You’re leaving out the most obvious explanation. Maddow is full of shit. She’s smart, but w it comes to partisanship, she’s no different than Hannity or Olberman.
I’m looking into more of the quotes by Stewart and the background of the rally and you’re right. Maher’s assertion was not what Stewart said or implied.
I used to be a big fan of Maher, but he’s gotten sloppy and/or dishonest. In every show he presents stuff that is factually incorrect.
By the way, I watched that show, too. Gillespi tried to straighten out the record that Fast & Furious was 1) not a Bush program and 2) not the same as the gun programs undertaken while he was in office.
He didn’t. It was a brief mention, to be sure, but I heard it.
For some reason I can’t find it at the moment, but I’ll keep looking.
Same here. I agree with him on a lot of points but I was very surprised at how he addressed the issue of SOPA.
I don’t know how accurate the wikipedia article was but supposedly Operation Wide Receiver which was the original “gun walking” operation during W’s presidency, was in cooperation with the Mexican government but for whatever reason, was discontinued in 2007.
Operation Fast & Furious was started in 2009 under the Obama administration but without the cooperation or knowledge of the Mexican government.
I think another key part of the story is how was the ATF was tracking the guns or intending to track them in both WR and FF.
Is it truly beyond the realm of possibility that Stewart is simply expressing his genuine opinion? That is, most of the time he’s frustrated by what he sees going on on the right, but he’s also capable of being frustrated when his own party does wrong? Is that really overly naive? Must we impute layer upon layer of cynical manipulation to explain his behavior?
From what I’ve come to understand, there was no tracking in F&F.
But it is important to keep in mind—and to bang into Maddow’s head with an anvil—that what is going on with Holder now is not about the actual operation. It’s about who authorized it, who misled congress and why, and why the fuck Holder is so intent in not showing congress what they feel they need to see. And the fact that Obama jumped in makes it all the more strange and suspicious, especially since there was no accusation they he had anything to do with it.
The missing portion of all this is the slur making its way about it rightarded circles to the effect that Obama planned to fail, with the intent of making the firearm situation in Mexico so hideously bad that Americans would support the gun confiscation agenda of Obama.
And no, I am not making this up. Wish I were.
Did John Stewart imply this or make a pro-conservative joke about it? Again, I’m not seeing how any of this supports the assertion that JS is ‘pandering to conservatives’, which is the topic of the thread. I have no doubts that some crazy folks are always going to spin things to make a president they politically disagree with look as bad as possible, but I’m not seeing the part where JS is doing anything but what he usually does, namely political humor.
-XT
Not Stewart. Rachel Maddow. On the Bill Maher show, and perhaps elsewhere.
Here Issa wonders if the goal of Operation: Fast and Furious was to sway public opinion to support restricting gun rights, and a general attack on the 2nd amendment.
I agree with people on the left who believe that Republicans are exploiting the issue and indulging in conspiracy theories in an attempt to make the Obama administration look bad and hurt him in the upcoming election.
However, the story was not started by some right wing blogger with a conspiracy theory that FOX News decided to run with but was originally broke by CBS in 2011. Also, just arguing that “Well, Fast & Furious was a program started by Bush that the Obama administration merely inherited before shutting down” is biased and incorrect.
There’s 3 sides to every story: your side, their side, and the truth.
Short answer: no. Jon Stewart saw something he didn’t like, and he made fun of it. He doesn’t pander, he just talks about what he believes. He is a moderate liberal in a political environment where the voice of the moderate has been drowned out by the shouting on both sides, with an audience that is far more lock-step liberal than he is.
It frustrates me no end when liberals try to claim Jon Stewart for “one of their own.” Jon Stewart takes jabs at things he finds ridiculous. He does tend to find more ridiculousness in the right than in the left, but it’s not like he has some system where he decides it’s time to lay off the right and make fun of the left for a while.
Both lefties and righties tend to lump him in with Maddow, Maher, Olberman, etc., but he really is a different animal. He’s not against “the right,” he’s against hypocrisy and corruption. His own political bent may make him less likely to perceive hypocrisy and corruption on the left, but it’s not because he is “on their team.” Likewise, when he does criticize something the current administration does, it’s not some attempt to pander or to reinforce his credentials as a neutral party; it’s because he holds beliefs as an individual. In his mind, he is not criticizing “the left,” he’s criticizing a specific activity without regard to which side did it.
Sometimes I really hate the Daily Show audience for being so lock-step liberal. Jon Stewart will sometimes do bits where he agrees with a criticism of the left from the right, and the discomfort from his audience is palpable. Heterodoxy is less acceptable than ever before on both sides.
I also can’t stand when he has a conservative guest on and his audience treats it like a gladiator match. Jon Stewart himself clearly respects even his most conservative guests and believes in the value of rational dialogue, but his audience is so knee-jerk it seems sometimes like they’re just waiting for him to zing the guest. There are times when the applause from the audience clearly makes him uncomfortable.
I’ve never watched The Daily Show, but I enjoy watching Real Time and have pretty much the same reaction to Maher’s audience.
But does Maher ever express opinions contrary to liberal orthodoxy? I like that Jon Stewart keeps both his liberal audience and his conservative guests on their toes by not fitting neatly into either side.
You should try The Daily Show, Mace.
Speaking as a former political reporter it is my shame that it’s some of the better reporting on politics in the country.
Yes, on a number of issues.
For starters Bill is more of a libertarian than a liberal and quite often sounds like Archie Bunker.
Remember Bill actually voted for Bob Dole in 1996.
Moreover, Bill seems to believe lots of negative stereotypes about women, minorities, foreignors, or various people who wouldn’t be described as “people like us.”
Bill tends to prefer to see the world in black and white rather than shades of gray.
The segment was not about Fast and Furious, so none of what you say was ‘left out’ because of bias - it simply was not relevant. It was about Obama invoking exec privilege, not about the program itself.
Yes. But I’m not sure what is worse, the noted silence when he goes off the liberal script, or the over-the-top applause every time he’s on cue with the script. I like his show because I find him generally pretty funny and he doesn’t surround himself with an echo chamber of guests. He has at least as many conservatives as liberals on, if not more, even if many of the conservatives are more of the libertarian kind. But his audience is like a hand-picked group from The Daily Kos.
JC: I should have said I’ve never seen a whole episode. I’ve tried to watch a few times, but it just seemed too canned and slow. I never lasted more than 5 minutes.
Why on earth would Stewart pander to conservatives, or anyone else? To get more advertisers? He doesn’t need them. To get more viewers? He doesn’t need them. And above all, pandering just isn’t his style.
Sad, isn’t it, that some seem to not even consider the possibility of Stewart simply reporting what he feels to be the truth. It all has to be “taking sides”.