'The Night Jon Stewart Turned on President Obama'

[onehandle]

'Tonight—on the same day that President Obama endorsed his rally—Jon Stewart came out swinging with his strongest anti-Obama Daily Show segment to date. Inside, video of the unexpected segment, during which Stewart basically called Obama a dishonest idealist.'

http://tv.gawker.com/5651825/the-night-jon-stewart-turned-on-president-obama

I wouldn't say it's 'anti-Obama,' but Jon is clearly disappointed.

[babylonsister]

1. gawker wishes. nt

[Radical Activist]

84. Apparently. The segment was more critical of Congressional Democrats than of Obama.

A lot of spin and wishful thinking in that blog post.

[stray cat]

2. Jon isn't a partisan hack - he thinks independently instead of based on party afiliation

[YOY]

10. It's a concept beyond many here.

Quite sad really.

[Teaser]

13. This is a partisan board. That's why it was made.

What do you expect?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Teaser]

18. meh, I've been here from the beginning

Clearly you've seen a different place than me.

It was just easier for everyone when we had a common enemy. But some stupid shit was posted then too. Now that we've got the power we're turning on each other.

Infighting is what humans do. That, and shit all over the planet.

[YOY]

19. I stand for the same things now as I did then.

I will not alter this. It's what I stand for and it's what I believe FDR and Truman would have.

In matters of ethics I stand like a rock, in matters of style I swim with the current.

Clapping harder does not make a policy work just because we are doing it. I've actually had a person here try to "define torture"...sorry but HELL NO.

I will not take a Cheney talking point as anything any Democrat worth their salt would propose.

[txlibdem]

73. Actual results, not window dressing

Darn right. I wonder if FDR would have forced Americans to buy health insurance while doing NOTHING to control either premium costs or medical care costs. I wonder if FDR would have made laws that credit card companies can charge you whatever outrageous interest rates they want -- they just have to give you 60 days notice first.

I wonder if Truman would have given basically unlimited funds to the banks at next to zero interest rate and then allowed them to do nothing to help America with all that taxpayer money. Would he have made no rule against derivatives, the very thing that destroyed our economy in the first place?

What does it say about your ethics when you claim you are going to stop all of the corporate abuses so you can get elected but then do nothing of the sort once you're in the "big chair" and have locked in your lifetime pension.* Griping that the Republicans wouldn't let us is no excuse.

* - betcha didn't know that the Pres. gets a pension for life...

[jaxx]

23. Tell us all about the "real democrats".

Spell out the purity test. And who wrote it, and who endorsed it.
Who are you calling hypocritical assmonkeys? Spit it out, don't beat around the bush.
C'mon you've got us all waiting for the gods to speak.

[YOY]

24. That would be against the rules to call people out!

Well I say! You wouldn't want me to break the rules would you?

[jaxx]

30. You've already broken them so go ahead.

Don't you have answers?

[YOY]

33. Um...that's still against the rules.

NOW I COULD BE WRONG!!!!...but you seem to be egging me on...

I'm sure you'd never do a thing like that to get a person banned! I'm sure you would never!

[jaxx]

34. It's not unreasonable to want answers.

Do you have any?

[YOY]

35. Why my good sir!!! You do seem to be egging me on to break the rules!

Are you?

Well gosh! That's just horrible of me to think that someone would egg someone on to break the rules to get them in trouble.

I mean you would never do that, would you? What a horrible though!

I mean...there would have two terrible implications to think in such a way! First that you would ACTUALLY have the desire to see a long time progressive Democrat banned from a political discussion board as some sort of beneficial thing...and that I would have to be an idiot to do so.

Of course...I'm just being cynic! You'd never do such a thing! I'm sure there's another reason you would like to see me publically list people I disagree with on this board!

[jaxx]

36. You're right, I wouldn't.

But I would ask for answers to the questions I asked. I can't understand why you would say things and then not back them up.

If you didn't mean them, say so.

[Aramchek]

26. really, you put this board together? give us a break

[YOY]

28. And you perfected it! Didn't you? You sly cad you!!!

That's why you're the best!!! You knew which secret spices to add to the Colonel's formula to make it taste EVEN BETTER!!!

You sir, are an unsung genious!!!

[DevonRex]

48. LOL. He really said that?

:rofl:

[YOY]

51. Oh Devon! You irascible yet lovable Scamp!

I know you of all people would NEVER take things out of context! Just like your little friend there that you're having a cute little (and truly knowing!) chuckle with!

Never! Never! You're just playful and loving "real Democrats" with the best of intentions for everyone EXPECIALLY the party!!!

Bless your hearts!

[DevonRex]

53. Oh, no, bless YOUR little heart. And I love you, too. :) nt

[YOY]

54. :Blushes:

n/t

[DevonRex]

56. :) nt

[totodeinhere]

64. Yes, this is a partisan board, but we can't expect everybody else to be partisan as well.

Stuart is a comedian who often comes down on the progressive aside, but he doesn't carry anybody's water and I respect him for that.

[Romberry]

79. I expect principle before party

I expect people to stop and think about why they were Democratic partisans in the first place, and to examine why they remain Democratic partisans when those reasons go away.

Remember when we used to wonder why "principled Republicans" continued to stand behind Bush when he violated everything they said they believed in and voted for? Remember how morally bankrupt that appeared? It's the same thing for Democrats.

The Democratic Party I thought I was supporting was the party of FDR's New Deal, of working people, of unions, of women's right to choose. I thought it was a party that stood for the rule of law, for accountability. I thought it was a party that was the polar opposite of GW Bush, not a party that would make GW Bush's abuses bi-partisan consensus, and certainly not a party of state secrets, trust the president when he orders the assassination of citizens, raids on peace activists and so on.

The principles that made me a Democrat remain with me. Too bad they don't remain with the party. I am disgusted with the "party before principle" crowd. For me, they are only distinguishable from Republican Bushbots by the name of the president and party that they support.

Shorter version: I remain a principled Democrat. The party and its "I support it no matter what followers", not so much.

[pocoloco]

3. Promise and then follow through!

Nobrainer.

[vaberella]

4. Ahh well. Many think that way and it's not his first segment doing this. n/t

[unpossibles]

5. actually, (1) I liked it that Stewart and the left in general don't just carry water

(2) I also don't entirely disagree with either Biden or Obama that we need to get out there, and that if we don't it will have negative repercussions.

[bigwillq]

6. GASP-A television talk show host mad at the President.

WOW-that never happens. :sarcasm:

[impik]

7. Stewart will get his reward too in 2012

[txlibdem]

74. As will Pres. Obama

The 2012 primary season is coming up. The unemployed 99ers, the labor unions, Liberals, Progressives, young people, and people who either have already or will lose their home WILL REMEMBER who saved corporate asses and left them to die.

2010 is the time for Party Unity. We MUST work doubly hard to keep both the House and Senate in Democratic control. No one is saying otherwise.

But 2012 is our only chance to let our opinion be heard about politicians who promise Democratic Change but only govern as center-right Republicans. 2012 is our chance to say "thank you" to all the politicians who have let us down, including the Pres.

[Imajika]

8. Well, it was kinda pathetic...

...that the Dems couldn't even hold votes on the Bush tax cuts.

Seriously? They couldn't even so much as put to a vote extending the middle class tax cuts and letting the tax cuts for the rich expire?

No budget, no vote on tax cuts, just adjourn and run away.

It was sorta weasel like.

Obviously the GOP agenda is vastly worse, but the Congressional Dems have not exactly proved themselves an impressive bunch over the last few months.

[impik]

11. And this is Obama's fault how?

[Imajika]

14. Not really blaming Obama...

...exactly.

He is the leader of our party though. He couldn't get out front and fight on this issue? I mean, this is low hanging fruit - if he can't get out on this issue that most Americans would clearly agree with him on...

I understand political realities, and that we have a congress full of conservadems, but I still think it is kind of sad that we couldn't even rally as a party and fight on the middle class tax cut issue. Obama is the leader of the party, so I am not sure how some of the blame doesn't go his way.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. Obama supported the vote, as did the House. I will say again and again...

the problem is with the Senate. Why Jon cannot grasp this concept is very weird to me. We have three branches of government, not one!

[Imajika]

17. Then why didn't the House deal with it?

Didn't they just adjourn and run away WITHOUT dealing with the middle class tax cut issue?

Even if the Senate, with our 59 Dem votes, couldn't address the issue why couldn't the House.

You don't think this just smacks of a bit of spinelessness ahead of an election? And it SHOULD be, articulated properly, a WINNING issue for us. Just a few months ago this was going to be the big fight we were going to march into November with.

And instead we just adjourned and headed home?

And this doesn't even address failure to bother with a budget on time. We have massive Democratic majorities and we couldn't do that either?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. I do think that the House could have and should have forced the vote...

And many, many progressives wanted that. They are being held hostage by the Blue Dogs/DLCers. But the party itself should be blamed. The individual Blue Dogs/DLCers should be! It's simply not fair to punish the good Democrats over this.

Van Hollen, my congressman, wanted the vote, for instance. Should I not vote for him because he was bucked by his leadership? No. That's idiotic!

[Imajika]

32. This isn't about not voting for the Democrat...

We are talking about why some Democrats/progressives are disillusioned, and failure to even vote on the middle class tax cuts is the kinda thing that many find dispiriting.

Why not take the vote and maybe even lose in a case like this? This should be a WINNING issue for us - whether we win or lose a vote in either the House or Senate. This was going to be our signature campaign issue for November. The polls are on our side. The public favors extending middle class tax cuts and letting tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Yet we couldn't even vote on it? What happened? If we can't run on this issue, and we are busy running AWAY from most of our legislative accomplishments (HCR, Stimulus, etc) - what can we run on? That the Tea Party/Republicans are crazy is simply not going to be enough.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. Right, but you're STILL missing the point. It is the BLUE DOGS that's the problem,

along with the Republicans in the Senate.

Concentrate on holding them accountable, and for pushing the leadership to do the right thing.

Get on the phone. Call Nancy Pelosi. Call Harry Reid.

Complaining about this on a message board all day long isn't going to help progress along. Do something about it!! Call your House rep and senator. Pelosi, Reid, Clyburn, Durbin...

www.house.gov, [phone]
www.senate.gov, http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/general/one_item_and_teasers/contacting.htm

[Enthusiast]

61. The blue dogs would vote

to extend the middle class tax cuts.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

70. No. Many of them--if not most of them--want to extend Bush's tax cuts.

Only those who are not up for reelection are supporting the vote. For instance, Senator Bob Casey wants the vote even though he's a Blue Dog. Why? Because he ain't running. But those Blue Dogs who are running--and the DLCers like Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh--support extending the tax cuts for the wealthy.

The Blue Dogs in the House in marginal, competitive districts, DO NOT want this vote. They are the problem. The Evan Bayh's, Joe LIEberman's, and Ben Nelson's of the world ARE the problem. Not the *ENTIRE* Democratic Party.

Obama wanted the fight really badly. Cowardly Howard Reid doesn't want it.

[Enthusiast]

71. Oh, I understand the blue dogs

want to extend *all* the Bush tax cuts.

What I meant was they would probably vote for only extending the tax cuts for those earning under $250,000, if that was their only choice. I think we should make it their only choice. Let the blue dogs and their Republican allies vote against that one.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

72. Better still, force the Repukes to Filibuster! Make them stay and argue their case

before the American people. Let Americans see for themselves what these people are about.

[Enthusiast]

86. Good idea. Too bad we

aren't in charge.

[txlibdem]

75. The House voted for a Public Option - the Senate knifed them in the back

The House has done their job every step of the way for two years now. The Senate has dropped the ball and dragged their feet about every important legislative area. House members simply wanted Harry Reid to finally stand up and grow a spine, and take a vote on a subject that over 70% of Americans were in favor of!

But, nooooooo!!!! (channeling John Belushi a bit there)

[kjackson227]

27. I totally agree. Why do I feel I've been manipulated?

[DevonRex]

46. A lot of people fell for that idiotic meme about being manipulated. nt

[Phx_Dem]

45. If they would have held the vote, we would have lost. And the tax cuts

for the rich would have been passed and we'd have another $4 trillion(?) added to the deficit because so many Blue Dogs defected to the Republican side. It would be fucking RETARDED for the majority party to hold a vote knowing they will lose.

Stewart's a great comedian, but if he doesn't want to deal in facts, he should stay out of the political fray. He thinks Dems missed a great opportunity to pass middle-class tax cuts so they could brag about it before the election. The reality is, we would be defending why we allowed the top 2 percent to get tax cuts.

Stewart was also way off the mark on his "list of accomplishments." It wasn't funny, it was just stupid and factually wrong.

[polmaven]

60. It's really good to see

that there remain some voices of reason at DU. Many just don't think things through well enough sometimes. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

[txlibdem]

76. I'm so glad you're here to point out the obvious

...yet be soooo completely wrong in your conclusions!

How exactly could voting on an extension of Middle Class Tax Cuts result in more tax cuts for the wealthy? What crystal ball did you see that happening in? The subject of tax cuts for the rich would not even have been brought up.

I'm also so glad that when you're as wrong as you on this topic there will always be a sock puppet or sycophant to cheer you on.

[treestar]

9. And then people wonder why we don't have as much influence as Republicans

Would Rush Limbaugh ever turn on any Republican? No, he's consistent. When it comes to pundits, we have no one on our side. Every one of them that appeared to be turned on us.

[zipplewrath]

22. He's turned on them several times

There was a period towards the end of Bush/Cheney where he went on a long rant about being tired of "carrying the water" for the republicans. It was a calculated move on his part, but he'll stalk out a fringe position occasionally. I think it is predominately to boost ratings.

[txlibdem]

77. Rush isn't afraid of Republicans - they're AFRAID OF HIM

And for very good reason. Rush/Beck/Palin are the leaders of the Republican Party.

There isn't a Republican in office with the balls to go up against Rush. You're so wrong and so bass-ackwards in your thinking. ;-)

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Useless DVT garbage

[jgraz]

20. Deep Vein Thrombosis?

:shrug:

[DevonRex]

47. Depress voter turnout. DVT...

Edited after my error was pointed out. I either need more coffee or more sleep.

[jgraz]

49. No, that would be DTV.

Or are you trying to say "Depress Vote The"?

Appealing to the Yoda vote?

[DevonRex]

55. Sorry, depress voter turnout. I should've had more coffee. :) nt

[jgraz]

59. Had more coffee, you should have.

[Aramchek]

25. Jon is a pissy little man. Sometimes funny, but a political genius by no means

He's gotten the idea that he is some political force now, so he likes to pretend to be important.

[TwilightGardener]

29. He has to do it from time to time, to maintain credibility. But it's just

not that funny. Something about Obama takes all the funny out of it, unlike the critiques of the past administration. Maybe it just seems forced, because while the Obama administration does make mistakes, they're not mean-spirited or ridiculous or totally incompetent.

[Cosmocat]

37. Right ...

it is obligatory, not particularly justified, and also ...

Honestly, with the right wing totally unhinged and spewing every last bit of intellectually dishonest and flat out lies about him, and the MSM feverishly carrying water for them ... That makes it even less humorous ...

[dave29]

43. This is my main critique of his "anti" Obama segments

They feel forced, and the audience is generally not laughing. If his job is to be a comedian, rather than "balanced" he's failing when it comes to Obama. I also find he is selective in his editing in these pieces, which is more a Fox tactic than fake journalism tactic

[and-justice-for-all]

31. Gawker, really???

:eyes:

[zulchzulu]

39. I watched the clip and he didn't exactly "turn on Obama"

If anything, he used his usual humor to try to describe the frustration that everyone feels about how hard it is to govern. His shot at Steny Hoyer in the end of the bit was more about how the Democrats need to step up a bit more... OK, a lot more.

[grantcart]

62. some people with limited intellect think that JS's ironic coments are

'turning against Obama'.


It should be obvious to even the dullest mind that Stewart's "Rally to Return to Sanity" is as Obamaesque as you can get. JS had really harsh words for the far left that compared Bush to Hitler etc. It would be hard to imagine a leader that is more in sinc with JS reasonable point of view that President Obama.

[txlibdem]

78. I'm so glad you're here to inject some sanity to this thread

Limited intellect sums it up quite nicely. Irony (and many other three-syllable words) is/are beyond their grasp.

One correction: it was not the "far left" that put Hitler mustaches onto Bush. That was either the psychotic fringe (crazy crew/tinfoil hatters) or the right winger fringe of the Democratic party. Those of us at the far left decried that behavior.

(grammar edit)

[harun]

68. I watched it and he didn't turn on Obama. He brought up all the stuff everyone else

is bringing up.

[geek tragedy]

40. That's hardly his most anti-Obama segment ever. It's pretty mild. nt

[wisteria]

41. Well with this kind of message, I don't think I will be attending that rally of his.

We need to keep the majority in both houses in November and Stewart seems to be seeing to it that it is handed back to the Republicans to screw up again. Our Dem's aren't perfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than Republicans.

[impik]

42. JS turned on Obama a long time ago, more or less by the end of January 2009

[txlibdem]

80. It was months after the botched HCR fiasco

Jon Stewart is right on just about everything he says, even in jest. Living with blinders on is not a prerequisite for membership in the Democratic Party -- try the Tea Party if that's what you like.

[AlinPA]

44. It's simpler to trash the President, but the congress is where our problem lies. It's clear that

Stewart does not understand what is happening in the Senate or the House. He is a comedian, not a political expert. I would agree that he has turned on the President and sometimes sounds like a Fox "news" morning host. I watch TDS for the laughs, not the political views.

[craigmatic]

50. All he did was tell the truth. Them not passing a tax cut for working people is basically

them waving a white flag.

[Uzybone]

52. completely dishonest link in the OP

Stewart has been way harder on the president than this.

[AtomicKitten]

57. Lighten up, Francis. This is much ado about nothing. nt

[ClassWarrior]

58. I hope Jon bought him dinner first.

:D

NGU.

[txlibdem]

81. Did he buy America dinner first?

Didn't think so. The 99ers, young people, Liberals, Progressives, credit card users, health insurance purchasers, and taxpayers still can't sit down.

[bvar22]

63. "Rather than being transformative,

...this administration has merely layered a mixed bag of reforms over a corroded foundation of Business as Usual."

NAILED IT!!!

K&R

[Arkana]

65. Jon Stewart's not supposed to be pro-anyone. He's a comedian with a fake news show.

And I wouldn't want him to be on the side of anyone or anything except the side of sanity. Right now, that happens to belong to a very small subset of people.

[Township75]

66. Dems: We came, we saw, we SUCK!! Good line!

Thanks for sharing, I laughed and alot of it is true.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

67. Completely unfair. Pelosi cracked the whip in the House.

The bills coming out of there were much better then what eventually passed. Obama as I recall was generally supportive of what was going on there. The fucking Senate and the fucking blue dogs are what fucked us. It wasn't a party-wide problem. It was a group of conservative dino douchebags like Baucus and Nelson(both of them) and Landrieu being lead by Reid that IMO should be blamed. They are the ones who really screwed us. Not to mention the Teabaggers and the party of no screaming over there as well.

The President is the party leader no doubt. I think he could be more forceful both in his commitment to some issues and in the characterization of the opposition. For this I think the left can scold him, but it seems to be forgotten who the real enemy is. That layer of status-quo can go down even more if the cons take over again.

I'll give you another more concrete example of why I don't hate the Dems. My wife has been unemployed for nine months. Her unemployment benefits while not a great amount have been extremely helpful and I'm greatful. This is what Teabaggers think this of us. That is some whacked shit and I'm sort of scared of these lunatics.
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2010/08/22/right-wing-conservative-teabagger-carl-paladino-believes-welfareunemployment-recipients-are-animals/

[txlibdem]

82. Blue Dogs got to go!

I say we let those seats go back to the Repukes and concentrate on putting real Democrats into power elsewhere to maintain our majority.

PS, I don't give a sh&&t about having a 60-seat majority but that would be great if we could maintain it. I just want 52 true, actual Democrats and a President with the balls to tell Joe to go sit in his seat as President of the Senate on every damn piece of important legislation.

[scheming daemons]

69. The OP is misleading... Jon's show was pretty mild

[Radical Activist]

83. Overly dramatic headline that we've seen before.

Stewart criticizing Obama is nothing new. He didn't suddenly turn on him. Even Obama says he expects and welcomes criticism from Stewart.

I suspect Stewart felt like he had to criticize Obama after receiving that praise to avoid being seen as a partisan tool under Obama's spell. He values his image as an independent critic and this was an attempt to protect his image.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

85. Stupid headline. nt