Watch this show, the interview was great.
The line about fearing fascism had me rolling. Of course despite the shouting, this was probably very good for Matthews’ book sales.
I liked the new mock feature: Specularium(sp?)
Jim
…bump…
If nothing else, the interview is worth it for the line: “I’m not trashing your book, I’m trashing your philosophy on life."
Specularium was way too unfocused.
Daily show jumped the shark back when Cordry, Helms and Colbert left.
Now I am going to have to keep on the look out for John showing up on Hardball. I would like to see him pull a Crossfire on Matthews.
That was great.
I thought Matthews handled Jon’s derision pretty well. I don’t know about you, but when people laugh at something I’m trying to explain or defend, I get ticked.
That said, it does sound like the book is indeed a “recipe for sadness” and it probably deserves all the fun Jon poked at it.
They don’t need to do the Specularium again.
I watched this one in a cluster of earlier shows, and laughed my butt off at John Oliver ignoring the man from Morgan State. That was hysterical.
The Specularium really needed to be called The Speculum.
I loved this episode. Jon had a comeback when Matthews tried to avoid the moral emptiness of his book by saying “That book has already been written. It’s called the Bible.” Jon’s comeback: “This book has been written too. It’s called The Prince.”
Matthews, pathetically: “But this one is better.”
Yeah, Chris, suuuuuure it is. :rolleyes:
I just looked at this. This is so darn strange! And I thought his interview with Roger Ebert- in which they talked about Jon’s role in Doogal and which of the Ninja Turtles would win in a fight- was the wackiest interview Jon could ever get into. Boy, was I wrong!
I saw this online. I think Jon was playing hardball with Chris. It was funny to me.
>“This book has been written too. It’s called The Prince.”
>Matthews, pathetically: “But this one is better.”
Aw. I want to read the Matthews book. I liked “Let me tell you what I really think” and always enjoy his shows. Well, except when he fawns over Ann Coulter, I still don’t get that. But in general, I mean.
“The Prince” wasn’t so allfired great. It was new, to write down all these strategies and tactics, and certainly seemed plausibly correct in its per se teachings, as far as they went, to this unsophisticated reader. It was written as a gift to a prince, and certainly has the flavor I’d expect of the oral conversations princes were no doubt already having with their more jaded and cynical elders. But other than being the first to catalog political tactics, and other than being the very stuff of cynicism, why is The Prince going to be better than a Matthews book?
Are you serious? It isn’t a dialogue of “the very stuff of cynicism”, it is quite possibly the best attempt at describing the distilled levers of power. Have to even read it?
tag