Wouldn’t know, as I don’t watch Fox News (except for War Stories) at night.
Tonight Jon actually begged some RNC bigwig to put GWB on the show. I doubt he will, but I’d love to see that.
I get it by satellite in California, and see it either at 8 pm or 10 pm here - so I suspect they do rerun at 1 am in the East.
That was the chairman, Gillespy (sp?) That was great. What was even greater was how Jon shot down pretty much all his arguments against Kerry.
If someone knows of a transcript to that, I’d love to see it.
Best bit out of that interview: (much paraphrased)
People accuse of of being a liberal show, but considering that the republicans control the house, the senate, the majority of the governership (etc). It’s only natural that we’d go after the Harlem Globetrotters not the Washington Generals.
Jon was really pleading for Bush to come on, even egging Gillespy on about Bush’s motives for not appearing: It isn’t because he hates young people, is it?
God damn I love that show…
I thought Kerry seemed put off by the audience. He seldom looked at them, and seemed to acknowledge their rather hysterical adulation mostly with wincing and other pained facial expressions. Stewart, of course, played the role of his bitch, asking not a single hard question. It is obvious that, were Bush the guest, Stewart would have difficulty containing his revulsion. Not that I blame him. It isn’t the sycophantic leftward tilt that I mind; it is the sanctimonious pretense that none exists.
Out of curiosity, what tough questions should Stewart have asked Kerry? I think anything about the whole Swiftboat/Vietnam thing is done to death, so it was appropriate to joke about it. I would have liked to see him ask what Kerry’s plan for Iraq really is. I would have liked Kerry to explain precisely what he intends to do about job creation (I don’t believe that any president actually directly influences job creation, but his fiscal policies certainly influence job creation). Of course the direct responses would have been canned and boring. What might have been interesting would be follow ups to the responses. But I don’t know that this tact would have played well with the Daily Show’s core audience.
What would you have asked?
Many of you are confusing Stewart with a real news interviewer again. He’s not. In fact, a few years ago you’d hardly ever see actual newsmakers, reporters, or pundits on the show. He’s not a lefty O’Reilly. He’s Leno with more politicians on the show. It’s not his fault that he’s still a better interviewer than many professesional pundits.
I don’t think he pretends to not have opinions during his interviews. If he agrees with you, he’s not going to construct some point of debate where none exists. Likewise, if he disagrees, he’s not going to shove that aside. He only goes into attack mode (as opposed to the civil disagreement such as we saw with Gillespie last night) if something you say really pisses him off, such as bring tired bullshit on his show (the most vicious attack I can recall was against John Stossel, I’m convinced that they must have fought offstage before filming or something, that was nasty). Or if you’re on to plug a really shitty movie. Otherwise, he’ll ask some not particularly hard questions and go on comic riffs.
As for the news segments and monologue, I think that is more of a case of the Globetrotters versus the Generals. Other than the Kerry campaign (which he does mock) liberals just aren’t doing much newsworthy these days.
I will say this about his Kerry (and Clinton) interview. I’m disappointed that he wasted interviews with the last and potentially next president (arguably the biggest interviews he’s had) talking about this Swift Boat nonsense. I don’t think he should have grilled Kerry (hell, I think that if he does have Bush he’ll mostly roll over there too, out of respect for the office and fear of never having a big name political guest again), but he should have at least asked him *something * about his plans, or his personal life, or anything other than those stupid ads that everyone is so obsessed over.
I’d love to see GWB on the show; in fact, every sitting President ought to have to sit down and be publicly ridiculed. Bush doesn’t react well to satire; back in 1999, as you’ll recall, he tried to shut down www.gwbush.com because it made fun of him. He said at the time, “There ought to be limits to freedom.” That’s our Prez.
Oh, you mean the same way that Kerry is threatening to sue TV stations that play the Swift Boat ads and trying to pressure booksellers not to carry Unfit for Command? That same way?
Please. There is a difference between satire meant to amuse and entertain, and an outright attempt to damage a reputation. I don’t know anything about the website mentioned above, but if it was about “making fun” of GWB, that is a very, very different situation than the crap the Swifties are trying to perpetrate.
Yes it is…they were in Vietnam, got decorated and served with Kerry. Therefore they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are telling the truth, unlike the idiots who simply pull shit out of their ass in an idiotic attempt to mock the president.
Again, this is not about whether they are telling the truth. It is about the fact that they are purposefully trying to damage Kerry’s reputation. Given their intent - which is different that “silly” satire - a person who feels they have been libelled can sue. It just so happens that this is hard to do as a public official.
But you do see the difference, I hope - if that website is the internet equivalent of an absurd SNL skit, it is a far different proposition than someone saying “I was there and he is a lying, bad man.” If the butt of a joke disagrees with the satire, the best they can do is try to shrug it off so they don’t look like they lack a sense of humor; if the accused diagrees with the serious statements, legal recourse might be pursued…
Benefit of the doubt? I know this isn’t great debates, so I’ll try and keep the bickering to a minimum… But you might want to check out some of the articles at factcheck.org which essentially show how the SVBTs are working for the republicans by proxy to attack Kerry’s strengths with outright lies. The media has largely given them more than their fare share of coverage despite the overwhelming evidence that they deserve anything but the benefit of the doubt.
This is a good bit different than some random webpage that makes fun of the president.
A few direct links to factchecks’ articles:
http://factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docid=243
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=231
http://factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docid=245
On the lies of John O’Neill, the founder of SWVTs, here’s a good site worth reading, too:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250002
You can say that again. The truth is the furthest thing from Kerry’s and Stewart’s minds.
No, actually the media ONLY began giving them coverage once Kerry made a stink about them. Before that, hardly anyone had heard of them.
Again, this whole arguing thing is probably more suited to great debates or even the pit, but I if I recall correctly, Kerry was slow to denounce the ads in any sort of major way, consequently the media ran wild with stories based on lies. Now something like 50% of undecided voters apparantly think that their might be some truth to these ads, even though they’ve been almost entirely debunked.
If you have a cite to how this blew up only after Kerry desputed it, I’d be happy to read it.
I don’t know what your refering to, but it just sounds like bitter grapes, honestly.
No, actually they haven’t been debunked at all. The only documentation found to contradict them was either partly or wholly contributed to by Kerry himself.
[QUOTE}
I don’t know what your refering to, but it just sounds like bitter grapes, honestly.[/QUOTE]
No, just facts.
Well, for starters…
[ul]
[li] Why all the coyness and nitpicking about medals versus ribbons?[/li][li] Did you really think American soldiers commited atrocities on a day to day basis in Vietnam?[/li][li] How will you implement your economic plans if you get a Republican Congress?[/li][li] Who were the world leaders you said you had spoken to that wanted you elected?[/li][li] Are you willing to ask Move-On Dot Org right now to drop its political ads?[/li][li] Why did you attend only 76% of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s public hearings?[/li][/ul]
Correction: 24%.