very valuable in pointing out hypocrisy, bad faith, & poor leadership.

Perhaps I fear most what he did to "Crossfire". Sure enough, Keith O's boss seemed to take advantage of the mood created by Stewart's comparison (that's what I was thinking at the time; perhaps I was wrong) & suspended Keith. Keith is as valuable as Jon, & it sickens me to see the two of them pitted against each other on DU. If it were Jon who had been attacked & undermined by Keith, I'd be defending Jon.

Just wanted you to know where I'm coming from. Sometimes I get carried away with my choice of (harsh) words when I'm angry, but my pride is in being fair. I'll take a look at the unedited interview.

:hi:

[no limit]

30. The thing is that this beef between Keith and Jon only exists here on DU

and some other places. But it does not exist in real life. You could tell from Stewart's interview that he respect's Keith. And you could tell from Keith's criticism of the rally that he repsects Jon Stewart. And the one time they disagree some people on DU and other liberal outlets literally lost their shit. It is sad.

I think what Jon Stewart did to crossfire was fair, and I think you might be right about the MSNBC management but Jon Stewart is hardly to blame for that. Crossfire was a horrible show in the sense it made the opinion of Tucker Carlson just as valid as the opinion of anyone else. It was not a battle of great minds, it was a battle of partisan hacks.

Let me know what you think of the unedited interview. Rachel Maddow had to cut certain parts because of the time constraints she had, so the unedited interview is well worth the watch.