I know Jon’s a New Yawk Librul, but I’ll be damned if I don’t agree with him most of the time. But then, I think that’s because I don’t very often see his personal politics on the show. He spends most of his time pointing out hypocrisy and stupidity wherever he sees it, like in this case.
One thing that surprised me a bit was that Jon and Stephen Colbert are usually in lockstep, but Colbert’s story on F&F and the contempt vote took a decidedly partisan stance, and like Stewart, Colbert doesn’t usually do that. He started by showing several clips, leading with Rush Limbaugh and ending with Darrell Issa, talking of gun sales being used as a reason for regulation, and finished with this rant:
…very clearly, Obama started this gun-tracking program in 2006 when he hypnotized George Bush. Then, he secretly ordered Attorney General Holder to order the Justice Department to order the ATF to order gun shops to sell guns to Mexican drug cartels and then lose track of them, thereby panicking Americans to gin up support for the draconian gun control measures that Obama has never introduced.
It let him get a few laughs, but it disappointed me because it mixed accurate information, with conjecture, with several of the standard leftist talking points, thus lending them credibility. Ss with Stewart, I don’t very often find Colbert putting forth information I know to be incorrect, so I was a little put off by this segment.
You shouldn’t expect accurate information from them. It’s a comedic show that does political satire and sarcasm. At the same time it’s hilarious and good at bringing things to your attention, but you should find the facts elsewhere.
I don’t disagree, but my point was they (neither of them) usually put out stuff that I know to be patently false. Slanted, sure, usually in the interests of comedy. Biased, sometimes. But not normally false.
Whoa, let’s not get crazy now. Will Rogers? Okay, I’ll cut Stewart some slack because Will Rogers wasn’t under constant pressure to deliver material every day.
But that was very, very funny and made the point and that’s what he’s supposed to do, regardless of political party.
What I find disgusting is how a talented comedian like David Letterman can completely fail to see any humor at all in anything Obama does. Yet he thinks it’s hilarious to play the same clip, in reverse, over and over, every night, of Mitt Romney singing.
Funny stuff. That said, I think it is important that an executive have the ability to get advice without the adviser feeling he will get hauled in front of congress.
Let’s say President Obama invited me to the White House as part of his outreach to Bitter Clingers. I give him my frank statements about his actions on Fast and Furious.
I would not want my statements be made public because I don’t know if my friends and colleagues could tell the difference between disrespect for the President and disrespect for Office of President.
If I send the President a letter, telling him the same thing I would say to his face, again I would want that document to be kept off the record – at least I would want to stay anonymous. If I wanted to tell the world what I would say to the President, I would blog it.
So, it is not unreasonable for any given President to shield his advisers from public scrutiny. It looks bad in these cynical times, but I really don’t think it is inherently wrong.
You’d be absolutely right, about advisers. Thing is the Attorney General is not blanketly an adviser for the President. Any memos/briefings he sent to the Present could be considered advisery and executive privilege would apply, but the rest of the material is not and should be turned over in response to a congressional subpoena.
I agree about advisers, and I also think the AG can definitely be an adviser. I do not think Congress should go on fishing expeditions on things that are not on their face illegal.
For instance, when the Bush Administration fired a bunch of US Attorneys, whether they were let go because of a bad haircut, political reasons (likely) or whatever, it was well within the purview of the administration. It is an election year issue, not a matter for Congress to demand presidential advisers to testify under oath.
Fast and Furious already has associated with many broken laws. Totally different. Lots of very good reason – on its face – to expect far more information.
Good clip!
What I keep wondering is how do we get back to where we need to be? I am guessing get everyone out and make sure we have constitutionalists in power only.
It must be hard to defend the indefensible and Stewart gets credit for not defending it. I fail to see how an operation allegedly run locally with no DoJ oversight and certainly no knowledge in the WH falls under executive privilege.
UNLESS WE WERE LIED TO, AND IT REALLY WAS RUN OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
Barry owns this, replace the president this fall and we’ll solve the F and F problem with investigations next year by a New AG.
Okay, I’m a fiction writer and I have this fantasy spin: The whole mishandled gunwalking debacle is the actual sting. The Feds, sure they have Cartel informants on the inside, just pretended to lose track of (or FUBAR-administratively not bother to track) all those guns so the bad guys will feel like they’re clear while we look totally incompetent, and actually they’ve all been RFID tagged to be tracked from orbit all this time, giving us an unpredecedented target picture of the bad guys, which would explain why Obama and Holder are interfering with the investigation.
Did I mention I write fiction? In actual reality (and from lots of professional experience), I have no faith the bureaucracy involved is anything resembling that competent. (Let’s see if they use my little fantasy spin for CYA, shall we? And, of course, it doesn’t excuse culpability that some of these missing guns have been used in ACTUAL CRIMES.)
And people wonder why gun rights advocates favor restraints on government power.
Good on Jon for not falling into lockstep on this.
What’s the difference between the two parties again?
spelling
One’s fat, gray and shits half digested grass, and the other is hairy, gray and shits half digested grass.
That was fvcking awesome. Let us all hope that everyone who saw it got the message.
they didn’t.
It’s nice to see Jon doing his job again.
It is frightening to me that I get more unbiased news on Comedy Central than on any of the network news shows.
I know Jon’s a New Yawk Librul, but I’ll be damned if I don’t agree with him most of the time. But then, I think that’s because I don’t very often see his personal politics on the show. He spends most of his time pointing out hypocrisy and stupidity wherever he sees it, like in this case.
One thing that surprised me a bit was that Jon and Stephen Colbert are usually in lockstep, but Colbert’s story on F&F and the contempt vote took a decidedly partisan stance, and like Stewart, Colbert doesn’t usually do that. He started by showing several clips, leading with Rush Limbaugh and ending with Darrell Issa, talking of gun sales being used as a reason for regulation, and finished with this rant:
It let him get a few laughs, but it disappointed me because it mixed accurate information, with conjecture, with several of the standard leftist talking points, thus lending them credibility. Ss with Stewart, I don’t very often find Colbert putting forth information I know to be incorrect, so I was a little put off by this segment.
You shouldn’t expect accurate information from them. It’s a comedic show that does political satire and sarcasm. At the same time it’s hilarious and good at bringing things to your attention, but you should find the facts elsewhere.
I don’t disagree, but my point was they (neither of them) usually put out stuff that I know to be patently false. Slanted, sure, usually in the interests of comedy. Biased, sometimes. But not normally false.
The video was giving me playback issues so here is the link to youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgil5gKBwWE
Glad I watched it. It was not the response I was expecting. Guess I’m open-minded and tolerant after all…
In my opinion, Jon Stewart is the Will Rogers of our time. A national treasure speaking truth to power.
Whoa, let’s not get crazy now. Will Rogers? Okay, I’ll cut Stewart some slack because Will Rogers wasn’t under constant pressure to deliver material every day.
But that was very, very funny and made the point and that’s what he’s supposed to do, regardless of political party.
What I find disgusting is how a talented comedian like David Letterman can completely fail to see any humor at all in anything Obama does. Yet he thinks it’s hilarious to play the same clip, in reverse, over and over, every night, of Mitt Romney singing.
Funny stuff. That said, I think it is important that an executive have the ability to get advice without the adviser feeling he will get hauled in front of congress.
Let’s say President Obama invited me to the White House as part of his outreach to Bitter Clingers. I give him my frank statements about his actions on Fast and Furious.
I would not want my statements be made public because I don’t know if my friends and colleagues could tell the difference between disrespect for the President and disrespect for Office of President.
If I send the President a letter, telling him the same thing I would say to his face, again I would want that document to be kept off the record – at least I would want to stay anonymous. If I wanted to tell the world what I would say to the President, I would blog it.
So, it is not unreasonable for any given President to shield his advisers from public scrutiny. It looks bad in these cynical times, but I really don’t think it is inherently wrong.
You’d be absolutely right, about advisers. Thing is the Attorney General is not blanketly an adviser for the President. Any memos/briefings he sent to the Present could be considered advisery and executive privilege would apply, but the rest of the material is not and should be turned over in response to a congressional subpoena.
I agree about advisers, and I also think the AG can definitely be an adviser. I do not think Congress should go on fishing expeditions on things that are not on their face illegal.
For instance, when the Bush Administration fired a bunch of US Attorneys, whether they were let go because of a bad haircut, political reasons (likely) or whatever, it was well within the purview of the administration. It is an election year issue, not a matter for Congress to demand presidential advisers to testify under oath.
Fast and Furious already has associated with many broken laws. Totally different. Lots of very good reason – on its face – to expect far more information.
Oy vey, just 3 years ago Jonboy was weeping on air about the Kenyan liege lord and his innate perfection. Somebody get him back on script.
Hopefully folks are starting to recognize the fact that there is not a hair’s breadth of difference between Reps and Dems.
Good clip!
What I keep wondering is how do we get back to where we need to be? I am guessing get everyone out and make sure we have constitutionalists in power only.
The rollover advert for John Deere is bloody annoying…
It must be hard to defend the indefensible and Stewart gets credit for not defending it. I fail to see how an operation allegedly run locally with no DoJ oversight and certainly no knowledge in the WH falls under executive privilege.
UNLESS WE WERE LIED TO, AND IT REALLY WAS RUN OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
Barry owns this, replace the president this fall and we’ll solve the F and F problem with investigations next year by a New AG.
Okay, I’m a fiction writer and I have this fantasy spin: The whole mishandled gunwalking debacle is the actual sting. The Feds, sure they have Cartel informants on the inside, just pretended to lose track of (or FUBAR-administratively not bother to track) all those guns so the bad guys will feel like they’re clear while we look totally incompetent, and actually they’ve all been RFID tagged to be tracked from orbit all this time, giving us an unpredecedented target picture of the bad guys, which would explain why Obama and Holder are interfering with the investigation.
Did I mention I write fiction? In actual reality (and from lots of professional experience), I have no faith the bureaucracy involved is anything resembling that competent. (Let’s see if they use my little fantasy spin for CYA, shall we? And, of course, it doesn’t excuse culpability that some of these missing guns have been used in ACTUAL CRIMES.)
Hmmm… Maybe I have my next novel in the works…
He rocks.