He stayed on message the same way Bush’s people do: he ignored questions and said whatever he wanted, and he talked in circles. Who says the Democrats should do that? I thought “stay on message” meant don’t equivocate, don’t talk over people’s heads and come across as a wimp.
It’s bad television and it’s annoying no matter who does it. It was made worse by the way that Jon let him do it.
Nevertheless, it’s a more accurate statement than “the Democrats ended the war.”
I heard some of this interview on Fresh Air while driving home, and Kennedy used almost exactly the same words on the DS. He had a message, and wasn’t going to let any lame Stewart jokes get in the way.
But neither is very accurate. How about “open rebellion and the threat of revolution ended the war?”
No, it isn’t. To be really “accurate”, Ford ended the war. Nixon prolonged the war. The Democrat controlled congress pushed for the war to wind down. If the Rebublicans controlled congress in addition to the presidency the war would have gone on longer, produced more casualties on both sides, and ended up with the same result.
Opposition to the war was the key definer of political sides in the late 60s and early 70s. Nixon was on the pro-war side and Democrats were on the anti-war side.
Fine, if you slap on the temporal qualifier, i.e. “after January 1969, Nixon was pro-war and the Democrats were anti-war”. Anything prior to that, presumably, is the responsibility of the Democrat Johnson administration.
I’d like to see the matter treated evenhandedly, is all. Ted Kennedy’s statement is preposterous on its face and can only be salvaged by adding on a layer or two explanation and clarification. It was an off-the-cuff interview, so I’m not going to bent out of shape about Kennedy. I did lose a little respect for Stewart for not pouncing on it, though.
Yeah, bad for the TV watching public, good for the politico’s purpose. He (like most guests)was there to meet his own needs(getting his POV across, I gather), not the viewer’s. If the political guests on the DS come across as charming raconteurs it’s because that’s what their message is-" I’m a swell dude. Wouldn’t you like to have a beer with me? A guy you’d have a beer with would never support legislation that endangered your rights/wallet/job/daughter/etc!" Then when your rights/job/daughter take it in the shorts you(generic) don’t put 2+2 together until well into the second administration. 'cause we don’t want to think ill of someone we like and trust. They go on the show to build trust with the audience/market/voters.
"Staying on message’ means to give the answer to the question you wanted, not the one you got. I don’t like it either, but repeating and repeating what you want them to think works*.
I did about cough up a hairball when he said democrats got the US out of Vietnam. Yes, and who was running the show when y’all went in? Hmm? 
*well, if you were half inclined to believe it already.
Sure, I understand that. (And I realize this is getting off-topic.) But if the Democrats just want to damage the country in the same way the current Republicans are damaging it - which is what I think when they copy their stay on message/talking points bullshit - why should I bother to vote for them? For my health?
Consider that you may be more savvy than most.
Well, what the message is should be more important than how it’s delivered - though I’m not sure if that’s true in the US today. It seems that if you don’t stay on message the majority of the country won’t be aware that you have a message.