Television

The "Jon Stewart Game": Everyone Loses, Except Him!

|

He must have some intense eyebrow muscles

I've never been a fan of Tom Junod's overwriting, but there's no denying the man is capable of that rarest of magazine rarities: an original celebrity profile. That's what Junod has served up for Esquire, cold, on the front stoop of The Daily Show's Jon Stewart. Sample:

Now he's a real New Yorker, which means he doesn't take any bullshit and at the same time bullshit doesn't bother him, depending on the circumstance. But when Congress started jacking those 9/11 first responders around, stalling on the bill that promised them benefits: That bothered him. So he found his opportunity and took his shot, started telling preposterous old biddies like Mitch McConnell to *just pass the fucking thing*. And they passed it, last December. And you know what he got in return, from all the grateful firemen in New York? A birthday party for one of his kids in the firehouse in his neighborhood in New York, with a birthday cake in the shape of a fire truck. And you know what else he got? A story in The New York Times that compared him to Edward R. Murrow…

Things have changed in 10 years. Though not his eyebrows.

See? It never takes long, when you play the Jon Stewart Game. But hey, it's not his fault. He saw the Edward R. Murrow thing in the Times, was smart enough to say "What the…?" He made sure to remind us that he's a comedian, for crying out loud. He makes funny faces and fart jokes. But here's the thing: When he protests that he's a comedian, he's not escaping from the collective fantasy. He's feeding it. The collective fantasy, you see, is not just about Jon Stewart, it's about America, especially liberal America, and its need for redeemers to rise out of its ranks. Jon Stewart's just a comedian the way gunslingers in old westerns are really peaceable sodbusters who hate all that bloodshed and all that killin' but finally have to strap on them six-guns and march on into town. Heck, he'd go back to telling jokes if he could, but he can't, not with hired guns like Tucker Carlson and Jim Cramer around… […]

True story: At the 2004 DNC in Boston, I was waiting in a long media security line when some junior Daily Show correspondent (Mo Rocca?) walked by 30 feet away. The crowd of serious national political journalists stone cold broke out into uproarious APPLAUSE.

Stewart isn't just being a bully here. He is being disingenuous, and he knows it. Worse, he's tapping into the collective fantasy without knowing it. He's the gunslinger saying he's going back to the farm while at the same time putting notches in his belt. More precisely, he's the presumptive Edward R. Murrow saying that he'll go back to comedy once he cleans up journalism. But he can't go back. He can't go back to the pleasures of fart jokes and funny faces — the pleasures of comedy — because he's experienced the higher pleasure of preaching to weirdly defenseless stiffs like Jim Cramer. He's saying once again that he's outgrown comedy and is no longer a comedian. But he's not saying what he actually is, because then he'd be judged. And Jon Stewart, to a degree unique in the culture, exists outside the realm of judgment.

Other good stuff in there about the painful-to-watch problems of liberal political comedy in the age of Obama. Link via Instapundit.

Reason Contributing Editor Michael C. Moynihan similarly critiqued Stewart's media criticism in 2007, and also contributed to this memorable Reason.tv report from Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity:

NEXT: Report on the Weekend Revolt Against Capitalism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Jon Stewart, Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, David Letterman, (Glenn Beck?), etc…

    Not journalists. Late-night talk show hosts…typically from the ranks of comedians (not always). The disingenuous claim is that Jon Stewart is somehow different than his counterparts just because he does political humor.

    1. But it is a disengenious claim that Stewart makes himself. You mean even when he made gentle fun of himself for being pompous, he really was being pompous, like a fighter who starts shaking his head right after he gets tagged, thereby proving that he is what he says he’s not? You mean he wasn’t even kidding around when he explained the Rally to Restore Sanity to Maddow by saying that “in twelve years, I’d earned a moment to tell people who I was”…?

      Earned the moment? He claims to be a hell of a lot more than a comedian.

      1. But it is a disengenious claim that Stewart makes himself….He claims to be a hell of a lot more than a comedian.

        All comedians are a lot more than comedians just as all plumbers are more than plumbers. Heck, Jenny McCarthy is more than just a comedic actress and deserves to be called out when she spouts bullshit. But no one should hold her to the same standards they use for a medical professional when she is talking about autism. Jon Stewart reminding people he is a comedian, and that as a result they should be circumspect about how far to take his statements is not a problem and it, certainly, isn’t disingenuous. What would be disingenuous would be Jon Stewart claiming to be an expert on politics because John McCain and Barack Obama and Gordon Brown have appeared on his show. Or, even worse, to claim to be a journalist because he makes fun of journalists for a living.

        1. First, McCarthy has been the subject of a lot of abuse. If you want to subject Stewart to the same level of treatment McCarthy got, I would like to see that.

          And read the article. He does claim to be an “expert”. And moreover, he claims to be a critic of an antidote to journalistic bias. I don’t blame journalists for hating his guts. Here is a guy who is nothing but a propagandist for one side who spends his time talking about how horrible and biased and shallow journalists are. And every time they say “you are worse than we ever dreamed” he says “yeah but I am a comedian”.

          Again, stop listening to Stewart about anything and I am fine with him claiming to be a just a comedian.

          1. Stewart takes on Obama all the time. The problem here is that you are so biased and warped that you think it would only be fair if he gave equal treatment to both sides, regardless of which deserves it more.

            1. Tony you are really beyond parody. If you are a sock puppet, god you are effective one.

            2. Tony: SHUT THE FUCK UP!

              aahhh, my daily fix.

            3. Point well put. I completely agree with you Tony.

            4. He only “takes on Obama” when he moves too far towards the center. Stewart’s a biased leftie to the core; just because he gives Obama the whatfer, doesn’t mean he’s fair.

          2. Again, stop listening to Stewart about anything and I am fine with him claiming to be a just a comedian.

            John, sad John. Stewart, like those of any profession, should have his statements judged based on their merit. Sometimes he right, sometimes he’s off-base. Keep your critique specific and you’re on firm ground.

            But “he’s a comedian, don’t take anything he says seriously” is as stupid as “he is MORE than a comedian so he needs to be held to the same standards as Chris Wallace or CNN.” When he uses the “remember, I am just a comedian” line, he is reminding you (or Chris Wallace, or whomever) that he is “just a guy talking.” The fact that he is famous means more people listen, but it doesn’t make him more than “just a guy talking.” Chris Wallace (or CNN, or Rachel Maddow) is doing something different. He is being paid to provide accurate information. That means he is held to a different standard that Jon Stewart.

            So, back to poor Jenny McCarthy. She gets a lot of shit and deserves it all. However, she doesn’t deserve the same level of shit that is, rightfully, given to Dr. Andrew Wakefield and similar quacks who abuse families like McCarthy’s.

            1. Then how do you explain the “I have earned the right to tell America who I am” statement. Stewart clearly wants people to listen to him and take him more seriously than the drunk sitting next you at the bar. All I am saying is, I don’t see why I should.

              1. Then how do you explain the “I have earned the right to tell America who I am” statement. Stewart clearly wants people to listen to him and take him more seriously than the drunk sitting next you at the bar.

                You’re moving the goalposts pretty far here. Stewart doesn’t hide behind his celebrity. He uses it.

                1. I am not moving the goal posts at all. I think if Stewart wants to claim to be a comedian and therefore immune from itelectual standards, then no one should take anything he says seriously.

                  If his point is that people like Chris Wallace don’t know any more than anyone else, I agree with him. And that also means that Stewart doesn’t’ know anything either and thus shouldn’t be listened to.

                  Despite his pretenses, Stewart is not a serious person and shouldn’t be treated like one.

                  1. If his point is that people like Chris Wallace don’t know any more than anyone else,

                    His point is that Chris Wallace is paid to know more than you and to convey that information to you as objectively as possible.

                    And that also means that Stewart doesn’t’ know anything either and thus shouldn’t be listened to.

                    The poorly formed logic here is impressive. But I am sure that Jon Stewart would applause your support for an independent and informed citizenry.

                  2. Full disclosure: saying this as a liberal that likes Jon Stewart and watches his show.

                    I think this:

                    “I think if Stewart wants to claim to be a comedian and therefore immune from itelectual standards, then no one should take anything he says seriously.”

                    is entirely, 100% fair.

                    I think the great disappointment, if it exists, of people who like what Jon Stewart thinks (or appears to think) is that he’ll never just actually endorse any of it.

                    The dirty little secret about Jon Stewart is that every now and then he’ll bust out of his shell and own his ideas before he retreats back behind the “just a comedian” excuse.

                    It’s not fair for him to put forth biting, insightful commentary and then to say to a Chris Wallace that he’s just a comedian. He’s a satirist. But satire is not the same as comedy. Comedy exists to elicit a laugh. Satire exists to make a point.

                    And therein lies the rub. Stewart constantly goes around making points (that, yes, liberals agree with) only to plead the fifth when he gets called out on it (to Wallace’s credit, I think he got at this in that interview).

                    It’s disingenuous to conservative critics like O’Reilly or Wallace who want to debate him on his ideas when he goes on their shows and makes it about the presentation of ideas and not the ideas themself. (“I’m just a comedian, but you’re a NEWS MAN,” simply doesn’t, and shouldn’t, hold water.)

                    It’s also disappointing to liberals who want him to actually, you know, defend the beliefs he clearly holds.

                    1. Jon,

                      Thank you. That is exactly my point. If Stewart wants to be a liberal and promote liberal ideas, good for him. He is a smart guy and maybe he does have something interesting to say. But if he is going to do that, get in the ring and do it. Don’t try to claim you are just a clown every time someone punches back.

                2. To reiterate. Stewart reminds people that he is not 1) a journalist, 2) a policy maker.

                  He does not shy away from being a) a comedian b) extremely famous.

                  He is not disingenuous to remind people that he is (a + b) but not (1 or 2). John (and the article) want him to claim the mantle of (1), but he rejects it. And that, somehow, makes him a “douche.”

                  1. What makes him a douche is that he refuses to admit to being a journalist but then acts like one and criticizes other journalists at every opportunity. If he doesn’t want to be a journalist, fine, stop claiming to be unbiased and stop interviewing serious people and asking them inquisitor like questions rather than trying to be funny.

                    1. What makes him a douche is that he refuses to admit to being a journalist but then acts like one

                      I have never seen Jon Stewart act like a journalist. Ever. Not once.

                      Can you cite something specific?

                    2. His march on Washington. Watch any of his interviews with political figures, especially Republicans. They are nothing like an interview on Leno. They are not fluff. He goes after people. That looks pretty journolistic to me.

                      And his rant on Crossfire. If he is not a journalist, why does he spend so much time criticizing other journalists for not upholding standards he admits he would never live up to?

                    3. His march on Washington.

                      Journalists organize political rallies?

                      Watch any of his interviews with political figures, especially Republicans. I have. He has never acted like a journalist. They are nothing like an interview on Leno.

                      They are closer to Leno than anything else I can think of. Maybe occasionally going into Larry King territory, but I wouldn’t consider Larry King an prototypical journalist. Fluff would be a better word.

                      They are not fluff.

                      Yes they are.

                      He goes after people. That looks pretty journolistic to me.

                      You have an odd view of journalism.

                      And his rant on Crossfire.

                      He was the guest. Not a journalist. How can you criticize a guest for not acting like a journalist? Do you get angry at journalists acting like guests on Stewart’s show. Should Brian Williams stay more serious when he’s on the Daily Show?

                      If he is not a journalist, why does he spend so much time criticizing other journalists for not upholding standards he admits he would never live up to?

                      Because he is the host of a show that parodies the news media. Just guessing here, but I can’t imagine that there is a better explanation.

                    4. We can argue forever about the interviews. I don’t agree. There is no resolving that. His show doesn’t just parody media. It pretends to be media. And then when it is caught in lies, retreats behind the wall of comedy.

                      Do you think Stewart should be taken seriously? Yes or no? If the answer is yes, then you have to explain why he is just a biased hack. If the answer is no, then he can be as biased as he wants because no one should listen to him for anything other than humor. Which is it? I say it is the latter. What do you say?

                    5. We can argue forever about the interviews. I don’t agree.

                      I know. But you ARE wrong on this one.

                      His show doesn’t just parody media. It pretends to be media.

                      You do know what parody means right? It involves pretending.

                      And then when it is caught in lies, retreats behind the wall of comedy.

                      This would require that the show is trying to do something besides parody. Otherwise there is nothing to get “caught” at. You might have a point for his non-show appearances, except that falls apart because then he is just being a regular guy…a guest…and there is not question of him being in some quasi-journalism land.

                      Do you think Stewart should be taken seriously? Yes or no?

                      I have already answered that. His ideas should be examined on their merits, like anyone else.

                      If the answer is yes, then you have to explain why he is just a biased hack.

                      Nope. Cuz he’s not a hack. At least not in the sense you are using the term. As a comedian or an actor, he might be a hack.

                      If the answer is no, then he can be as biased as he wants because no one should listen to him for anything other than humor.

                      See above.

                      Which is it? I say it is the latter. What do you say?

                      See above.

                    6. The point here, John, is that you don’t have a point. It is fine if you hate Jon Stewart. But hate him because he disagrees with you and is more effective at getting lots and lots of people to listen to him. Hating him because he rejects the label of journalist is grasping at straws.

                    7. I don’t hate Stewart. I just think he is an idiot and a clown and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

                      What is your point NM? That he is a comedian? You have no argument here. I just don’t get my opinions or my news from comedians and don’t take them seriously as anything but comedians. Why should Stewart be any different?

                    8. My point is that he is not disingenuous to say that he should not be held to the same standards as the news media, because he is, in fact, not part of the news media. Those who try to place that mantle around his neck are making a categorical error and he is correct to point it out.

                    9. I don’t understand. I’m defenseless. Leave me alone!

    2. He rountinely interviews important people. He can’t just decide to be serious whenever he wants. I can list several cases of him being easy on Democrats or liberal politicians and figures while grilling and mocking people with views he doesn’t like.

      1. Johnny Carson, Jay Leno* and David Letterman all interview important people. So do the harpies on The View. None of them are journalists. Leno had Cheney on his show and Arnold announced his candidacy for governor on his show.

        * Note: Leno is also not a comedian because he lacks the requisite funniness.

        1. They don’t ask serious, adversarial questions though. Once you start doing that you are either a journalist (if you’re unbiased) or a political advocate (if you’re biased).

      2. He can’t just decide to be serious whenever he wants.

        Pretty sure he can say whatever the fuck he wants. Christ almighty, what is even the complaint here?

      3. He rountinely interviews important people.

        So do Jay Leno and David Letterman, and …. what’s your point?

        He can’t just decide to be serious whenever he wants.

        Why not? Again, Jay Leno goes back and forth from serious to comedy in his interviews. As does David Letterman or Craig Ferguson or …. When you are having a conversation with a comedian, expect them to revert to jokes occasionally.

        I can list several cases of him being easy on Democrats or liberal politicians and figures while grilling and mocking people with views he doesn’t like.

        Yeah, comedians are disingenuous when they mock things they don’t like. /sarcasm

        While there are certainly problems with trying to hold journalists to an “objective” standard, the idea of holding a late-night talk show host to that standard is, well, laughable.

        1. That is all fine and good. But what that means is that when he does things like have big rallies and claim that he has “earned the right to tell people who he is”, everyone should laugh. No one should take Stewart seriously about anything ever. And when he claims otherwise, people should laugh.

          If you are willing to admit that, I am fully willing to give you that he is a comedian and thus can’t be held to any objective intellectual standards beyond being funny.

          1. Who gets to enforce those standards? What are you bitching about exactly? As an entertainer he should be judged in the market on his own merits. Nobody ever said entertainers can’t also inform. The best art does.

            1. Fine, if you want to inform, then everyone else gets to call him out for the hack that he is. You can’t have it both ways.

              1. He, and you, can say whatever the hell you want. But being informative (or talking about reality rather than just making fart jokes) isn’t the same as being a hack. You are a hack, Stewart is a successful political satirist.

                1. No. He is a hack. You just don’t think he is because you are a hack and completely lack the ability to understand anything but your own thoughts.

                  1. Hacks don’t win 9 Emmys in a row.

                    1. yeah Tony, leftist hacks have such a hard time in Hollywood. Jesus you are stupid.

                    2. It must really chap your ass that poor downtrodden conservatives can’t get a break in Hollywood (or academia) because of teh librul conspiracy (certainly not because so very few of them are talented or smart).

                    3. It must really chap your ass that poor downtrodden conservatives can’t get a break in Hollywood (or academia) because of teh librul conspiracy (certainly not because so very few of them are talented or smart).

                      And as you’ve proven repeatedly, liberals in academia aren’t all the intelligent, either.

                    4. I move that Mondays from now on be Don’t Feed the Douche Day.

        2. Again, Jay Leno goes back and forth from serious to comedy in his interviews. As does David Letterman or Craig Ferguson

          Show me a case where those guys questioned a political figure like Stewart goes after Republicans.

    3. “The disingenuous claim is that Jon Stewart is somehow different than his counterparts just because he does political humor.”

      Fascinating!

  2. I used to watch the show fairly regularly until 2008 when both Stewart and Colbert stopped being relatively objective skewers of both parties and instead just became blatant Obama cheerleaders.

    1. Stewart has backed off of that some since then. Closer to the good old days.

      Colbert never really did much except make fun of TEAM RED did he?

      1. It seems like over the last couple of months, Stewart has been a little more balanced in his barbs. Overall, I think his show is pretty good. Colbert’s show, in my serious and very important opinion, is unwatchable. I don’t know what it is, but I just don’t like him or his humor.

        1. Colbert is simply a Democrat that uses his talents to attack Republicans and implicitly praise liberal Democrats. He’s the most partisan comedian I’ve ever seen.

        2. Once you realize and accept that the whole premise of Colbert’s show is satire of right-wing politics, it can be pretty funny. Stewart does leave me a douchey feeling that I am being preached to, which ends up killing half the jokes.

          1. Yeah, I get the satire. But I think the specific elements I don’t like are the insane-o applause session at the beginning of the show, the “Stephen, Stephen” chants. I know the show is comedy (satire of the cult of personality), but if you invite a guest on to interview, let the guest form a complete answer! He sometimes has some pretty interesting/smart guests, but I have yet to see a smart or interesting interview. My two cents.

            1. He sometimes has some pretty interesting/smart guests

              Like Gary Johnson. I’ll give him credit for that.

          2. It’s incredibly unsporting for a comedian to exclusively satire/mock a group that’s completely out of power, night after night after night. That’s one reason Colbert was once a great act but became massively unfunny from 2009-10. He’s also gotten a seriously big head.

        3. Stewart beat the shit out of Obama on Solyndra on Thursday.

    2. For me that happened around 2004. They seemed to become the Humor Division of the DNC. Their supposed even-handedness: attack Republicans for being stupid greedy racists who want to starve children and destroy the planet, and attack Democrats for not fighting the Republicans hard enough. “See, we make fun of both sides!”

      1. This x 1000.

        “TEAM BLUE, you are too nice and wise and fair and unwilling to fight for your brilliant ideas, you let those evil, stupid Republicans walk (really not even walk, but sliming, like disgusting slugs) all over your perfectly formed, thoughtful vision.”

        See, we DO make fun of both sides!

        1. Likewise with Maher.

  3. Jon Stewart, makes a lot more money than Matt Welch. We feel your pain, Matt. Life is unfair! The market for wicked, accurate political satire is woefully inefficient! Tell it to the chaplain.

    1. Jon Stewart and Matt Welch both make more money than Alan Venneman. And Matt Welch apparently has better taste in TV shows and avoids being a daily show sycophant like Venneman.

      1. Some troll once posted the Reason Foundation’s compensation paperwork on here. Matt and Nick do juuuust fine.

        1. I am sure they do. I swear that Vennaman has pictures of Nick in dispose with a golden retriever. I just can’t figure out why they kiss his ass like they do. He is just a douche.

        2. holy shit really?

          link please.

            1. Not bad for recession-era salaries, but not above what I expected, either. They are talented and do a lot for the brand. Less than $100k would be a bit of a slap in the face.

              1. Those two are worth every penny.

              2. I assumed Nick made a little more… hell, I assumed the Jacket alone cost, at least, what he made that year.

                1. I can’t afford to keep making my comments at the pay rate that’s been in effect since I began. Not after seeing what those guys make!

                  But I’ll just continue as before, doing my part to create a better world.

              3. Not bad. Not a fortune, true, but if I ever go on a Reason cruise, Nick and Matt are buying the drinks.

            2. You can get a current 990 any time at guidestar.org. Not sure if they have 2010s up yet.

              1. The 2010 one is available. No change from 2009.

            3. Oh nice.

              I am glad they both make more then the director of planning makes in the County I work in.

              1. Combined?
                I’m a little surprised that they make less than your average govt GS-15

    2. For the record, I think Stewart deserves his money, I feel zero pain about his (or my) salary, I don’t get worked up about him one way or another (not watching him more than a couple of times per year), and I don’t consort with chaplains.

      But other than that, you’re right — you don’t like me.

    3. I blew the cat this morning.

    4. Coming soon: Sherlock Holmes and the Giant Talk Show Host of Sumatra!

  4. He could protest that he’s just a lowly turnip farmer for all I care, I’ll still watch him if he’s funny and ignore him when he’s not.

    1. Yup. Concern over who’s “serious” and who’s not is pretty goddamned irrelevant. Self-important media jerkoffs are self-important. News (from either a “serious” or unserious media jerkoff) at 11.

  5. I only watch when Neil de Grasse Tyson or Michio Kaku are on.

    1. Not Prof Sexxxy, Brian Cox?

  6. This is stupid.

    I thought it was stupid when John talked about it, and I think it is even more stupid now that I’ve seen a few lines of it.

    But he’s not saying what he actually is, because then he’d be judged. And Jon Stewart, to a degree unique in the culture, exists outside the realm of judgment.

    Um, nothing’s stopping anyone who wants from “judging” Jon Stewart. Did this Esquire douche just do that very thing?

    This reads to me like “journalist writer douche objects to the breakdown of categories that has made being ‘an official journalist’ less important and significant than it used to be”. In any other context you guys would recognize it and call it out.

    I’m a journalist when I say I am and a comedian when I say I am and a fucking spy when I say I am and a tailor and a doctor and any other fucking thing I say I am. Judge away.

    Stewart’s support of the First Responders bill should be judged on its own merits, and not on the basis of its supposed place in our cultural history. Personally I find it lacking just because it was a bad bill. But the fact that Stewart supported it with fart jokes doesn’t matter, because if that’s the most effective form of communication he’s got at his disposal we should expect him to use it.

    1. Should have refreshed before posting. This is exactly what I was thinking, only said moar better.

    2. Sure it should be judged on its own merits. That is the whole point. Every time someone comes at Stewart on the merits of what he is saying, he hides behind the fact that he is a comedian. If Stewart is pushing idiotic ideas and using his show as a propaganda tool for one side or the other, it ought to be called as such. The fact that he is doing it with fart jokes doesn’t make him any more right or less of a propagandist.

      1. Every time someone comes at Stewart on the merits of what he is saying, he hides behind the fact that he is a comedian.

        Yeah, that’s when he’s not funny and anybody who took Stewart’s opinion seriously before should be dissuaded of that notion the instance they see him recoil into his shell. Don’t worry John, no thinking person would elect Stewart to any position above “dog catcher”.

        1. The local dog catcher used to be, BTK the perverted sexual serial killer.

      2. Sure it should be judged on its own merits.

        So like a fart joke is worth a point? But a good ethnic joke is worth two points? WTF.

        Stewart on the merits of what he is saying, he hides behind the fact that he is a comedian.

        I don’t give a fuck, John. I’m not going to parse his what he says to make sure he is consistent.

        1. If you are not going to listen to what he says or in anyway take it seriously, then don’t claim Stewart is anything but a clown or has anything to say beyond making you laugh.

          1. Right John, I don’t take what he says seriously unless he makes a valid point which, hypocrite or not, I will listen to.

            If I want consistent philosophy, I will go to Kant or Schweitzer. If I want fart jokes, I’ll go to Stewart.

            I am sure that if we deconstructed Matt Stone and Trey Parker (who pick on liberals), similar hypocrisies could be found. But that doesn’t take away form the valid points that they make.

            I still listen to Roger Waters even though he is a hypocritical fuck. All that whining about “with and without?” Dedicating Radio KAOS to all those who find themselves at the violent end of monetarism. Then he goes off and charges over $1,000.00 a ticket. Please Roger, STFU.

            1. Right John, I don’t take what he says seriously unless he makes a valid point

              and

              I don’t give a fuck, John. I’m not going to parse his what he says to make sure he is consistent.

              How do you know he makes a valid point if you are not paying attention to what he is saying or holding him to any standard of consistency?

              1. Waldo Emerson nailed you real good.

            2. You enjoy Waters’ music. You don’t take him seriously about anything else. If you feel that way about Stewart, I agree with you.

            3. You were cooking with gas…….until you said Kant was philosophically consistent.

        2. “So like a fart joke is worth a point? But a good ethnic joke is worth two points? WTF.”

          No you dimwit. The political content of his show.

    3. I love how whenever someone points out Stewart being a hack (the greatest hypocrisy since he makes his living on pointing out the hackery of others’), like clockwork he responds with “I’m just a comedian!” Because everyone knows that comedians are incapable of bias! Stewart is a hypocritical hack and that’s all you need to know. If Ed Schultz started taking anger management classes and got some smart writers who could do jokes, the result would be Jon Stewart.

      1. Precisely. Stewart frequently uses the cop-out that he isn’t required to be objective because he’s “just a comedian!”

        Yet simultaneously portrays himself as the antidote to the failures of mainstream journalism.

      2. So why does he have to be objective? Where the fuck is that written in stone?

        1. It’s not written in stone. I think what everyone is trying to say is it’s disingenuous to say you’re objective and then not actually be objective and then when someone calls you on it saying “hey, I’m a comedian and I don’t have to be objective”

          1. I think what everyone is trying to say is it’s disingenuous to say you’re objective and then not actually be objective and then when someone calls you on it saying “hey, I’m a comedian and I don’t have to be objective”

            The problem is this. Stewart doesn’t say “I am objective.” What he says is “the news media isn’t objective (or responsible) and don’t live up to the expectations that their audience has for them.”

            Responding to a comedian (or any non-journalist) who makes that point with “but you’re not objective” is ALWAYS going to lead to the “but I am not in the news media” response. He is not being disingenuous unless you believe his show is “news.”

            1. Oh I don’t believe his show is news and I don’t know if he’s ever said he’s objective. I was just expressing why someone might get their panties in a twist over him.

              Although one could argue (wrongly or rightly) that he does indeed report on the news, just adding satirical commentary at certain points.

              1. I’m not a bit pissed at Stewart’s schtick. I often enjoy it, for what it is. But, I am frequently dismayed that GenY douchebags hold him UP as serious journalism.

            2. I think I can boil it down to the idea that Stewart wants to be taken very, very seriously as a comedic media critic, and especially his ideas as social commentator, right up to the point where he doesn’t want that.

              I think that’s what sets off his many detractors. It reeks of hypocracy and having it both ways.

              1. Yeah, that about sums it up. He want’s to be taken seriously, right up until the point where someone actually takes him seriosuly and responds to his points on the merits, and then he’s all like “Hey, I’m just a comedian, stop taking me so seriously!”

                1. Or to put it more succinctly, he want’s his ideas to be taken seriously, but not substantively criticized.

                  1. There are very few people who don’t have an aversion to criticism. And those people don’t have the ego to make it in showbiz.

                    1. Basically, Stewart is like those douchebag commentators on various websites who in all seriousness post something they didn’t know would be inflammatory or controversial, and then when it gets a negative reception say “LOL I TROLL YOU!”

                      He wants all of the perks to being a media commentator with none of the consequences.

  7. doesn’t he have a TV show?

  8. “He’s saying once again that he’s outgrown comedy and is no longer a comedian. But he’s not saying what he actually is, because then he’d be judged.”
    _
    stewart’s an entertainer like rush, or ingram, or coulter, or faux knews

    1. Tiresome troll used “Faux News”. Want an original quip that is.

      1. no i wrote faux knews

    2. Haz teh gubmint [JOBZ] kreators kreated ani [JOBZ]?

      1. yep but the wealthy [JOBZ] creators have not

        1. Teh [JOBZ] r not [JOBZ] kreated, noob.

          1. ur obviously not the entertainer stewart or rush is

            1. An intertainer r u. but not on purpose.

              1. u mean not on porpoise

                1. Thwose too. u r kamidy guld.

  9. He exists outside the realms of judgment, except, apparently, for a popular magazine like Esquire. Oh brave Tom Junod, daring to say the unsayable.

    I’ll agree that it’s easier to be funny about stuff you disagree with. That’s just human nature. (But Stewart at his most pompous is still 100 times funnier than Red Eye.)

    1. I’ve seen horrors… horrors that you’ve seen. But you have no right to call me a journalist. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that… but you have no right to judge me. It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror… Horror has a face… and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies!

      I remember when I was with Special Forces… seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn’t see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember… I… I… I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn’t know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it… I never want to forget.

      And then I realized… like I was shot… like I was shot with a diamond… a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God… the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men… trained journalists. These men who wrote with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love… but they had the strength… the strength… to do that. If I had ten divisions of those journalists, our troubles here would be over very quickly.

      You have to have journalists who are moral… and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling… without passion… without judgment… without judgment! Because it’s judgment that defeats us.

    2. But Stewart at his most pompous is still 100 times funnier than Red Eye.

      Marmaduke is 100 times funnier than Red Eye. The Weather Channel is 100 times funnier than Red Eye. Those annoying guys drinking beer at 3 am in your neighbors backyard that you call the cops on are 100 time funnier than Red Eye.

      1. But Red Eye is still funnier than Family Circus.

        1. except when he lets the kids draw. Man. Priceless.

      2. Bullshit.

        Also Louis is way funnier then both….simple reason being that Louis C.K. is perfectly willing to abandon his heroes and ideology for the sake of a joke.

        This is also why Red Eye is funnier then the Daily Show…they are slightly more willing to do that.

        1. I do love Louis C.K….but he doesn’t really do political humor, so that’s kinda off topic.

          Humor is, of course, subjective, but all that I have seen of Red Eye has been a painfully flawed “trying too hard to be funny” schtick. I will admit that that means I have only a very small sample to base my judgment on, but man, the times I have seen it have been awful.

          1. but he doesn’t really do political humor

            ….you are not watching hard enough.

            He may not name names (though he does every so often) his work is highly political.

            Also speaking of Red Eye and Louis C.K….this:

            http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/08…..eld-louis/

            1. ….you are not watching hard enough.

              He may not name names (though he does every so often) his work is highly political.

              I don’t know. I’ve seen all the episodes of his show and seen him in concert. He occasionally talks abstractly about politics, but “highly political” seems to REALLY mis-characterize his stuff.

              1. Not-political is a feature. He’s gotten political a couple of times on the series and it’s just been whiny, run-of-the-mill liberal stuff.

                Lewis Black can be brutally funny when he stays off politics, which is rarer these days from what I see. When he’s on it, zzzzzzz.

      3. The show died with Craig Kilburn.

        He’s dead, right?

  10. as someone else noted a while back with Stewart, it’s clown nose on, clown nose off, as needed.

    1. It’s the perfect way to defend your hypocrisy!

  11. Taste in comedy is a lot like tastes in food, beer, or music. No one’s ipod collection or pantry looks the same. Some people might prefer Tim Conway to Chris Rock. And tt cracks me up whenever someone says Stewart isn’t funny. Attempting to objectify something inherently subjective (i.e. Vanilla is objectively better than chocolate) is just fucking stupid.

    Another thing that cracks me up is all the ink (and HTML pages) this guy gets just because he does political humor. Like this comedian is supposed to have an erudite, coherent, political philosophy. When is the last time Carlin go this kind of treatment? How come Don Rickles doesn’t get an article?

    I think he’s funny. I like when he points out people’s contradictions (and yeah he picks on fox news). No one else is doing that. The media isn’t calling anyone’s bullshit. MSM is too busy seeing if they can get the cock all the way down to the balls.

    And he get demerits for being smug? Are you kidding me? On this blog?

    Look, if you don’t think he is funny, good for fucking you. You think Margeret Cho or Dane Cook is funny, good for fucking you. So Matt, could you spend your energies on something that matters? Like how members of both parties of congress are running this country into the ground or reviewing Rush records.

    And one final thing, if you live in a culture that has to have a comedian shame you in to *just pass the fucking thing*, your culture is probably pretty god damned fucked up. So fucked up that you shouldn’t be spending time worrying about what a smug jew thinks.

    1. Good for you if you think he is funny. Sorry for you if you take anything he says seriously or pay any attention to him beyond getting a laugh. It is his claims to be a person to be taken seriously that is the problem.

      1. I don’t know. One could argue that the fact that some people take him seriously is reason enough to take him somewhat seriously. Who cares what he claims about himself?

      2. Jon made a perfectly valid point in the last week. He was pointing out something Perry said that was just mind numbingly fucking stupid. (something about We have to leave Afghanistan AND we have to stay) Something this blog would have (justifiably) ripped Perry apart for.

        Could someone email a link where he proffers to be taken serious?
        That he is the epitome of journalism? That he is beyond reproach of hypocrisy? Thanks.

        1. RTA. There are a lot of examples. And see the quote above where he claims he had “earned the chance to tell America who he was”. That is demanding that we take him seriously.

  12. Re. the cover poses, he might consider finding a new look to put on his face.

    1. i’ve always been a fan of Jew Steel, & i hear Mao-gnum is gonna blow us all away…

  13. At least he’s back to being intermittently watchable (~50% of the time.) 2009 and 2010 was just a long playback loop of every California Democrat since 1992 – Sure we have a supermajority, but the only reason the world ain’t perfect yet is due to those damn obstructionists!

  14. He’s a political satirist, and hardly the first one. I think conservatives are just butthurt over the fact that none of them are the slightest bit funny.

    1. Yeah Esquire is such a conservative magazine. And Tom Junod is a regular ditto head. Jesus Tony, you need to try harder.

      1. I think the piece is mildly interesting and a little bit correct, but I’m talking about you.

      1. I think conservatives are just butthurt over the fact that none of them are the slightest bit funny.

        Troy|9.19.11 @ 4:02PM|#

        South Park

        Conservative? Huh?

        1. It sure as hell isn’t liberal considering that the creators freely admit they don’t like conservatives but fucking hate liberals. I would say South Park is libertarian if anything. And a hell of a lot more daring and funnier than anything Stewart has ever done.

          1. Never said they were liberal.

            Stopped being funny for the most part years and years ago. Pretty much as soon as they thought they had a political point to make.

            The pop culture stuff is occasionally funny now (the Coon, WoW, etc..) but their work for the most part is preachy and dull.

            1. This from a Jon Stewart fan. You are funny

              1. See below.

            2. Actually, the Mohammed episode on censorship was hilarious. You’re butthurt, and SP is way better than Stewart.

    2. waddja mean tony? backmann’s hilarious

      1. So’s Huckabee in a G-rated, prairie home companion sort of way…

    3. I think conservatives are just butthurt over the fact that none of them are the slightest bit funny.

      A comedian who is not at least somewhat libertine if not libertarian generally fails.

      Just watch the episode of the Green Room with Janeane Garofalo as one of the guests and she gets stomped by Dave Attell and Doug Stanhope.

      She comes off like a nagging Lisa Simpson.

  15. Stewert, much like Family Guy, is at his best when he isn’t being a partisan hack or trying to spout off liberal economic rhetoric. I think his staff have their moments and produce a fairly decent show. The second they land in Liberal’s are right and everyone else is wrong territory is the moment I stop paying attention.

    1. What is sad is that the Obama administration really is comedy gold. Stewart just doesn’t have the balls to really go after him. If he had gone after Obama the way he went after Bush, Stewart would be remembered as a great political satirist. He missed his opportunity and will instead be remembered as a one trick hack.

      1. Your problem is you think everything should operate according to Fox News’ definition of “fair and balanced.” Stewart proportions his satire to the level of absurdity in the objects of satire. It’s just reality that Republicans are more absurd than Democrats on so many levels. Sorry about that, it’s just how it is.

        1. Tony you are without doubt the least self aware person on earth. I really can’t even parody what you just wrote. I am just sad that there is someone out there who actually is that deluded.

          1. I’m terrified there are millions like him.

        2. Sorry Tony but both Team’s are equally absurd.

          1. That is highly unlikely considering they disagree on everything.

            1. Are you really saying that one of them HAS to be right on all issues? Just because they disagree doesn’t mean one side is correct. If democrats say the sky is orange and republicans say it’s purple…

              1. Didn’t you know? There are exactly two ways to approach an issue, and exactly one of them is right.

            2. Silly Tony. Just because they preen and pose in front of the cameras doesn’t mean they aren’t all working for the same goal: Centralization of Power.

      2. What is sad is that the Obama administration really is comedy gold.

        I don’t see it. They might be funny in the way that 1960’s sad French mimes are funny, but not really comedy gold.

        1. French mimes are NEVER funny.

        2. You don’t see the potential for satire in this administration? The fucking blakc Jesus? The guy who could fuck up a cup of coffee? Who can’t give a speech without a teleprompter? Joe fucking Biden is Vice President for God’s sake.

          You really don’t think a good satirist couldn’t tear this administration apart? Since when does failure not make for good comedy. You can’t be serious.

          1. In his defense, Stewart’s audience isn’t likely to find racist humor all that funny. I understand that’s the apex of comedy in your circles.

            1. Yes Tony, black men are inferior and thus can’t be criticized like white politicians. Stewart’s audience and you are white supremacists. We are not and look at Obama as a human being. I feel sorry for people like you who can’t. But I guess you have to have something to feel good about. And white supremacy has a long history.

              1. look at Obama as a human being

                You are hitting 500 today John. good work.

                yeah this is the problem. Tony cannot see Obama as a human being and in his land of unicorns and dragons it is impossible for him to even consider that people who disagree with Obama’s politics could simply see him as a human being.

                It is like that place where the women could never look in the Dune movie. The blind spot of doom!!!

            2. You know it’s genuine Toney when you’ve got this level of epic sheer imbecility. It’s actually awe inspiring.

          2. You don’t see the potential for satire in this administration?

            I don’t, John. There has to be some separation between satire and it object, and I submit that this administration is so self-satirizing that it is, effectively, satire-proof.

            I mean, c’mon. This President is now touring the country waving what must be a blank sheet of paper, demanding “Pass my jobs bill now”, while simultaneously promising to release the jobs bill after his next vacation.

            How do you satirize that?

            1. That is a good point RC.

            2. There has to be some separation between satire and it object, and I submit that this administration is so self-satirizing that it is, effectively, satire-proof.

              A joke, I will point out, stolen from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Recycled from the Bush days, of course, and therefore self-refuting.

              1. Recycled from the Bush days, of course, and therefore self-refuting.

                You do realize this is a libertarian web site right?

                (Why do the left wing trolls have to be reminded of this constantly)

                You know where the Bush and the Obama presidency are both seen as jokes for the same reasons.

                1. Talk to RC, not me.

                  I was just pointing out that it falls apart because both adminstrations have been self-parodies.

                  1. I was just pointing out that it falls apart because both adminstrations have been self-parodies.

                    You guys remember back in about 2009 and we had that discussion about how there were no jokes about Obama? I think it was in that thread about the Obama socialism? poster with the Joker war paint.

                    Here is the joke I made as I remember it:

                    Obama, an atheist, a priest and a rabbi are on a sinking cruise ship debating on who gets to use it.

                    The Rabbi says “save the children”

                    The atheist says “fuck the children”

                    The Priest asks “you think there is time?”

                    Obama declares “I don’t exist” then jumps off the ship into the water below.

                    Personally I think this joke can only work to its full potential until after Obama has left office.

                    1. I found the original joke…and it is much better then how i remember it:

                      joshua corning|1.6.09 @ 4:59PM|#

                      Robot chicken script

                      Aquaman, a rabbi, catholic priest and Obama are standing on a sinking ship.

                      Rabbi: there is only one raft what should we do?

                      Aquaman: Save the children!

                      Rabbi: screw the children!

                      Catholic Prest: Do you think there is time?

                      Obama: umm i have campaigned (pause) in 57 states to become president of the umm United States (pause) of America and ummm I have discovered (pause) that I do not exist.

                      Obama then jumps on the raft and from out side the screen enters Santa Clause, the Easter bunny and Kwanzaa Kangaroo who then jump on the the raft which then immediately capsizes and sinks.

                      end scene.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2009/01…..nt_1177177

                2. (Why do the left wing trolls have to be reminded of this constantly)

                  Neu may be a lefty, but he’s no troll.

                  1. Neu may be a lefty, but he’s no troll.

                    He has lapsed into this troll trope in the past.

                    It is not a bad thing to pull him out of of the troll ranks once in a while when he does.

      3. What is sad is that the Obama administration really is comedy gold. .

        Agreed.

  16. yeah, Carson/Leno/Letterman didnt/dont hold rallies for political causes. A comedian can hold a rally, but a GREAT comedian cant.

  17. I’ll go on the record as saying that I find Stewart to be usually funny, smart, articulate, etc. C’mon, “Mess-o-potamia?” Good stuff. We need more shows with the bluntness displayed on the Daily Show.

    BUT, if you’re going to be a dick, be a dick, eve if it’s for no good reason at all that anyone else can see. You want to be a lefty-centrist gadfly, muckraking, authority-questioning, ball-busting, speaker-to-truth…er? Fine by me. God knows the Stupid Party needs taken down a few thousand pegs or so on a regular basis. Maybe a few million pegs for TEAM BLUE.

    But be up front with it. Be fucking honest about your intentions and motives. Don’t play this bullshit game of hiding behind the skirt of comedian every time you want to call a tactical retreat because you got your ass handed to you on a platter or were called out on a statement you can’t back up.

    1. I think Stewart would reply that it’s a sad commentary on the state of journalism–and itself a target for satirical criticism–that anyone should feel compelled to look to him for rigorous fact-checking or informed commentary. His show is jokes first, sometimes obviously divorced from reality (as jokes deal in the absurd). His entire shtick is that real journalists ought to be doing the job you are asking him to do.

      1. Yes Tony, it is a problem that there are people like you are are so stupid they actually get their information and opinions from Stewart. If he didn’t encourage that and take advantage of stupid people like you, he wouldn’t be so at fault.

        1. I don’t get information from Jon Stewart. I watch his show regularly but I am almost always informed about the subjects before it starts.

          You’re missing the big picture here, which is the absurdity that one is more likely to be informed watching only Jon Stewart than watching only Fox News (and this is a proven fact).

          1. You’re missing the big picture here, which is the absurdity that one is more likely to be informed watching only Jon Stewart than watching only Fox News (and this is a proven fact).

            That’s like bragging about being the tallest midget at the carnival. Jon Stewart and Fox News are both idiotic trash entertainment, and should not be taken seriously at all.

          2. Actually didn’t Reason publish a post recently on a study showing that people who watched FOX were actually more informed than those who watched other networks?

            I’d have to go back and dig it up, but the gist of it was basically that people more likely to watch FOX were also large consumers of other news sources. The least informed people were the ones who stuck to only one news channel.

            1. I vaguely remember that.

        2. And you want to claim that the big problem here is with Jon Stewart for being too informative, not Fox News for making people dumber.

      2. What’s that Tony? You bleated something? Too bad all I can see is a pale echo of your existence.

        reasonable! Huzzah!

        1. Who are you again?

      3. I could be wrong, but I’m almost POSITIVE neither Mark Twain nor Will Rogers ever apologized for being “just a humorist”.

        But to be fair, they lived in a time where men still pretty universally had something in their sack besides marbles.

    2. Don’t play this bullshit game of hiding behind the skirt of comedian every time you want to call a tactical retreat because you got your ass handed to you on a platter or were called out on a statement you can’t back up.

      THIS!!!!

  18. The sad thing is that the Reason hit and run commenters wrote the Esquire article like 2 years ago.

  19. Wow. Every single nook and cranny where any kind of dissenting voice exists just needs to be crushed by the libertarian thought machine. Let’s have a pseudo intellectual conversation about who and what is “funny” in order to banish John Stewart for agreeing with Obama because anyone who agrees with Obama must be funny in the head and not funny ha ha.

    Although I am with you guys!! Let’s have a revolution! Let’s send all of those horrible left wingers to camp somewhere where they can learn about how the free market works.

    Let’s banish John Stewart from the airwaves by having one of our multibillionaire benefactors buy up the comedy network to protect our “speech.” I mean that’s the “market” talking after all.

    Good luck. You are all ideological amateurs. I will wait for the counter-revolution where I will decide who lives and dies based on the ideological purity of your understanding of the “market.” Me and my buddies will divide up what’s left.

    1. Who wants to banish him from the airwaves. Half the people on this thread watch the guy. People just think he is a douche trying to have it both ways and not someone who should be taken seriously beyond humor.

      At least try reading the damned thread before commenting on it. Ok?

      1. People just think he is a douche trying to have it both ways

        I don’t know about being a douch but yeah Stewart’s “But I am only a little bitty comedian” gimmick of deflecting criticized wore thin over 5 years ago.

        It is lame and he deserves to be called out for it.

    2. Geez, go take your Midol.

      If people wanna criticize Stewart, they will. If you don’t like it, too fucking bad.

      1. Criticizing him would mean disagreement on his position as to the “first-responders bill. Calling him a hypocrite is a personal attack on him as a way to avoid actually criticizing the actual basis of his position. If he had come out against the bill I doubt any of you ideologues will call him a hypocrite.

        1. So fucking what? He supported the first responder bill whatever that is. That doesn’t take away from the fact that he is a hack whose humor consists of telling the world how anyone right of Nancy Pelosi is evil and racist and the only failings of anyone on the left is the failure to fight hard enough against the evil right. He is a leftist hack and pretty much a propaganda organ for the government right now. That is worthy of scorn regardless of what he thinks about first responders.

          1. So fucking what? He supported the first responder bill whatever that is. That doesn’t take away from the fact that he is a hack whose humor consists of telling the world how anyone right of Nancy Pelosi is evil and racist

            Patently false.

            and the only failings of anyone on the left is the failure to fight hard enough against the evil right.

            Also patently false, (although that is a common joke).

            He is a leftist hack and pretty much a propaganda organ for the government right now.

            You clearly don’t watch his show.

            That is worthy of scorn regardless of what he thinks about first responders.

            Partisan hacks hate other partisan hacks…it is a truism.

            1. Partisan hacks hate other partisan hacks…it is a truism.

              So what? Then maybe I am a hack too. But that doesn’t excuse Stewart. Do you honestly believe that Stewart isn’t biased to the Left and doesn’t view his show as a vehicle to promote leftist ideas? You really think he goes into work every day thinking, “lets make sure we aren’t too hard on one side and are just funny”. You are really that delusional?

              Look, you are a hard left liberal and you love the guy. Good for you. Perhaps you should. But stop insulting people’s intelligence by claiming he is some kind of a centrist.

              1. Look, you are a hard left liberal and you love the guy. Good for you. Perhaps you should. But stop insulting people’s intelligence by claiming he is some kind of a centrist.

                I am a centrist. Being to the left of you does not make me “hard left.” Anyone who wants to criticize Jon Stewart for not being funny will have me on their side more often than not.

                As for this:
                Do you honestly believe that Stewart isn’t biased to the Left and doesn’t view his show as a vehicle to promote leftist ideas?

                He might tilt left. I think he views himself as a centrist (most people do), so I doubt he thinks he is there to promote leftist ideas.

                You really think he goes into work every day thinking, “lets make sure we aren’t too hard on one side and are just funny”.

                I know that he doesn’t think like that. Who would?

                It is mainly sad that you think not doing that would somehow make him “not a hack.”

                1. Note that NM, in the midst of lecturing John about partisan people having a skewed perception of their place on the spectrum, identifies himself as “a centrist”. This is typical of his scoldings.

                  He’s probably not a troll — he does post actual content rather than bait. But if sincere he’s definitely an arrogant SOB with not the slightest self-checking.

                  1. By self-checking, I mean doing precisely what he’s instructing John to do — trying to recognize biases in one’s own thinking.

            2. Also patently false, (although that is a common joke).

              So that is a false accusation even though you admit he makes the joke commonly. If he makes the joke, then the accusation is true you fucking half wit. You are as dumb as Tony.

              1. only failings

                Words mean things John. You made an absolute statement that is false. Other Democratic failings are frequently parodied on the show.

                1. Wow, the Santa Fe Sophist claiming that “words mean things”. Have you yourself renounced redefining words when their meanings are inconvenient?

                  1. You lie. everybody lie. Buck buck begack! Feed me.

                  2. Tulpa –

                    You make that accusation only because you have such a poor understanding of how lexical semantics works.

        2. Shove the ‘first responders bill’ up your flag waving, sycophantic New York ass; sideways.

    3. Let’s send all of those horrible left wingers to camp somewhere where they can learn about how the free market works.

      Show us on the doll where the camp counselor touched you.

    4. Never go full-retard.

    5. Wow. Every single nook and cranny where any kind of dissenting voice exists just needs to be crushed by the libertarian thought machine.

      wait, we can do that? Awesome? Is it like libertarianattackwatch.com or something?

  20. Hit the Koch’s stash for enough long folding green to hire Moynihan back full time.

    1. Going to the Vice site makes my eyeballs bleed.

      I second this motion.

      1. Yeah, Moynihan added some world news flavor that is badly lacking these days.

  21. You mean that you thought that John Stewart was being an objective journalist? And he is a hypocrite for making you believe that somehow? I love the posts talking about how John Stewart could make Republican-like humor or something if he really tried….and presumably therefore be “fair and balanced” just like Fox News!!! Ha!! HA!!!HA HAHAHAHAHAHA. Now that’s funny.

    1. Babbling incoherently is just one of many of Georgie’s unique talents.

      1. Ha! Yup. Whatev’s

    2. Dear George,

      Thank you for your recent application for Troll here at Hit & Run. While we do appreciate your efforts in demonstrating your command of this position, and our current trolls can’t be thought of anything more than sub-primal mongoloids, I’m afraid that you just don’t measure up to our high standards for House Troll and we must decline your application.

      We do have openings for House Liberals and if you would like to apply for any of those positions, we encourage you to do so. Please be aware that you will be expected to undergo rigorous testing of a period of several months before any decision is made and that any undue trollery will start the testing process over.

      Best of luck in your continuing search.

      1. What happened to a ll of the conservo-trolls? It seems like since 2009 all we’ve had are these defective prog models.

        Maybe in ’13 the chicken-hawk xenophobe mark IV will finally be out.

        1. Maybe you just stopped noticing them because you’ve turned right harder than a food truck trying to shake the stinkbugs out of the apple sauce basin.

      2. Gotta love it. I sort of get it now. If I agree with you = coherence!!! Disagreement = sub-primal mongoloid.* Did it make you feel powerful and part of a cool “insider” group when you wrote that! Did you feel superior to me? Just imagine what you are going to feel like when it all gets turned against you! You should read more about Mao and other fun ideological stuff.

        The Clash – Working for the Clampdown

        “What are we going to do now…
        Taking off his turban, they said is this man a Jew?
        ‘COS THEY’RE WORKING FOR THE CLAMPDOWN
        They put up a poster saying we earn more than you
        WHEN WE’RE WORKING FOR THE CLAMPDOWN
        We will teach our twisted speech,
        to the young believers.
        We will train our blue-eyed men,
        to be young believers.

        The Judge said Five-to-Ten – But I say double that again.
        I’M NOT WORKING FOR THE CLAMPDOWN
        No man born with a living soul.
        CAN BE WORKING FOR THE CLAMPDOWN
        Kick over the wall, cause governments to fall
        How can you refuse it?
        Let fury have the hour, anger can be power
        D’you know how you can use it?

        *I am sure that there are some shades of meaning that we are permitted to disagree on yet still be faithful. That helps create the appearance of “discourse.”

        1. You are the clampdown now, George.

          This era of fear and centralizied authority is your golden age; you own it, man. You can’t fight the powers that be, they are you.

          You’ve won, and your prize is shit, George. Congratulations.

        2. Dear George,

          Thank you again for your recent communication. Your persistence and dedication to trolling is commendable. These are positive traits that will serve you well in the future.

          However, as we’ve already explained that you bring nothing original or even the most nominal of thought provoking ideas to H&R, truly, little more than spastic tantrums, and that you demonstrate no understanding whatsoever of this forum, we will again remind you that we have declined your application.

          Again, best of luck and security will be by shortly to escort you out.

          1. C’mon man, he posted Clash lyrics, that has to account for something, right?

            1. “The Clash?” Is this some new band?

              He posted it thinking it was something poignant. That actually loses points.

              1. Sorry, I was just trying to feel powerful, and part of a cool “insider” group.

                1. That’s what you get for being superior. You should know better.

  22. jon stewart *is* a liberal and is pretty open about it, but imo he’s done a “decent” job at criticizing/lampooning the left as well

    in fact, the many outraged threads at progressive sites like DU are proof of that. leftists have been upset at him many times for daring to “take the right’s side”, “unfairly criticize obama” etc. according to them.

    the really scary thing is there were a lot of progs/libs who openly claimed there (at least during the bush years) “i only get my news from the daily shoe” which is fucking scary

  23. Damn.
    Clearly I don’t want to get anything useful done today.

    Full Disclosure:
    I don’t find Jon Stewart to be much of a comedian. He has some good writers, but he is not very talented.

    Politically he is mostly incoherent, but also mostly harmless. He wants government that “works” and is “effective.” I don’t think he ever gets more specific than that.

  24. Damn.
    Clearly I don’t want to get anything useful done today.

    Full Disclosure:
    I don’t find Jon Stewart to be much of a comedian. He has some good writers, but he is not very talented.

    Politically he is mostly incoherent, but also mostly harmless. He wants government that “works” and is “effective.” I don’t think he ever gets more specific than that.

    1. You ever double post? You ever double post…ON WEED!?

    2. “Harmless” is a subjective characterization. Explain why you think he is harmless, and to whom he is harmless, or you’re just posting styrofoam.

      As a great man once said, words mean things.

      1. “Harmless” is a subjective characterization. Explain why you think he is harmless,

        My explanation is in my statement. He promotes “effective” government. A mostly harmless idea.

        and to whom he is harmless, or you’re just posting styrofoam.

        To whom? If you are harmless, you can’t do harm, so mostly harmless means his political ideas aren’t likely to harm anyone. For the most part.

    3. the first responders bill seemed pretty specific to me

      1. Yeah, but he didn’t seem to have read it very carefully. He promoted it on a general principle without doing much leg work.

  25. I only clicked once, WTF?

    1. Click, cluck, WTF. Birdbrain I am. Cluck cluck.

  26. Stewart is a big time leftie hack. Nothing illegal about that but there’s nothing high and mighty there either.

    Oh, he actually criticizes Obama! How compelling. I remember when we blamed Presidents for hurricaines. Good times, good times.

  27. Don’t any of you understand that you have lost by simply trying to label yourselves as “conservative” or “liberal.”? You want to categorize everyone by your ideological bent. You are theologians not intellectuals. You have your beliefs and”reason” only from that starting point. You attack people based upon their conformity to your belief system rather than whether they have anything valuable to say. You are the Clampdown. You will be the leaders in the revolution if someone ever gives you the permission to start killing people. The crowd did that at the Republican debate when they yelled “yes” to the question as to whether someone should die if they failed to buy health insurance. It is but a short intellectual leap from “they should die” to “we should kill them.” Maybe someday when you are finally faced with that prospect you will think back and stop yourselves because of something that some Troll said. The problem is that I actually take this far more seriously than you all do.

    1. I seriously can’t tell if this is a joke.

      People (mostly libertarian in bent) were talking about whether Jon Stewart should be taken seriously. But don’t let me stop you from venting your paranoia over death squads.

      “The problem is that I actually take this far more seriously than you all do.”
      No you take this more emotionally than anyone here.

    2. How about we put George up against the wall first, guys?

      That way we don’t have to keep hearing the ‘troll who saved the world’ speech over and over again.

      Praise Jesus.

  28. Letting people take care of themselves is the same as killing them. You MUST obey your overlords!

  29. The Red Shoes is on TCM.
    Moira Shearer was a fucking goddess.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.