Jon Stewart dissed JK tonight on TDS (not once but twice)

Oh Jon, sometimes in your efforts to be fair and balanced (or whatever) you dissapoint me. Did anyone else see it?

i didn't watch so i'm not sure what he said but i'm assuming the joke was based on something that Kerry is often attacked for. that's probably why it makes you upset. i know most of Jay Leno's jokes about Kerry were mostly repeating right wing talking points.

Jon Stewart has only one joke about Kerry - that he's boring and difficult to understand.

all i know is i was here during the press conference and nearly all who watched had only positive things to say about Kerry. this is true of all his other appearances.

but afterwards things taken out of context and other things and are used against him.

But between tonight's Daily Show and that Kos thread I was feeling so discouraged I didn't even want to post about it.

I thought the Kerry jokes were just lame. And Nancy Pelosi didn't stick up for him either. ("Oh, he speaks for the senate democrats.") Thanks a lot, Nancy. And that, in a nutshell, is why we lose. Because dems pick up on this nonsense and parrot it back as if it meant something.

Congress was so quiet during the primaries, because they had Congressmen as candidates, same as the Senate. Murtha is a Congressman, politics 101.

But it shouldn't be like this, the subject is to damn important. Why can't they all just sit down and come up with a plan and put it out there with all Dem ideas in it. To me it is that simple.

How in the hell is redeploying our troops to another Arab country, bringing them HOME? Sounds like permanent bases in some part of the ME to me.

as a way to differentiate himself from some of the other Dems like Murtha.

But since Murtha's recent ascension to sainthood I've been keeping the thought to myself.

he was working closely with Kerry, but now it seems it's all Murtha all the time. Worse, Murtha never says anything about Kerry. Yet, Kerry has been very kind to Murtha. Kerry is kind to him and he still get criticized.
Murtha's plan is incomplete and doesn't bring the troops home, just places them out of harms way.Until needed for battle. Sounds real simple, but they will still be fighting and dying.And it doesn't mention anything about handling the economy, and rebuilding or the diplomacy necessary to help the Iraqi's along.
The congress was smart in choosing Murtha to come out, do you notice how no one is actually attacking him or making fun of him? Even the Repubs are leaving him alone.

Her comment turned a lot of people off. Then when they tried the other tactic, Kerry immediately lumped it in with their usual smear tactics.

Also the Republicans are in real trouble I'm not sure anyone of them wants to wage a public battle at this time.

During the first Gulf War the soldiers' barracks in Saudia Arabia were attached by Islamic fundamentalists. I think at this point, the main real use of Feingold's, Kerry's, and Murtha's plan is that they bring the words withdrawal and plan into the mainstream.

I think Kerry will obliquely challange that part of Murtha's plan - by attacking the concept of permanent bases in that area - without saying Murtha. He is much better off selling ideas and issues than with fighting specific non-Bush alternative plans. It's not like there is a contest for the best Democratic plan that would then be implemented. If that were the case, they'ld all be fighting for their ideas and Kerry was the first to turn his into a bill - which he knows won't get out of committee.

For example, one of the most effective things he did with Matthews was to quietly raise the issue of the damage done when the US does the Search and Destroy missions. In other interviews, he has gradually expanded that point to let viewers conclude that US soldiers can have the best of intentions and still create trouble. This seems his mature way of addressing some of the same things that were problems in Vietnam. I think he was the first to raise this issue.

The flack Kerry got just by correcting Blitzer that he had disavowed his vote weeks before Edwards is instructive. Edwards is not the sacred cow that Murtha is and look at all the thrashing that innocent correction led to. Consider the trashing he would have gotten had he NOT corrected that statement. Look at the immediate redemention given Edwards - with Stephanopolis saying he could be the anti-war candidate.

It is interesting that some of the more genuine people (Kennedy, Hayden and Hart, McGovern has said very positive things about Kerry as a person (speaking about both then and now), but I don't know if he has commented on Kerry's plan.) who were anti-war in the Vietnam era like Kerry's plan. My guess is that if Kerry took himself out of 2008, his plan would get far more support and so would he. The problem is I really don't see the viable alternative antiwar candidate who would then take on Hillary.

The best plan doesn't get the merit it deserves because the person is a potential candidate in 2008. News reports: unlike this person or that person, so and so doesn't want to be president (so even though this plan doesn't go far enough, it's by far the best plan).

I want a president who puts forth the best plan for the country and is qualified to lead.

This is why this country is so screwed up: BS games.

When people start talking about Kerry's benchmarks I remind them that redeployment has its own (dangerous) what ifs.

Here's what the Bush Admin is weighing:

But a withdrawal could help the U.S. redeploy to fight terrorists elsewhere. Iraq has placed a particular strain on forces belonging to the Pentagon and the CIA. The U.S. Special Operations Command, which Rumsfeld has ordered to lead the Pentagon's part of the war on terrorism, has 88% of its 7,000-odd commandos deployed overseas assigned to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. The CIA's clandestine service has only about 900 to 1,000 operatives, a large number of whom have rotated in and out of its Baghdad station, which has had as many as 500 spies and analysts.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/withdrawal.tm /


The reality of the region:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28785301.htm


To what location are American troops going to be redeployed? Americans are targets everywhere in the region. Qatar? Well after the reality of Al Jazeera, Americans may have worn their welcome out there. Kuwait? Sigh! Does anybody really believe American troops are going to be located in that region waiting to see what goes on in Iraq? Who will be the first person to say, "We have troops over there, why don't they do something," at the first sign of trouble.

Now that Bush has turned the region into a hotbed of American hatred, where can a significant number of American troops be positioned that will diffuse the potential for a broader war?


I don't care for that aspect of Murtha's plan and believe that is why many who are hesitant about a full withdrawal (aniticipating a civil war or increased insurgency) are willing to support it. If one believes that America is fueling the insurgency, remove America from the equation, fully. Even if the Republicans lose the majority in Congress, I'm certainly not confident that they will not be able to get support (and that includes public support) for reentering Iraq "if the situation warrants."


IMO, Kerry's call for full withdrawal is best.

plan is basically fence sitting, if we, like you mention, can find a fence to sit on. I also think, and I absolutely hate to mention this, but it involves a credibility issue involving Kerry. This is why I hate Stewart for mocking Kerry. Some ignore the good message because they don't want to hear it from this messenger. I hope I am wrong on this particular thought.

It's the deadline that people saw first.

I'm cool with Murtha. I am not cool with how he's become the flavor of the month, same as Hackett, same as Boxer, etc.

It's a way of oversimplifying and compartmentalizing, I suppose. Mental shorthand. So hard to break through sometimes.

Worse is watching the vote rollercoaster. Feingold good, Feingold bad, Feingold good again, Feingold bad.

I'm just going to change all of Kerry quotes so that they are attributed to other Dems, and then see if folks like them any better.

Kerry did great, give him credit. As far as credibility, Kerry ran against Bush and pointed out all the things we now know are true. I have no doubt that people who attack Kerry's credibility lack that very quality.

hear it as immediate, unconditioned (to use the favorite word of the person with an avatar dog that scares LC) withdrawal. I hate the fact that Kerry faces a higher level of derision and hatred than he did during the campaign while he has far less of a platform to counter it from. But somehow, even with the MSM having called him a conspiracy nut and minimized his accomplishments, he did win the nomination and likely in a perfectly implemented election would have won.

He tried hard to stretch them into jokes. I'll laugh at just about anything that's funny, but that was pointless and silly.

And your right, no one ever seems to stick up for him. He compliments other but they don't seem to feel a need to return the courtesy.
I'm glad you mentioned the jokes were lame. I just hate to watch Stewart anymore because I can't stand the Kerry jokes and put downs.

pissed me off more than Jon Stewart's lame attempt to make Kerry look boring. I think you're so right Whome, this is why we lose. If it were two Repukes, they would be praising and defending each other up the whazoo. Nancy just left him out to hang.

and endorsed the one proposal available in the House and that she was liking rather than sitting on the fence.

I am not a big fan of Reid (and really had hoped that somebody like Durbin would have been democratic leader), but I am now tired of the man trying to make deals all over: throughout the Democratic caucus, with the Republican, and once in a while making a tantrum that makes him so popular with people like kos.

I dont know if Armando and kos are right (and prefer to think they are wrong), but I think it is clear that Pelosi stuck to Murtha throughout the story (and would have even if she had not endorsed the proposal) and Reid did not stick to Kerry in any sense. He has been trying to find a solution that would please everybody from Lieberman to Boxer. Dont be surprised if the Dems seem to speak for nobody.

I may be the only one but I am regretting Daschle. He had his defaults, but at least you knew where he stood on every issue, whether you liked his stand or not. With Reid, I never have any idea where he is going to fall, as he is nice with the GOP until the GOP has killed him once again and then he throws a tantrum.

This is why that whole skit wasn't funny. After that lame stunt with the clips, he goes on to ask Pelosi why Kerry?

How about 59 million people voted for the man, more than any other Democratic candidate for president?

How about the fact that he was right about everything during the campaign and is still fighting to hold Bush accountable?

That stuff about not understanding Kerry or calling him dull is BS. I've watched Kerry speak with kids and they understood what he was saying, and they were captivated. That's complete utter BS. Hate Kerry all you want, jumping on that bandwagon claiming his speeches are too complicated to understand is admitting stupidity.

The other thing that pissed me off is when Stewart started talking to Pelosi he sarcastically mentioned in the in the region (continuing the violence) aspect and then dropped it. Instead of spending time belittling Kerry, which is all he did, maybe he could have explored that kernel a bit.

Bush is in the WH, how could people be so stupid.

How could she say more clearly that this was not Kerry speaking, but somebody speaking as the spokeman of a party where some people do not want to make waves.

I dont see that as bad (I dont think Pelosi could have been more explicit without attacking Reid).

I think the SNL Kerry guy does a good job of poking fun at Kerry. Jon Stewart was trying too hard to diss him. Even the audience during the one joke didn't even respond haha.

Maybe we should email Jon Stewart and ask him just that.

The SNL guy who does Kerry (Seth Meyers) is from MA and he has a handle on his mannerisms and accent, and has the added advantage of a long face.



He also seems to "get" Kerry's goofy side - but isn't mean.

I know he's a comedian, but that usually involves funny. And he often is. But the Kerry bashing is just lame. You can take anyone's press conference, speech, whatever and pick out the same words or phrases repeated. Isn't that what people do to make an idea stick, after all? (I don't think that was necessarily Sen Kerry's intent, but the repetition wasn't obvious to me, regardless.)
He couldn't have used the Mission Accomplished quote? That had some potential for a good bush* smackdown. But I guess he just had to get his digs in at Sen Kerry.
Dem bashers, even comedians, are part of the problem. He's not helping anyone with his manufactured criticisms and RW talking points. Not even himself, since the joke fell flat. If Sen Kerry had said something stupid, it would have been good material for TDS. He didn't. There was no joke there. When there's nothing funny, Jon, let it go.

Stewart is reaching. And he's worn out his "Kerry is boring" shtick.
Get some new material, Jon. This ain't working any more.

I would be similarly pissed, BTW, if he had done this to Dean, Clark, etc. It just sucks.

He turned me off, so I turned him off. Jerk.

liberals. I remember a few times when people on GDP were very upset at him because he attacked one of their idols and he will continue.

He also fell for a while for the "Democrats have no messages" and "What if Bush is right" tricks.

We really should not expect to much of people like him, Maher, and other "comics" like that. It is actually sadly reflecting of the problems of our media that he has become such a reference for NEWS.

So I really try to ignore him.

of why Jon Stewart does matter: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/11/30/203247/38/353#353

Lefty freeper and plain freeper idiots alike can quote him.

I think Jon Stewart is over-compensating for the RW heat he took last year for not having a 'hard-hitting interview' with John Kerry during the campaign. (Which is, ahm, retarded, because TDS is a comedy show and Jon Stewart is not and should not be regarded as Ted Koppel.)

I saw Jon Stewart take down the Crossfire gang last year. The biggest criticism of Stewart was that he 'rolled over' for Sen. Kerry in that appearance in Aug '04. So Stewart, is trying to compensate by repeating his one meme about Kerry, he's boring. (Stewart can now retroactively say, see, I took him on, I didn't roll over for him. Again, see retarded.)

Sen. Kerry had a great deal of success with Ed Schultz when he went on his show and talked with him. Shultz has dialed down the criticism and made some nice remarks about Kerry recently. I think an appearance on TDS would do the same for Jon Stewart. Without that appearance, the little digs just keep coming. (And an appearance would be fun!)

If I had a chance to say anything to Jon Stewart, I would ask him, "Have you actually ever met John Kerry?"

I agree that personal contact is the only antidote. Even nose-to-nose, if need be.

Jon Stewart Mocks Kerry For 'Balance'
A few weeks ago we wrote, "Jon Stewart seems to be suffering from an affliction that pervades mainstream reporting: the desire to appease both sides by being an equal opportunity critic. Pre$$titutes are fond of wrapping up negative reports about Republicans by saying "Democrats aren't doing any better," or "Democrats don't seem to be capitalizing on Republican problems because they lack a message. That pretense to fairness would be cute if Democrats and Republicans shared power, but when the right has an iron grip on America, and when it's becoming crystal clear that the administration committed the gravest of sins by lying us into war, going after both sides is a cop-out..."

Needless to say, we got a very mixed reaction to the post, with some readers angrily attacking us for taking on a comedy show and telling us to stick to mainstream Pre$$titutes. But we consider Stewart an important influence on the political discourse and when he uses the worst kind of he said/she said techniques and when he repeats the same shop-worn media narratives about Bush and Democrats, we think he's fair game.

On tonight's show (11/30), Stewart starts with a good piece about Murtha, Schmidt and Bush. But he ends the segment with a pointless slam against John Kerry. He takes Kerry's words completely out of context and does nothing more than regurgitate tired media storylines about Kerry being 'muddled.' It's total bullshit and Stewart should know better than to dilute his Bush piece by taking a cheap shot at Kerry.

http://www.presstitutes.com/presstitutes/

We have to support this site! We need to send them some love!

I had the same reaction to TDS last night - esp. because, here, the Reid/Kerry press conference was run just before TDS. Criticizing a critic of the war to get a joke is beyond useless.