Jon Stewart: Meet Chris Hayes

There was an interesting yet rather frustrating appearance on The Daily Show on Wednesday night by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (or "Princess Nancy" as she is known by Herman Cain).

It was an appearance where Jon Stewart - who many on the right feel is a hyper-partisan liberal - kind of took Mrs. Pelosi to task for some of the failures of the legislative process and the Democratic Party's role in such failures.

Here a couple questions/comments from Mr. Stewart:

JS: At every turn, what I hear from you is "well, Republicans would have filibustered" or "the Republicans didn't want to do that". As far as I can tell, the Republicans had a much smaller majority than the Democrats had over the those two years and they got to do whatever the hell they wanted!

&

JS: ...while the Republicans might've filibustered, why not make them filibuster?

I have a couple comments about this before turning over the floor to Chris Hayes.

With regards to the first issue. Jon Stewart is informed enough to realize that the Democrats do not have the same caucus discipline as do the Republicans. That is almost inevitable given the "larger tent" that the Democrats have. Some of George W. Bush's most infamous legislative "victories" were aided and abetted by Democrats. Medicare Part D, for example, got plenty of votes from conservative Democrats (including Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, and Ben Nelson). Ben Nelson also is credited as the deciding vote to enable the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts. Contrarily, President Obama and congressional Democrats do not have such Republicans to work with.

True, on some high profile issues - the repeal of DADT, for example, they may receive the votes of the the New England Three (Snowe, Collins, Scott Brown) and/or some other random vote - but sometimes they even lose their own members on procedural votes! Last month, Jon Tester and Ben Nelson (grrr!) voted against cloture on President Obama's American Jobs Act. So, yeah, it was filibustered. Does that make Jon Stewart feel better? Did it make any difference whatsover?

It is a bad position for President Obama to be in when you got some liberal observers like a Jon Stewart criticizing the Democrats for not being able to pass legilation over a unified GOP caucus in the Senate. (IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, JON!) Then, when there is a compromise - which have consistently, in the view of the Furriners blog, been more concessions on the part of Democrats - the President gets berated. All the while, the conservative media have fostered a perception of Chicago-style thuggery on the part of the Obama Administration. (Michele Bachmann infamously refers to it as a "Gangster Government").

So I had all these disparate thoughts while watching the show on Wednesday night. Then, as it happens, Chris Hayes was a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show yesterday and he more succinctly summarized the current situation - in a way that I think Jon Stewart could learn from. He says:

(In the senate), things can either pass 94-1... or they can get blocked. It's those two options. There's nothing in the middle. There's nothing in his current political terrain that can pass by a five vote margin, or a six vote margin, or a two vote margin because the habitual use of the filibuster and the political commitment on the part of the minority caucus in the senate to politically destroy the president in the run-up to the election is so strong it means going after everything the president has his name attached to.

Ding-ding-ding! Correct! Think for example of PAY-GO. This was an idea with several Republican sponsors. Then President Obama voiced his support for the idea and every Republican rescinded his or her support. And yet Jon Stewart's confused as to why the Democrats haven't been able to follow through on their entire legislative agenda?

Come on, Jon!

(Now go home and get your shine box!)

In Honor of Bill O'Reilly

Last week, Jon Stewart showed a little clip of Bill O'Reilly actually debunking conservative propaganda designed to delegitimize President Obama. This is definitely a good thing. One issue that occassionally is fretted about amongst liberals and progressives is how to get information to people who only live within the FoxNews closed loop.

Admittedly, I should acknowledge that many conservatives presumably share the same consternation about those who they say only get their news from the "liberal media". I would, of course, generally call bullshit on that and argue that we're getting into the false equivalency debate all over again. But that is sooo Fall 2010! and this post has a different boogeyman than Fox News.

So it was a Free Trial Weekend for HBO on DirecTv this weekend. I took advantage of the opportunity to watch Real Time With Bill Maher. The subject came up of Jon Kyl lying about Planned Parenthood on the floor of the Senate. Bill seemed to argue that it was such an egregious and blatant lie that it basically took the cake as the worst of the worst of all political lies.

Ed Schultz, the firey MSBNC host, was all too eager to agree and he claimed that the only thing that might compare was Sarah Palin saying she "could see Russia from her backyard". A crowd-pleasing line to be sure.

The problem is that Sarah Palin never actually said such a thing! Only Tina Fey said that.

Sarah Palin merely said that one could see Russia from land in Alaska... which is 100% true. It is, of course, a comment worthy of parody because of the implication that it somehow gave her foreign policy credentials. However, it was a not a lie and Ed Schultz deserves to be called out for being the actual liar in this instance.

Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement

True statement: I do not know how to "tweet".

I guess with the small fervor going on (amongst late night comedians) over Jon Kyl's blatant lies on the Senate floor last week has me feeling a little left out.

However, I did realize I have a minority interest in this very blog and can post my ideas here. First of all, I want to say that in discussing this with co-blogger Elijah Moon, I actually wondered aloud if Stephen Colbert was coming up with all his tweets himself or if was getting contributions from his writers? As it turns out, it is actually quite easy to just pull a bunch of B.S. out of your ass (as Jon Kyl well knows)!

So without further ado, here are some contributions I literally came up with in about 1-2 minutes of brainstorming:

1. Jon Kyl's Capitol Hill nickname is Gollum.

2. Jon Kyl challenges Robert Reich to tetherball every time he sees him. Then he laughs.

3. Jon Kyl was "Soy Bomb" during Bob Dylan's 1998 Grammy appearance.

4. Jon Kyl lip syncs all his Senate speeches.

5. Jon Kyl calls in as "KylShot69" to Jim Rome's Annual Smack Off.

6. Jon Kyl thinks Derek Anderson should be starting at QB for the Cardinals (Oh wait, that is mine).

6. Jon Kyl shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

7. Jon Kyl has subscribed to Barely Legal since 1972.

8. Jon Kyl was the voice of Mr. Bill.

9. Jon Kyl owes me $2.00.

10. Jon Kyl cares about black people (and women).

Old Enough To Know Better

There is a quote that I often recall from Bill Maher - I don't know for sure that he is the first to make this observation but he is certainly the person I associate the comment with:

Don't become so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance.

I think when he uses it, it would often be used in the context of making sure liberals (in particular American liberals) don't accept, for example, something like Muslim oppression of women as just a legitimate part of their culture. I consider that good advice (for me) considering I am someone who took several classes in anthropology and have a natural tendency to accept cultural differences and view them all as equally valid. It's good to keep in my mind that, in some instances, cultural norms can be judged as "better" or "worse".

I thought of that comment yesterday while watching The Daily Show and seeing Jon Stewart casually defending a UCLA student who posted a racist rant on YouTube. Jon referred to her as an "18 or 19 year old kid (who) maybe doesn't understand what she was saying".

Come on! That is rubbish.

How does someone reach age 18 or 19 and not realize that racism is frowned upon and that even if you do have those feelings, it's probably a bad idea to broadcast them on the internet unless you can do so anonymously (and preferably in an "appropriate" forum)? (Which is to say that I assume there are racist websites all over the internet for people who want to bitch about minorities and immigrants... for example, www.foxnews.com.)

Also, by the way, UCLA is not necessarily a place for idiots. Although I concede I am hesitant to guarantee someone is as smart as their alma mater might suggest considering a mental midget like George W. Bush earned degrees from both Yale AND Harvard.

So, while I agree with Jon that the young lady is not necessarily "unredeemable"... how the hell would I know? In my opinion, Jon is going a little easy on her considering how repugnant her opinions are.

Treat The Cause, Not The Symptoms

A couple of days ago, I, perhaps inartfully, expressed my discontent with Jon Stewart taking such a special interest in the 9/11 First Responders Bill. Yesterday, in the final Daily Show of 2010, Jon basically devoted the entire show to the topic.

It failed to sway my opinion.

In the yahoo! news article linked above, the first sentence is:

Some have questioned why the Republican effort to block a bill to fund health care for 9/11 first responders hasn't received more coverage on the cable news networks.

Is it not the case that their health care only even needs to be funded via a stand-alone bill is a result of our ridiculous health care system (that does not guarantee health care to all citizens)? Why is Jon Stewart so worked up about this when there are approximately 47 million Americans without health insurance? Studies have shown that the uninsured (remember we're talking about 47 million Americans (at least until ObamaCare fully kicks in in 2014)) live sicker and die younger. This is not a new phenomenom and, yet, only now Jon Stewart is motivated to break the format of his show for a cause?

So, I'll say it again. Let's go Single-payer. Problem solved.

That is my request for you in 2011, J-Stew Beef.

We Are All Worthy, Jon!

Earlier this very day, my Furriners colleague seemed to take a little shot at Jon Stewart. Just by coincidence, I also have a qualm with the esteemed host of The Daily Show. (And this is a post which I reckon will not win me any fans... unlike my many Derek Anderson posts which, by the way, are award eligible.)

In the past couple weeks, Mr. Stewart has had (for a lack of better phrase) a little burr in his bonnet about the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 - commonly known as the 9/11 First Responders Bill. Mr. Stewart has called it "literally the least we could do."

Fair enough...

...however, I could not help but recall an interview from last summer that Jon had with Bill Kristol regarding our nation's health care system. The topic came up of how veterans are covered under the V.A. (socialized medicine) and that they receive this as a benefit for their service to the country.

It included this excerpt:

Jon: Are you saying that the American public shouldn't have access to the same quality health care that we give to our better citizens?
Bill: Yes. To our soldiers? Absolutely. I think if you become a soldier, you deserve...first class health care.

As Mr. Kristol said that, literally a gasp came over the audience at how outrageous is to say that the general public is not worthy of the same quality of health care as soldiers.

Hmmmm... I get the feeling I am not making a persuasive argument...

so let me put it another way.

I assume that most of these First Responders have health insurance, correct? Safe assumption I think we'd all agree (and even if they didn't, this would presumably fall under Work Comp for most). So why is there even a need for such a bill to cover the medical expenses of these men and women? Should not their respective health insurance companies be picking up the tab on these expenses? What... are these expenses too much of a drag on their profits so we have to go to the taxpayers to pay these bills?

So, okay... fair enough. I am actually fine with some of my tax dollars going to cover medical expenses of our nations populice - but I just wish I could get in that myself. Single-payer... Medicare For All...or even Public Option... whichever form it takes, I would just like people to recognize that all of our citizens, living our lives, doing the best we can, are also worthy of having our medical needs met.

And, by the way, yes, I am uninsured. By choice. Because I don't want to give money to the any of the greedy, morally bankrupt (and very much not financially bankrupt) private insurance companies.

Ken Mehlman Is Pro-Gay Rights... Now

In the event you live under a rock and did not hear, former chairman of the Republican National Committee (2005-07) and Bush-Cheney Campaign Manager (2004), Ken Mehlman, this week publicly acknowledged that he is a homosexual.

Fine. I have nothing to say about that.

I bring this up to point to a short segment that The Daily Show did about this topic on yesterday's show and how it relates to my co-bloggers list of strongly held convictions:

1) Republicans/conservatives are unable and/or unwilling to "put themselves in someone's shoes" (so to speak).
2) College QBs operating in the spread take longer to adapt to the NFL (if they can at all).
3) Laundry is woman's work.

For this post, we are only dealing with #1.

And so I thought of that belief when Jon Stewart showed the soundbyte of Ken Mehlman responding to ABC News as to whether he regretted being part of Karl Rove's politics of divisiveness (i.e. courting votes using an anti-gay agenda):

"What I regret is the fact that I had not come to terms with this part of my life and, therefore, I was not able to do what I was able to do in other areas and work for a more inclusive and broader party."

Jon Stewart's comment:

"Right! You can't expect him to fight for the rights of a group that he didn't know he was a part of! I'm sure if he ever found out he was black, he'd be 100% against segregation too. It's like that old poem:

First they came for the gays
But I didn't know I was gay... so who gives a shit!"

Okay, so maybe Elijah Moon is on to something. And I share his opinion on #2 (I'm looking at you Bradford, McCoy, and Tebow). I am still not convinced that #3 is true though. No matter how much he rants about how only a woman should do laundry... I think he's wrong and I am not afaid to say it.

Maybe We Can Use Guns?

No, no, it's not what you think! I'm not going all Sharron Angle on you.

I am referring to a recent segment on The Daily Show where the failure in the House of Representatives of a bill to provide health care to 9/11 first responders was discussed. In the segment, Mr. Stewart lamented that the bill failed because it could not get the 2/3 majority it needed to pass whereas a bill to exempt guns from bankruptcy claims easily cleared that threshold.

So, remember how the credit card reform bill passed in May 2009 with an amendment that allowed guns into National Parks? If you have any sense at all, you thought "WTF? That is stupid!" It turns out, you were wrong! That is the future. So, for example, the Climate Change Bill that cannot pass even in it's watered down state in the Senate? I say we amend it with NRA supported legislation and then all the assholes and pussies in congress will vote for it!

The problem, one would think, is that we could only use to this strategy for so long until we run out of pro-gun legislation that we use to get actual meaningful progress done for our country. I have two thoughts on that:

1) Remember, we're talking the NRA! They will always think of more instances where guns are the answer.
2) Who am I to say the everyone having a gun is a bad thing? It's good enough for Basil Marceaux.Com and he makes more sense than most elected Republicans.



By the way, this brings to mind another quote from Paul O'Neill on Sunday's Fareed Zakaria GPS. O'Neill was addressing the partisan gridlock in Washington when he said this:

You know, in a perverse way, it may be a blessing because if they could agree on something, it would probably be negative to the people.

Dare I say, when it comes to guns, Paul O'Neill is on target.

Sorry...I shouldn't have said that.

Tsk Tsk, Jon Stewart

It's no secret around the Furriners offices that I am a huge Jon Stewart fan. So, all in all, I loved this rant that got him national attention last week. I just have one small problem with it... this quote:

I've learned people are complicated, Bernie, and hard to categorize. I mean I've got some conservative views. (He's a pro-military motherf****r... peace to the troops.)

I hate that quote (even within a comedic rant) because by defining being "pro-military" as a conservative view, he is seemingly saying that liberals are not "pro-military".

Well, I am here to say that I too am pro-military. By my definition, it is pro-military to want to give the Armed Foces clearly defined missions with a chance to succeed, ensure that they are properly trained and equipped for combat missions, and then take care of them when their service is completed (wounded and otherwise).

Pro-military should not mean irresponsibly high defense spending, a hawkish attitude towards foreign policy, and a Support Our Troops magnet on your Chevy Tahoe. Those are hallmarks of conservative support for the troops.

Eliot Spitzer Eviscerates Carrie Severino

Carrie Severino is from the Judicial Crisis Network. She was on The Dylan Ratigan Show yesterday to discuss the retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. With Eliot Spitzer filling in for Mr. Ratigan... this was not a fair fight!

The word "activism" is used rampantly (and) wildly without any meaning by the Republican Party when it comes to judges. The judicial nominees of the Republican Party are the most activist and lacking in legal understanding of any in the history of this nation --- Eliot Spitzer (The Dylan Ratigan Show, 4/9/10)

And Mae Beavers (R-TN) really didn't fare much better on Thursday's show.

FYI: the post title is absolutely an homage to this clip from The Daily Show.