Patterico's Pontifications

3/14/2009

I Always See the Clown Nose on Jon Stewart

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:46 pm

For the life of me I’ll never understand why anyone takes Jon Stewart seriously. For some reason the country seems to be fascinated with this Comedy Central clown getting into an argument with Jim Cramer. (Video here at Hot Air if you’re interested.)

The Hot Air link reminds us of a golden oldie from Treacher that explains exactly why nobody should take Jon Stewart seriously, ever. Namely, he gets sanctimonious and lectures others — but if you try to call him on his own B.S., he wimps out with the line that he’s just a comedian:

I’ve been getting more and more annoyed with him trying to have it both ways, being an increasingly self-righteous advocate and yet deflecting criticism with “It’s just a comedy show!” . . . I don’t think he necessarily needs to choose between pundit and comedian. He can do both. Just maybe not in the same breath. It was maddening when he lectured those guys and they wanted to talk to him about it, and he kept going, “Wait, I’m just a comedian!” Clown nose off, clown nose on, clown nose off, clown nose on.

Treacher was discussing the famous exchange between him and Tucker Carlson — and indeed, that exchange is a perfect example of Stewart’s evasive maneuver. Watch how Stewart gives preachy lectures — every time Carlson moves in for the kill, showing that Stewart is guilty of the same nonsense — Stewart evades the argument by squealing: “But I’m just a comedian!”

STEWART: . . . .You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

CARLSON: Wait, Jon, let me tell you something valuable that I think we do that I’d like to see you…

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: Something valuable?

CARLSON: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: I would like to hear it.

CARLSON: And I’ll tell you.

When politicians come on…

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: . . . .I want to contrast our questions with some questions you asked John Kerry recently.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: … up on the screen.

STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you’re more than welcome to.

Clown nose on. Then he pontificates some more — clown nose off — until Carlson hits him again:

CARLSON: You have a chance to interview the Democratic nominee. You asked him questions such as — quote — “How are you holding up? Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?”

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: “Have you ever flip-flopped?” et cetera, et cetera.

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: Didn’t you feel like — you got the chance to interview the guy. Why not ask him a real question, instead of just suck up to him?

STEWART: Yes. “How are you holding up?” is a real suck-up. And I actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: It sounded that way. It did.

STEWART: You know, it’s interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility.

CARLSON: I felt the sparks between you.

STEWART: I didn’t realize that — and maybe this explains quite a bit.

CARLSON: No, the opportunity to…

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: … is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.

Clown nose on. Lather, rinse, repeat:

STEWART: It’s not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you’re accusing us of partisan hackery?

STEWART: Absolutely.

CARLSON: You’ve got to be kidding me. He comes on and you…

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: You’re on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.

Clown nose on.

In the exchange with Cramer, Stewart didn’t even need to resort to this, because Cramer rolled over. But if Cramer had fought back, that would have been Stewart’s “out.” And he does a variant on it when he runs clips that are personally embarrassing to Cramer — but then when Cramer says he has personally called out CEOs, Stewart tells Cramer it’s not about him.

It’s possible for a comedian to have serious opinions, and Stewart is a smart guy, no doubt. He’s very clever and most people don’t notice that Clever Remark B and C contradict Clever Remark A.

But he’s also a wimp. He tries to be a political commentator, but if you call him on his own failings as a political commentator, he whines that he’s just a comedian.

Fine. You’re just a comedian. So when I look at you, you always have the clown nose on.

UPDATE: He’s being compared to Edward Murrow now? Jeez. That role is already taken by another clown named Olbermann.

By the way, this is the dodge the Sadly, No people always use. So I think of them as clowns as well.

68 Responses to “I Always See the Clown Nose on Jon Stewart”

  1. This post is ridiculous. If you’re going to complain about this particular appearance I think it would benefit us all to have the entire transcript. Otherwise you are taking moments out of context.

    Jon Stewart took Tucker Carlson for a ride on his cross-fire show a few years ago. Jon Stewart makes his point via hyperbole and other elements of humor, but is that any different than the ‘mission accomplished’ banner? But the families of the over 4,000 who have died since that banner was so prominently displayed, largely for political reasons, are not laughing. So yeah, I guess we can ignore those things to gripe about Jon Stewart. That seems like a good use of time.

    Ed from PA (d99227)

  2. You already know my feelings on Stewart, particularly after that notorious appearance on Crossfire – but you’re being much to kind to call him a wimp, I’ve always felt that he’s a big pussy, period. When he first took over the show from Kilbourne he was ok for a few years, meaning he never took himself too seriously. But then he started getting more serious guests on, and started becoming a rank idealogue – the crap he spews out of his backside during his appearances on college campuses is truly vile. But this too – cute – by – half dodge about wanting it both ways on the issue needs to be called out, and Cramer typically wimped out on the contradiction.

    I’d love to see him have James Woods on and try attacking him – you’d have to wipe the blood from the ensuing carnage off your TV screen.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  3. And the Times today talks about Stewart as the reincarnation of Murrow. I kid you not. As if the opponents of Obama are what? Joe McCarthy?

    Ad hominum at its worst.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  4. BTW, want to see how a real intellectual takes out these kinds of douchebags? Watch Ari Fleisher take down Chrissy Matthews earlier this week – a beautiful thing to watch (scroll down to the ninth entry):

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/

    Dmac (49b16c)

  5. If we’d only get a better press, instead of entertainer-journos like Cramer, we wouldn’t need Stewart.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  6. Jon Stewart? What’s a Jon Stewart?

    AD - RtR/OS (80cdf5)

  7. The big problem is that (warning: old fogie rant imminent) so many “hip youngsters” never choose to view or read anything more serious or credible than Stewart or (shiver!) Maher, and then walk away from those shows feeling that they are smarter and better-informed than the rest of us.

    Dagwood (cd739b)

  8. In regard to the Cramer-Stewart interaction, the LAT informs me,

    what makes Stewart formidable is that he also has a passion greater than the irony in which it is often couched.

    Okaaay then. How come all I see is a little smartass who keeps his fallback position handy to hide from the big, bad truth? In this he looks more like a little girl than Cramer does by rolling over because while Cramer lacks the necessary cleverness and wit, Stewart lacks basic honesty.

    Dana (137151)

  9. Dana, you can say it – it’s okay, we’re all adults here. He’s a big pussy – always was, my best friend knew him back when he was attending Hamilton College in the early 80’s, and even though she’s a hardcore lefty, she’s always thought of him as a huge weasel.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  10. What a coincidence. I always see the clown nose on Barack Obama.

    Official Internet Data Office (9055f6)

  11. Heh. You know me, Dmac, I’m always reluctant to vulgarities and truthfully, calling him the little girl that he is gives me more satisfaction.

    Interesting that your friend saw him as he was…usually college girls, as I recall, weren’t quite that savvy. The decent looking guy with quick wit and smartass humor got the girl.

    Dana (137151)

  12. …but then am I demeaning little girls everywhere?! How about he’s just one sorry ass loser who is too easily seen through.

    Dana (137151)

  13. DMac: He went to William and Mary, not Hamilton

    Hawkins (d2ec51)

  14. I’d agree that Stewart can be sanctimonious and overly simplistic, but I don’t think the primary accusation is quite valid. When he went on Crossfire, he was criticizing how they did their job. His job is different, so it’s not relevant to the discussion. Their job (in his view) is to inform the public, his is not.

    To put it another way, think about one of us non-media types going on Crossfire and making those same points. In that case they wouldn’t even think of bringing up our jobs, because it would clearly be immaterial.

    kenB (88b394)

  15. I observe Cramer and Stewart and see two dopes who voted for Obama.

    Cramer is very squishy, at best, about politics (when he was slamming the guy currently in the White House a few days ago, Cramer boasted of his pro-Democrat-Party credentials), and, in the world of finance, shades of Bernard-Madoff-ism, or meaning-of-is-is (btw, two figures — Madoff and Bubba Clinton — affiliated with the Democrat Party).

    And Stewart is a variation of a chameleon, of someone into “I’m a liberal. No, I’m a progressive. No, I’m a liberal. No, I’m a progressive. No, I’m a liberal. No, I’m a progressive….” Or sort of analogous to all those newspapers, in particular the New York Times, whose bias is made far worse because they’re not even up-front enough to admit they’re biased to the left.

    Mark (411533)

  16. Spot on post, Patterico. For the life of me I can’t understand why so many of my otherwise rational and sensible friends just swoon for the guy. I wish that during their infamous exchange Tucker Carlson had said to him something like the following:

    “You know, Jon, we invited you on this show because we think you are funny, not because any of us mistook you for some sort of intellectual with anything important to say. Your value to Crossfire is only as comedy relief, so unless you are going to start making with the jokes right now you are useless to us and can get the hell off our set. If we want serious discourse and discussion of the topics we certainly aren’t going to invite a Comedy Central host on the show.”

    And I didn’t even care for Tucker Carlson or Crossfire.

    JVW (bff0a4)

  17. Sweet, your time stamp appears to be living 28 minutes into the future. Is that some sort of attempt to corner the market on platinum futures?

    JVW (bff0a4)

  18. Stewart’s on Comedy Central? Hunh. I always turn it off after South Park.

    People who rely solely on the TV for news are like people who only read their news in print. People who gather their news and commentary on the world from networks like Comedy Central and HBO are even worse and have only themselves to blame when the cadres come to their door.

    Clown nose on – Clown nose off. Brilliant.

    Vivian Louise (c0f830)

  19. Vivian Louise, from their own site,

    “One anchor, five correspondents, zero credibility. If you’re tired of the stodginess of the evening newscasts, if you can’t bear to sit through the spinmeisters and shills on the 24-hour cable news networks, don’t miss The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a nightly half-hour series unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy.”

    So why people like Cramer and/or Carlson feel the need to even dialog with someone with him and justify or explain themselves is beyond me. It’s playing right into his hand. That they want his approval is the problem.

    Dana (137151)

  20. Personally, whenever I see Jon on the tube, I (mentally) still see the MTV logo on the mike cover. Hey, Jon, at least Olbermann has worked for some actual news departments.

    Rich Fader (295108)

  21. Stewart is emblematic of those who refuse to find answers to the great questions. To do so, one must acknowledge the serious issues of the day, and one must recognize the limitations of man. Fools like JS simply cannot gain any traction in places where truth matters.

    If everything is relative, and in the fools’ world it is, then one’s qualifications become an irrelevancy. Hmm….anyone seen our president’s curriculum vitae?

    Ed (7da696)

  22. I am scared, completely phobic, of clowns.

    JD (ba27e7)

  23. Their job (in his view) is to inform the public, his is not.

    Unfortunately, a lot of young people who get a steady diet of Marxism in college, turn Stewart on for the news.

    Then they vote for Obama. Hopefully, they grow up later but so far, it doesn’t look good.

    Mike K (90939b)

  24. John Stewarts nose is so far up Obamas butt he will never get the smell out. What a vile little man he is.

    LH (5534a3)

  25. went to William and Mary, not Hamilton

    They must have had a close relationship between the schools, then – her friends from Hamilton all knew who Stewart was, he played on their soccer team as well (if I recall correctly).

    Dmac (49b16c)

  26. JVW: As I recall, Carlson did say something exactly along the lines you suggest. And, in my view, Carlson held his own, or even “won” that exchange, even though it somehow got labeled as a “win” for Stewart.

    Stewart resorted at one point to calling Carlson a “dick” which should be a kind of surrender.

    I have to admit, though, Carlson is a bit of a dick, in that he almost always resorts to straw men and sarcasm instead of honest debate.

    I guess people thought Stewart got the best of him because he did to Carlson what Carlson usually does to everyone else.

    I definitely agree with Pat that the, “I’m a comedian” line is total BS. It reminds of the wingnut refrain that it’s ok to get your facts wrong and distort anything, as long as it’s labeled “commentary.”

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  27. I wouldn’t care if he were merely a clown.

    It’s that he’s a consistent apologist/cheerleader for the left, who’s unfortunately the main source of news for many people 25 and under, that makes my head almost explode. Yes, they know he’s “doing comedy,” but they also assume that there’s truth underneath the schtick. Unforunately, there are more often lies beneath the schtick.

    Beldar (b95a76)

  28. in that he almost always resorts to straw men and sarcasm instead of honest debate.

    I love irony!

    Daan (137151)

  29. Heh. Gave such a snort, I misspelled my own name.

    Dana (137151)

  30. “This post is ridiculous. If you’re going to complain about this particular appearance I think it would benefit us all to have the entire transcript. Otherwise you are taking moments out of context.”

    Are you saying I should have provided a link to the transcript? Because I did.

    Are you saying I should have reproduced the entire transcript in the body of this post? Really?

    What are you saying?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  31. If you are trying to reproduce the spirit of what was said in the exchange for the purposes of intellectual honesty, then hunting and pecking through the transcript in order to determine which few lines you thought best illustrated your point is inadequate.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  32. Patterico – That’s only Edpa – He complains about everything. Have at him.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  33. If you are trying to reproduce the spirit of what was said in the exchange for the purposes of intellectual honesty, then hunting and pecking through the transcript in order to determine which few lines you thought best illustrated your point is inadequate.

    Make your argument that I changed the context. Provide the missing context and explain how it changes anything.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  34. I used to love Stewart, but my problem with him is the weasel factor “Clown nose on and off”. Why didn’t Cramer point out when Stewart attacked him for not being a creditable journalistic overseer of the market “We’re an entertainment/commentary program, why don’t you do real reporting?” Oh well.

    Dr T (324d86)

  35. Ed seems to want Pat to blog about the “Mission Accomplished” banner. In contrast to Jon Stewart, that would be “a good use of time.”

    Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab)

  36. EfP – What context is missing? Or, is it just that reading is too damn difficult for you?

    JD (10c938)

  37. Stewart, only looks good when compared to Craig Kilbourne, who really was as much an ass as he portrayed on T.V. Carlson was the Frum/Brooks in embryo. who has nothing now, maybe a spot on the Daily Beast, yet he was lecturing conservatives at CPAC, on their newsgathering ability, Seriously.

    Cramer, by the way, just proved how totally useless he was for everyone involved, but his Howard Beale on finance, was entertaining for
    a while, I would never actually rely on it for
    financial advice, because the man’s a maniac.

    narciso (996c34)

  38. “For the life of me I’ll never understand why anyone takes Jon Stewart seriously. ”

    He said it best when he described himself as a catharsis. Its not really about serious or not then.

    Frankly I think its quite normal for people who have one profession to critique others who have a different one.

    imdw (c990d8)

  39. I don’t really get your point. John Stewert Runs a variety show under the premise of a news show. He gets serious guests on because they know it’s a lightweight interview where they’re supposed to be sort of funny. Why does that make his attacks of serious news hypocritical?

    As best I can tell, you’re annoyed that a comedian is making a substantive criticism of ‘serious’ news people.

    In a later post you point out that in many cases it’s up to the listener to determine if a specific meaning is reasonable or now. So when he says tucker is a dick. Is it reasonable to assume he’s being a comedian or offering a serious opinion?

    Joe #31 (221006)

  40. Frankly I think its quite normal for people who have one profession to critique others who have a different one.

    No quarrel there and I didn’t argue otherwise.

    As best I can tell, you’re annoyed that a comedian is making a substantive criticism of ’serious’ news people.

    That’s not my argument. My argument is that when Stewart steps out of his role as comedian and plays Serious Pundit, he should be open to criticism of his role as Serious Pundit. Yet when such criticism is offered, he puts the clown nose on.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  41. He gets serious guests on because they know it’s a lightweight interview where they’re supposed to be sort of funny.

    You sound as if you’re never actually watched his show – he has serious guests on weekly, and questions them closely, with all the seriousness he seems to believe he can impart. Those interviews are not tongue in cheek, nor are they intended to be humorous or light – hearted in any way, shape or form. Come back and ask some questions after you’ve watched the show for awhile.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  42. The problem is that Stewart doesn’t do either comedy or punditry all that well. That’s why he needs the clown nose on, clown nose off game. If he’s unfunny, off comes the clown nose; since when were pundits supposed to be funny? But as you noted, when the unfunny analysis also proves to be first degree hackery, then the clown nose goes back on just long enough to diffuse that criticism, and hope you’ve forgotten that your original complaint was that he wasn’t funny.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  43. I don’t know why Cramer rolled over. Almost sounds like a setup.

    The point is this. According to Jon Stewart’s own rules, he’s a comedian. At the very least he should defend Rush Limbaugh who is also an entertainer. If JS could remove his snout from Obama’s pants, he would do like Lenny Bruce and point out that Rush is not a journalist or a GOP head. Of course, that would require Stewart to criticize the Obama administration for attacking an entertainer and private citizen.

    The LAT could write this about Rush Limbaugh as well:

    “[W]hat makes Stewart formidable is that he also has a passion greater than the irony in which it is often couched.”</

    Vermont Neighbor (229b93)

  44. UPDATE: He’s being compared to Edward Murrow now? Jeez. That role is already taken by another clown named Olbermann.

    George Clooney would like to have a word with you outside, Patterico.

    JVW (bff0a4)

  45. As best I can tell, you’re annoyed that a comedian is making a substantive criticism of ’serious’ news people.

    No, what’s annoying is Stewart continually pretending that it is “just a comedy show” when it’s convenient for him to do so. If anyone ever engages him in a substantive manner, he immediately falls back into that defense. It’s a dishonest, and quite frankly, cowardly means of making an argument. It’s the “created or saved jobs” version of debating.

    What’s equally annoying is that Stewart never bothered actually addressing the argument that Cramer made and that Gibbs got in a snit about–that the stock market had plummeted like a rock every time Obama and Geithner discussed the economy or revealed their plans. Stewart obviously knew that he couldn’t very well refute a 4,000 point drop in less than two months, so he compiled a hit piece of clips that 1) never actually dealt with the drop itself; and 2) didn’t contrast it with his own commentary on the stock market. Why should he, when his audience is comprised largely of Obama-worshipping simpletons who can’t blow their nose without the government providing them with a box of kleenex and an instruction manual?

    So your contention that the criticism was “substantive” doesn’t wash either, because Stewart never engages Cramer on the original argument that he made on Mad Money–he reframed it with the “hypocrite” card. So where was the substance? Stewart completely avoided it.

    It’s inexcusable that Cramer folded unless he was told to be nice by the NBC bosses–all he had to do was point out, “Well, Jon, where the f__ were you the last two years? If you think this is a serious issue, why didn’t you hammer on it repeatedly?” He would have put Stewart on the defensive immediately and Stewart would have fallen back on his “it’s only a comedy show” excuse. At that point Cramer can keep hammering him on his lack of principle, hindsight punditry, and shameless ass-kissing of the Wizard of Uhh’s. Stewart would have to put the clown nose back on and Cramer comes out bloodied, but not broken.

    Another Chris (a3bb8f)

  46. “My argument is that when Stewart steps out of his role as comedian and plays Serious Pundit, he should be open to criticism of his role as Serious Pundit. Yet when such criticism is offered, he puts the clown nose on.”

    But he was being criticized for what he did on his comedy show, not for his “serious pundit.” Tucker at least was critiquing for failing to live up to the standards of serious punditry. And Stewart pointed out that he was failing to live up to those standards right after a puppet show.

    But even so, I still think the serious/comic distinction doesn’t capture him or what they do on the daily show. You’re setting the terms of debate in a silly way.

    “He gets serious guests on because they know it’s a lightweight interview where they’re supposed to be sort of funny.”

    I think he gets lots of authors on because there really aren’t that many other competitors for an author to showcase their book. Not to his audience. It’s a neat niche he’s carved out in this space.

    imdw (017d51)

  47. I was excited to see Jim Cramer take on Obama, calling his actions the greatest destruction of wealth in America.

    But then to go on the Stewart show and try to make nice. I almost puked when I saw Cramer shaking Stewart’s hand afterward. Cramer whimped out by trying to make nice to the liberals.

    Alta Bob (c3e414)

  48. Stewart reminds me of what has always been infuriating about my little brother. He’d push and dig and needle and do his level best to be as annoying as possible. Then when I’d finally turn on him he’d get all huffy exclaim in practiced self-righteousness “Relax, man. I was only kidding. Don’t be so serious all the time”.

    Then I’d slug him and he’d go crying to mom.

    KB (c5be9a)

  49. That’s not my argument. My argument is that when Stewart steps out of his role as comedian and plays Serious Pundit, he should be open to criticism of his role as Serious Pundit. Yet when such criticism is offered, he puts the clown nose on.

    But most everything he does on his show is clown nose on. That’s what Tucker was trying to do, to get him to be serious about his performance on a comedy show. Yeah, he got Kerry on the show. And he was a total kiss ass. Sort of like when he had McCain on. Or Dole. I haven’t ever seen him try to do a ‘serious’ interview with a major figure. That’s not what he does

    I’ll be honest, i haven’t seen the cramer bit, but from what I’ve read it sounds like cramer agreed with Stewert’s criticism.

    Joe #31 (221006)

  50. “Yeah, he got Kerry on the show. And he was a total kiss ass. Sort of like when he had McCain on.”

    Jeepers, Joe, you made more sense when you went by Plumber instead of #31. Most people can detect the difference between barely contained civility and a full body massage with a happy ending.

    EBJ (437cb7)

  51. Patterico: It is up to you what you wish to post and what you choose not to. I was just saying that you shouldn’t be surprised if you are not taken too seriously if you do not make a complete argument based on the summation of what was said in its original context.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  52. Shorter Ed from PA: “You’re either intellectually dishonest or incompetent… which is it?”

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  53. Ironically – I am less inclined to attack Jon Leibowitz (same guy pre-2001) , comedian – because, hey – he’s a comedian. Jon Stewart 2009? – that’s a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out – so fire (metaphorically) at will. What a putz. (Say Chip [Jon’s secret nickname] – that means something less than complementary – I know you’d likely snap back with something pithy and yiddish, but I’m not the one changing my name to super goy – I’m SURE Chipster doesn’t have any, um, ISSUES there.)

    Californio (fbe904)

  54. upon reading my post I realize I am living the same lie as Chip Stewart. I will be amending my passport to list my full name, proudly – all 3 middle names and 5 surnames – damn you Spain!

    Californio de Los Angeles Echevarria’ Olmos de Morales Carvajal XXXXXXX de la XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX Leibowitz

    [ha ha – maybe we are crypto]

    Californio (fbe904)

  55. Michael Moore (is he still around?) is also well-known for bleating “It’s comedy!” when
    confronted about the lies and distortions in his “documentaries.”

    icr (ff91f1)

  56. While Stewart is a cheap, lying, smirky bully, at least we can choose not to watch his show.

    The problem is that it is hard to avoid the liberal “Jon Stewart” wannabes that you encounter at the water cooler, all convinced they’re so witty when they’re really hostile and snarling and obscene. Since Stewart became the Head of the Liberals, tolerating liberals is much more difficult because they’re so boorish and unpleasant.

    jane (378519)

  57. Way to go Karl. I noticed your probable hero Mark Levin gave you and Patterico a nod today.

    Now I really know we dissagree.

    Congrats just the same.

    Oiram (85f8c8)

  58. Sorry, thought Karl wrote this post.

    Congrats Patterico

    Oiram (85f8c8)

  59. Note how EfP flings poo and flees?

    JD (40d677)

  60. “Then I’d slug him and he’d go crying to mom.”

    I want to see Jon Stewart interview you.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  61. “wannabes that you encounter at the water cooler, all convinced they’re so witty when they’re really hostile and snarling and obscene.”

    I love it when Americans live in fear of encountering their ideological opponents in a verbal clash.

    Hell, it’s even fun hearing them recount their disabuse in such florid terms. Sounds like the state of presumed ideological entitlement is a well-deserved hell. Such is the great longing for a Fox/talkradio world where there are no liberals around to bust the right-wing whine.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  62. That is talking point #6 for Hacks. Regardless of the topic, it has a group of talking points it never strays from.

    JD (b3f947)

  63. John Stewart is funny? Since when?

    Each year I give him a few minutes and each year he is as biased and unfunny as the year before…only worse.

    If I want to laugh, I put on the Marx Brothers. (No..Obama is a MarxIST…not a Marx brother)

    Steve Martin (9d1bb3)

  64. […] Or even as silly journalism, although that depends largely on whether he forgot to take the clown nose off. After all, floods are one thing, but at the end of the day voluntary propagandists have only got […]

    Moe Lane » Don’t expect to see Jon Stewart to whale on Susan Roesgen again. (da2344)

  65. […] Or even as silly journalism, although that depends largely on whether he forgot to take the clown nose off. After all, floods are one thing, but at the end of the day voluntary propagandists have only got […]

    Don’t expect to see Jon Stewart whale on Susan Roesgen again. - Moe_Lane’s blog - RedState (796605)

  66. […] Or even as silly journalism, although that depends largely on whether he forgot to take the clown nose off. After all, floods are one thing, but at the end of the day voluntary propagandists have only got […]

    Don’t expect to see Jon Stewart whale on Susan Roesgen again. - Moe_Lane’s blog - RedState (796605)

  67. […] with a herpes-infected rubber, you dickless piece of shit.  You can keep doing that stupid clown-nose on/clown-nose off routine and you can keep fooling your trained seal audience that you’re a tough guy.  Everybody with […]

    Comedy Central’s Tight Leash « Blog de KingShamus (bdd9c6)

  68. […] Stewart – alternately scathing media critic when on the offensive and “just a comedian” when challenged – has joined the National September 11 Memorial & Museum board, reports […]

    Real Charity Hires Fake Newsman « Giving Click (3cfee1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5707 secs.