Political Irony

10 Comments

1. a regular reader wrote:

   Et pourquoi pas? What do we have to lose?

   Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 1:25 am | Permalink
2. Bard wrote:

   Great Idea, but both sides would never let it happen. They have their reasons for not wanting to look like fools in front of the whole nation.

   Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 2:47 am | Permalink
3. Hassan wrote:

   Yes he and Stephen should moderate a debate, but they both need to bring serious side of them. And they are very intellectual and have right questions, and they would do better job than any other. They just need to be serious and not do it in joking way (and for Colbert not in his character at all)

   Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 7:43 am | Permalink
4. Michael wrote:

   Stewart, yes. Colbert, no. I’ve seen Stewart be very sincere and serious (e.g., his first broadcast after 9/11), and I think he could do very well moderating a debate.

   Colbert can’t do it. It’s not that he’s not able. Rather, it would kill his brand. His comedy is based entirely on staying in character and exuding irony from every pore of his being. That’s why his roast of Bush was so brutal…because it had to be. Any hint of sincerity will forever diminish his character.

   Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 8:13 am | Permalink
5. Iron Knee wrote:

   Michael, I agree. I’m not sure why people think Stewart would have to make an effort to be serious. I think his interviews are good and very sincere. And adding a little humor to a debate could only be a good thing.

   Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 9:29 am | Permalink
6. thefunrev wrote:

   I disagree that a serious, non-character debate would kill Colbert’s brand. He’s done some wonderful interviews with major figures (Neil deGrasse Tyson comes immediately to mind) without the guise of his character that were just as informative and funny as the skewering he does on his show.

   I do think of the two, Stewart would be the better choice if only because he is more feared/respected by the politicians. Unfortunately, though he skewers the left as hard as he does the right, he doesn’t do so as often, which would lead to a credible claim of bias from the Romney camp. Of course, if Romney had a sense of humor, he’d do it anyway.

   Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Permalink
7. ebdoug wrote:

   Stewart interrupts the people he is interviewing. It is very annoying. Fatal in a debate.

   Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
8. Arthanyel wrote:

   Jon Stewart would be an excellent moderator, and I don’t believe he would interrupt the candidates other than to cut them off when time expires. The key is that Stewart would force them to address real issues and not allow them to skirt by with propaganda instead of answering the questions.

   Which is why, as Bard observed, it will never happen. The risks to the candidates are too great.

   Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Permalink
9. Richard wrote:

   We live in a “gotcha” world where people watch these debates the way they watch American Idol.

   I’ve never been all that happy with debate moderation except for Jim Lehrer who seems to get the big picture attempting to ask questions and follow-ups that help us understand a candidate’s views.

   I know Stewart and his writers could come up with the types of questions and follow-ups that we want to hear answered, and I’m a huge fan of his, but if his moderation “cheapened” an already cheapened experience I’d be against it.

   Or, maybe I’ve been delusional that there was ever any dignity in this process. Probably true.

   Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 6:00 am | Permalink
10. Anna wrote:

    That would be amazing! He might actually get the candidates to answer the real questions.

    Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 5:14 pm | Permalink