Friday, March 20, 2009
Congress "opens up a can of dumb-ass"
Even righties will enjoy Jon Stewart's deconstruction of the Congressional prosecution of Ed Liddy. He is comprehensively non-partisan in the heaping of scorn, and makes good use of the angry mob. It makes for good Friday lunchtime viewing (unless, of course, your company prohibits the watching of videos over its network!).
6 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Mar 20, 11:58:00 AM:
What else can we ever expect from the demacrook CONgress of demacrooks
By 
Escort81, at
Fri Mar 20, 01:17:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Escort81, at
Fri Mar 20, 01:23:00 PM:
I don't watch the show, but I see enough in the way of clips -- Stewart is always better when he keeps the "clown nose on" and doesn't pretend to make serious commentary. When he tries to get serious ("clown nose off"), and offer up critique on issues where he lacks comprehension, as he did with Cramer, he is not nearly as effective.
It will be interesting to see where his show is in six months, if President Obama's approval ratings are somewhat lower than they are now -- will Stewart be going after him with anywhere near the same intesity that he did with W, assuming that the entertainment value is there? Or will cabinet members caught up in the issue du jour be as high as it goes?
By , at
Fri Mar 20, 11:37:00 PM:
@ Escort: Get over the "everyone was mean to W" victimhood, it is unimpressive. His big failing was not making his arguments in ways a large fraction of his audience would understand/identify with, which is a burden he alone (ie not you) must bear. As an example, "no gay marriage" can be a tenable position from a state's rights, full-faith and credit clause implications, and self-determination perspective, but W went with "marriage is a sacred institution" for the loss. I propose that we instead focus on the things that matter, like formulating a feasible and strong tax plan.
By , at
Sat Mar 21, 12:39:00 AM:
"I propose that we instead focus on the things that matter, like formulating a feasible and strong tax plan."
OK, Fnord, you start.
Make sure to make your "arguments in ways a large fraction of this audience would understand/identify with".
By Escort81, at
Sat Mar 21, 02:48:00 PM:
@Fnord - I didn't mean to imply, and you should not have inferred, that W's office and his undeniable shortcomings as a communicator (which the host of this blog has pointed out on multiple occasions, as is true elsewhere in the conservative blogosphere) should have been left alone by comedians. I just meant that political satirists should practice political satire, regardless of who is in office. President Clinton gave ample material to Leno and Letterman, with his parsing of language and the sex scandals, and they used it relentlessly. Stewart was a bit late to that party, starting as host of The Daily Show during 1999, but made his name using Bush as a piñata, which I think even he would say was not the most challenging thing he has ever done.
Stewart got on the Obama administration (but not Obama personally) for the trial balloon that was floated about having vets pick up the costs of private health insurance for injuries incurred during service time. So, give him credit for that. But I somehow doubt that we will see the sort of personal venom targeted directly at President Obama that we saw with his predecessors by late night comics -- and I would say that might be a good thing if it represented a de-escalation of incendiary rhetoric, but it is more reflective of the bias even Stewart admits that he has. And that's OK, as long as he keeps his clown nose on and doesn't pretend to make serious commentary. I am not sure that ever really worked for Lenny Bruce, who really started that art form in the U.S.
