Skip to content

Mad Men

Jon Stewart is back, and he is still a genius.



  1. I finally watched this video, and I’m floored (again).

    I also happen to look like that sort of middle aged, chubby, white person: Oh geeze, by all the powers that be, I hope no one thinks I’m that dumb!

    I can’t watch this sort of thing sometimes: the embarrassment alone is painful. *cringe*

    Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 11:59 am | Permalink
  2. Sammy wrote:

    I have come to realize that over the past decade or so, the extremists on the left are still on the extreme left. But the extremists on the right have almost come to define the right.

    As an example, I would consider the group who drives steel spikes into old growth forests in an effort to stop loggers from cutting the trees down (and gravely endangering those loggers) as extremists. But most liberals I know don’t align with that group.

    PETA is considered extremely far left, and most liberals I know, even vegetarians, don’t align with that group (or only do so in part).

    These conservative tea partiers, however, have come to define the right. Consider, if you will, their attacks of ACORN. How many of the tea partiers, do you suppose, had ever heard of ACORN until the ’08 election? But they are willing to so quickly define that group by its isolated bad apples. Maybe ACORN should be investigated because they seek millions in federal funds, but should the whole moving industry be branded as unscrupulous because a few rogue movers are?

    I believe that the ACORN attacks, the birther movement, the constant use of Obama’s middle name to align him with Muslim extremists, etc. all have been done with one purpose: to delegitimize Obama’s presidency.

    It’s one thing to disagree (even vehemently) the man’s politics, but what these people are doing is criminal.

    Yes, there was hatred and vitriol towards Bush. But it was ALL about policy. It was about opposition to tax policy and war policy. And aside from the debacle of the ’00 election (I still don’t know what to make of it, and besides I didn’t like Gore any more than Bush), no one questioned his right to be president.

    It makes me sick. Long vent over.

    Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
  3. Sammy wrote:

    That sentence about the moving industry should have been a separate sentence. That was meant as an analogy. Sorry for the poor segue.

    Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 12:55 pm | Permalink
  4. Sammy, um. I find the claim that all the vitriol about Bush was policy-based. I don’t have many examples at hand, but I suspect that the cracks about “nucklur” (or however he pronounced it) were attacks on the man, not his policies.

    (I suspect they were implicitly attacks on his rhetoric as a down-home, Texan, commonsense sort of buy: especially because he was born in Connecticut and educated at Yale, I believe. Yeah, he knew how to pronounce common words: the act was too thick, the game too obvious. The attacks there were on him, on who he choose to be. Not on his policies.)

    I do agree with the core of your argument: from what I’ve seen, the Republicans are becoming defined by their fringe, where the Democrates usually managed to avoid that trap.

    Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 1:04 pm | Permalink
  5. Oops, again. “I find the claim that all the vitriol about Bush as being policy-based is inaccurate.”

    I really shouldn’t try to write three things at once, especially because I have a bad habit of not editing my comments. đŸ˜‰

    Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 1:05 pm | Permalink
  6. Sammy wrote:

    Point taken, TD, but there is still a huge difference between vitriol over the “down home” or “good ol’ boy” thing and trying to completely undermine a presidency with claims of non-citizenship, Muslim extremist Trojan horse, et al.

    Let me rephrase to say that MOST of the vitriol regarding Bush was policy driven. I guess I should know better than to use “always”.

    Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 2:52 pm | Permalink