More Jon Stewart

Probably driving this into the ground, but I can't get enough. Here is what Jon Stewart had to say on last night's Daily Show.

How was your weekend? I, uh, I had a great weekend. Lets see, what did I do on Friday? I got a haircut. Uh... called a guy a dick on national television. I think what happened was, Ben Carlin our executive producer, and I went down to DC to do a book signing at Politics and Prose. Lovely people, the people who came out for the book signing, and it raised my self-esteem. Luckily it would be crushed later. And then we decided to go over to this place, Crossfire, which is a nuanced public policy analysis show, uh, that is named after the stray bullets that hit innocent bystanders in a gang fight.

So I go to Crossfire, and, lets face it, I was dehydrated. Its the Martin Lawrence defense. I hadn't had my proper water that day, and I had, always in the past, mentioned to friends and people that I meet on the street that I think that show... blows.

Uh...so I thought the only right thing to do was to go ever there and say it to them personally on their program... but... here, here, here's the thing about confronting someone with that on their show... uh... they're there.

Ahhh... Uncomfortable!

And they were very mad because, apparantly, when you invite someone on a show called Crossfire and you express an opinion... uh.. they don't care for that. Apparantly my opinion... I've seen this show, that's all they do is express opinion and shout at each other... but apparantly if that opinion is not one of your standard right/left opinions they just "Bwha?"

Uh, but they did... I told them that I thought their show was hurting America and, uh, they came back at me pretty good... they said I, uh, wasn't being funny. And I said to them, uh, "I know that. But tomorrow I will go back to being funny, and your show will still blow."

So, thats the end of that story...

(assorted lines from throughout the show)
And honestly, I didn't mean that Tucker was a dick. Honestly, they're all dicks. I didn't mean to leave the other three out.

And Novak, you know they say he broke his hip... I don't think so. I think it was trying to escape.

The moment of Zen was funny. It was Novak saying on Crossfire Monday "I don't think that Jon Stewart is funny, and I KNOW that he is uninformed" to which James Carville said "Well, I think he's funny, I just think he's a pompous ass."

You know the old saying "If they are shooting at you, you are probably doing something right?" Well, the same probably goes for when Robert Novak and James Carville both hate you.

Comments

[Lori]

Thanks for the link, Dylan. I FINALLY got around to watching this and here are my thoughts: Wouldn't it be wonderful if Tucker Carlson's career went down the tubes as a result of this revealing showcase of what a smarmy little disgusting man he is. He's the type that gets embarrassingly beaten up at recess after torturing some little kid to the end of the kid's patience, then goes and has his dad fire the kid's father.

And has the Conservative Right endorsed Carlson's favorite term "buttboy"? That is disgusting. They are such hypocrites.

[Dylan]

I actually think that modern politics might be a bit better if they'd incorporate phrases like "buttboy" into their vernacular more often. At least it would spice things up a bit.

[Mark]

How did this end up a battle of Jon Stewart vs. exclusively Tucker Carlson? As I recall, Stewart was attacking the entire show, not just the figurehead right wing guy. I'm not defending Carlson because he ain't my favorite by any stretch, but I wonder why no one seems ot be focusing on the fact that Bengala was just as much an object of Stewart's scorn. Maybe it's because he was the silent one in the corner afraid to open his mouth other than splutter every once in awhile.

Like I said, not a huge Carlson fan...still not one, but at least give him a little credit for replying as best he could for what amounts to essentially an ambush. It's not like he knew it was coming, and neither did Bengala, but at least Carlson had the guts to stand up for himself despite being blindsided.

I'm a big time John Stewart fan. I think he's pure greatness. And I think it's pretty neat what he did in that political correctness was put aside for a brief second. . But at the same time, I'm reminded of the scene in Bowling for Columbine where Michael Moore essentially ambushes Charlton Heston by asking him questions that he hadn't prepared for. I'm definitely not a Heston fan either...but unforunately I found myself sympathizing with him when I saw that film because of the way he was treated. If you're going to have an honest debate...make sure both sides are prepared and know what's coming. It's all too easy for people from either side to win in an ambush situation, and I would be so much happier with all this if tewart had cleaned the floor with them despite the Crossfire people knowing about it in advance. It's SO MUCH more powerful that way.

[collin]

Mark, normally I'd agree with you. But I have a good friend who was ambushed by Carlson in a national publication, had her work misrepresented badly, given no chance to reply (either by Carlson or the publication itself), and who had her scholarship and qualifications called into question, not in the interests of honest debate, but because it served Carlson's puffed-up, partisan theatrics.

The difference here between Stewart and Moore is that Charlton Heston doesn't tour the country, have a national talk show, or write national columns employing those same tactics that were used against him for once. I can muster some small amount of sympathy for Heston, I suppose, but Carlson (and the rest of the Crossfire hacks) deserve no better than what they got. They brought an intelligent person onto their show, expecting fluff, and they got instead someone who feels more responsibility for our political process as a comedian than they do as so-called political analysts. If they can't defend the value of their show without advanced preparation, then that tells us something about the value of their show.

cgb

[Mark]

Well said Colin. I'm sorry to hear about your good firend who was subject to libelous and defamatory remarks. Obviously I don't endorse that, and like I said, I'm not a huge fan (or really one at all) of Carlson. So what you're saying is what's good for the goose is good for the gander...Carlson is guilty, and therefore employing the same tactic on him is fair game....not sure I agree with that, especially if one thinks his tactics to be barbarous.

As for not being able to defend themselves as commentary on the value of their show, I see and respect that... but as weak as Carlson's defense may have been, I'd place more blame then on the Bengala, because he didn't even TRY.

I say bring them both on the Jon Stewart show and then let Stewart tear them to pieces. If thathappens....that would be pretty powerful television...and probably damn funny to watch as well!

[Lori]

I have to take issue with Mark's use of term "ambush" as applied to what Jon Stewart did. I guess it looks like an "ambush" when the tables get turned? In most people's views an "ambush" would be if the hosts invited someone onto a show and unexpectedly attacked him with inappropriate questions that the guest wasn't expecting. I think it is telling of our society AND what we have come to accept as "journalism" that we are now defining as an "ambush" when a guest comes on a show and tries to have an intelligent discussion with the hosts, and won't let them set the terms/tone of the discussion. Unbelievable! And, did they expect that Jon WOULDN'T criticize the show? He's been criticizing the show for years. What ambush?

What Jon Stewart said and did, and how he handled himself was so much milder than the treatment regularly doled out to Democrats on conservative talk radio. In my read of the situation, Jon Stewart refused to "be their monkey" wanted to have a serious discussion, eloquently voiced why he has been critical of their show and...they couldn't handle it. They couldn't answer his criticisms.

I think Begala was quiet because it was the only appropriate response from him. Jon Stewart didn't need any help handling the usual childish shrillness of Tucker Carlson. And it wasn't Begala's place to try and help Carlson make his ridiculous points. So, Begala was silent, Stewart became increasingly frustrated with trying to have an intelligent discussion and the Republican spewed shrill, non-sequiturs like "I wouldn't want to have dinner with you."

It was one of the only moments that have felt REAL to me on any news station this year.

And I don't feel sorry for Charlton Heston either. I've heard him speak, he is filled with hate and he now has the power to buy an assault weapon. Wonder if Carlson would like to have dinner with him?

Look at it through whatever colored glasses you want. But Carlson was ridiculous.

[Dylan]

Well would you look at this? I went to work, and I find that my blog has been the home of some intelligent and articulate debate. I love it.

Here's my two cents. First of all, I believe that the Crossfire incident, or what I'm calling "the 30 minutes that changed the world," is being framed in a "Stewart vs. Tucker" manner is simple: John Stewart didn't call Paul Begala a dick on live, national television.

But more to the point it is Stewart vs. Tucker because Tucker was the only one who fought back.

Now, as to the "ambush" issue... I'm fine with calling it an ambush, because it is obvious that Jon Stewart came on to the show with an intent to call them out. That being said, there might be a problem with an ambush if it wasn't on a show which is driven by ambush journalism, and if you don't believe that is what this show does, then why did Tucker Carlson already have a graphic made up of the "soft" questions that Stewart asked Kerry? I believe that CNN thought Stewart was coming onto the show for the purposes of comic relief, but I also believe that Tucker Carlson intended to try to discredit a person who is viewed to be very influential among a demographic that the Republicans cannot reach.

Now, as for Charlton Heston, it might be different if Michael Moore asked these questions to a unsuspecting gun store owner, or even a representative who voted for certain gun laws, but these questions were directed at a man who is the key figure and the standard bearer for the issue of gun control. If he wasn't prepared to answer questions like "Why do you, a man who has no real concern with being attacked in his own home, need 50 guns?" then, well, he doesn't deserve to be president of one of the largest lobbyist groups in the country.

The Heston scene in Bowling for Columbine can only be considered as an ambush because of the unbelievably bad performance of Heston in the interview. It was such a train wreck that his handlers decided to release a statement saying he is suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's disease the day after the interview took place. When faced with a tough question about the propriety of going to a town where one of the most vicious and sensless acts of gun violence took place and rubbing it in their face, he simply stood up and walked away.

And that is what Stewart pointed out on Friday: It isn't that these are bad people, it is that they no longer ask the tough questions that need to be asked. When the conversation is framed in a method that is outside the unspoken normal rules, then they are accused of somehow being unfair. It is a silly and unreasonable cry of foul.

[Lori]

I'm not fine with "ambush." And it only holds up if you look at the situation out of context and I refuse to do that because that is what these "journalistic" shows thrive on.

If you invite someone onto your show, someone who has been mocking your show for months, if not years, and then that person accepts your invitation comes on your show and says "Your show sucks"....you have NOT been ambushed. Not by my definition. But then again...it's for those in power to define terms, isn't it? Terms like "liberal" and "privatize."

That is all.

[Lori]

And...FURTHERMORE....you CAN'T MAKE ME ok with "ambush"!!!!

Sorry, just thought it was time to end the "intelligent and articulate" debate and go back to Fox and Crossfire level dialogue.