John Kerry on The Daily Show Tuesday

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-08-24 01:16pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:I like when John McCain and Bob Dole do interviews, because they aren't afraid to be the butt of a joke,

They also tend to be funny as Hell. Bob Dole can be hilarious if he's properly placed.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-24 01:18pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:They also tend to be funny as Hell. Bob Dole can be hilarious if he's properly placed.

Bob Dole killed when he was on Conan. He's was ripping on everyone and was funny as hell.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-24 04:14pm

I'm telling you, Bob Dole would have been elected in 1996 if he'd had the personality then that he has now. He was so fucking dull as a Presidential candidate, but as it turns out he really does have a good sense of humor.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-24 04:17pm

Joe wrote:I'm telling you, Bob Dole would have been elected in 1996 if he'd had the personality then that he has now. He was so fucking dull as a Presidential candidate, but as it turns out he really does have a good sense of humor.

Clearly, he's a pod person. We've all seen the movies. The dull person shows up later with personality.

Wear your tinfoil underpants!

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-24 07:15pm

Joe wrote:I'm telling you, Bob Dole would have been elected in 1996 if he'd had the personality then that he has now. He was so fucking dull as a Presidential candidate, but as it turns out he really does have a good sense of humor.

So would Al Gore in 2000. Both ran four years too early before their charisma kicked in.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-08-24 09:40pm

Actually, I think the person I'd most like to see go on The Daily Show is Robert "Douche bag of liberty" Novak. I think of all people, Jon has been most critical of Novak, especially after Novak gave the name of that spy on CNN.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-24 10:25pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Have you noticed that while most people in here choose to calmly explain to me why, you resort to calling me a moron?

No, I explained to you why, and then I called you a moron. Because that's what you are, albeit in a charitable use of the word.

Just curious, do you think this enhances your argument?

No, I simply enjoy it.

And btw, being a good sport probably doesn't amount to the amount of damage it could do to someone like Bush who has problems enough with public speaking.

What a crock of shit. Why do you think both Bush and Gore showed up on SNL in 2000? Why do you think Bush made fun of his speech impediments? Why do you think Gore made fun of his arrogance during the debates? Because they wanted to hurt their poll numbers?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-24 11:17pm

Ugh, this is turning into a real puff peice. I have to say I'm getting more and more disappointed in the interveiws they do these days.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-24 11:18pm

God, that was fucking surreal. I can't believe that John Kerry actually had the gall to bitch about the Republicans being obsessed with Vietnam and not wanting to discuss the real issues. And Jon Stewart pretty much let him get away with it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-24 11:21pm

Joe wrote:God, that was fucking surreal. I can't believe that John Kerry actually had the gall to bitch about the Republicans being obsessed with Vietnam and not wanting to discuss the real issues. And Jon Stewart pretty much let him get away with it.

Yeah, they really have had a lot of chances for good interveiws and instead softballed it. The interveiws really have been turning into selective fluffings for some guests.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-08-24 11:45pm

Just saw the Daily Show, this might warrent a new thread, but anyway:

What did you guys think? I found Stewarts hard questions derived from talking points on cable news networks quite good:
Are you the most liberal member of the senate?
Are you more liberal than Karl Marx?
Appently you where never in Vietnam

Stewart brought up how the pundits on cable have been harrassing Kerry's image and Kerry's response:
The American people are intelligent enough to want to get back to the real issues.

Stewart also compared 2004 to 2000, bringing up the way the campaign has focused on 35 year old issues, and not on policy and issues regarding the presidency, less than the 2000 election when real dialogue took place.

I give Kerry a 9 out of 10 for this interview. That one point was for not being there the entire half hour.
Also, the little Oil industry spokesgirl was cute.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-24 11:50pm

Stewart also compared 2004 to 2000, bringing up the way the campaign has focused on 35 year old issues, and not on policy and issues regarding the presidency, less than the 2000 election when real dialogue took place.

Which ignored the fact that Kerry chose to tout those records as part of his campaign.

It ignored the fact that Kerry has used the same sorts of distortions he harped on bush for.

The questions were just plain fluff designed to let Kerry show off, not even close to real questions.

Never once did Jon call him when he started pontificating. It was just a chance for Kerry to say those evil republicans.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-08-25 12:01am

Storm, what did you think about the rest of the interview? Besides the "we should get back to the issues," even though Kerry is the one who makes his service an issue.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-08-25 04:11am

Personally, I think he made a mistake "pontificating". He would ahve been much better off if he had just used the show as an opportunity to show that he actually has a personality. (Though, to be fair, he did do that to some degree).

LMSx · Post by **LMSx** » 2004-08-25 04:39am

Stormbringer wrote:
Stewart also compared 2004 to 2000, bringing up the way the campaign has focused on 35 year old issues, and not on policy and issues regarding the presidency, less than the 2000 election when real dialogue took place.
Which ignored the fact that Kerry chose to tout those records as part of his campaign.

It ignored the fact that Kerry has used the same sorts of distortions he harped on bush for.

The questions were just plain fluff designed to let Kerry show off, not even close to real questions.

Never once did Jon call him when he started pontificating. It was just a chance for Kerry to say those evil republicans.

I've given up on Jon's interviews being remotely balanced when it comes to partisans, since based on this and other interviews, we KNOW that Jon will put on his "fake newsman" cap when Democrats are on and let them drone on and on. When Republicans are on, suddenly Jon becomes Take No Bullshit Journalist and starts questioning their arguments, if not trying to convert them outright.

Hence, all interviews with Democrats tend to end up being boring as sin, and Republican interviews are where the red meat is served. Ed Gillespie will be on today- my money's on it being 10x more interesting and engaging then yesterday's two-segment wankfest.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-25 10:20am

Marksist wrote:Storm, what did you think about the rest of the interview? Besides the "we should get back to the issues," even though Kerry is the one who makes his service an issue.

It wasn't really that good. It was from start to finish a puff peice, start to finish. That about sums it up for me. He didn't do much more than give Kerry a chance to repeat his campaign crap. I think given that they could, should, and with other people have, done more and still kept it fun.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-25 11:47am

LMSx wrote:I've given up on Jon's interviews being remotely balanced when it comes to partisans, since based on this and other interviews, we KNOW that Jon will put on his "fake newsman" cap when Democrats are on and let them drone on and on. When Republicans are on, suddenly Jon becomes Take No Bullshit Journalist and starts questioning their arguments, if not trying to convert them outright.

Nice Golden Mean fallacy. I notice that you presume both sides are flinging an equal amount of bullshit, even though only one side has been consistently tying Saddam to Al-Quaeda with no real evidence, pretending they were never wrong about WMD, pretending to have nothing whatsoever to do with an "independent group" that's been spreading lies about Kerry and has been tied to Bush for years (with far, far closer connections than the ones they tout as justifications for war against Saddam), etc. And what have the Democratic distortions been on these issues? Exaggerating the bravery of Kerry's decision to sign up for swift boat service?

Stormbringer wrote:Which ignored the fact that Kerry chose to tout those records as part of his campaign.

It ignored the fact that Kerry has used the same sorts of distortions he harped on bush for.

I'm tired of this "Kerry touting those records" argument. The fact is that the official military records speak for themselves, and his occasional reference to his military experience does not legitimize slander. It is perfectly legitimate for him to say that he knows what war is like while Bush does not, and it is not legitimate to spread lies about someone for political gain.

As for these "same sorts of distortions" he should have been attacked on, please quote the specific things Kerry said during the interview which you felt should have been attacked, and which were just as distorted as the attack ads which Stewart was talking about. Or do you prefer to spout vague generalizations and Golden Mean fallacies?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-08-25 12:14pm

I liked how Jon kept cutting him off when he started to get on a roll about republicans, he never got more then a few sentances and you could tell he was going for a big speech. But I am disappointed that he didn't use it to showcase his position, he spent most of it reacting to Republican claims.

In that sense I don't think it was a "puff piece". Kerry had a good oppertunity to win over the college crowd here, and instaed Stewert's line of questioning kept him on the defensive once more.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-25 12:23pm

'm tired of this "Kerry touting those records" argument. The fact is that the official military records speak for themselves, and his occasional reference to his military experience does not legitimize slander. It is perfectly legitimate for him to say that he knows what war is like while Bush does not, and it is not legitimate to spread lies about someone for political gain.

I never said that slander should be tolerated. But Kerry has been making a lot of his war hero record extensively and then blames Bush for focusing on the past. He's done far, far more than just occasionally mention it. I don't know if the Candian media isn't reporting it as much but it's been a major part of his campaign. That's blatant hypocrisy on Kerry's part and he's been allowed to get away with it.

As for these "same sorts of distortions" he should have been attacked on, please quote the specific things Kerry said during the interview which you felt should have been attacked, and which were just as distorted as the attack ads which Stewart was talking about. Or do you prefer to spout vague generalizations and Golden Mean fallacies?

Kerry harped on about the how Bush accussed him of voting down three provisions for our troops in Iraq when it was all part of single bill. Of course he ignores that his own ads have used the same exact tactic. And he wasn't called on that.

He's also been allowed to skate with redefining common political terms such as the 'misery index' for his own gain, and then not letting anyone know when he does. Also a Bush tactic he's borrowed and yet has been allowed a free pass on.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-25 12:31pm

Stormbringer wrote:I never said that slander should be tolerated. But Kerry has been making a lot of his war hero record extensively and then blames Bush for focusing on the past. He's done far, far more than just occasionally mention it. I don't know if the Candian media isn't reporting it as much but it's been a major part of his campaign. That's blatant hypocrisy on Kerry's part and he's been allowed to get away with it.

Bullshit. When you say "I know what war is like; I've been there" you aren't saying that you should be voted in based on what you did 35 years ago, but rather, you are saying that you have experience which is applicable to the current situation. If you apply for a job and cite your experience, you aren't saying that you should be hired because of something you did 10 years ago, but because you have a certain type of relevant knowledge, which is useful today. And accusing his detractors of harping unfairly on his past is perfectly legitimate since it happens to be true.

Kerry harped on about the how Bush accussed him of voting down three provisions for our troops in Iraq when it was all part of single bill. Of course he ignores that his own ads have used the same exact tactic. And he wasn't called on that.

Specifically what did his ads say? I've seen the anti-Kerry ads accusing him of repeatedly voting against the military. I have not seen these other ads you're talking about. More to the point, I asked you to name specific things he said which were wrong and should have been attacked. You have not done so.

He's also been allowed to skate with redefining common political terms such as the 'misery index' for his own gain, and then not letting anyone know when he does. Also a Bush tactic he's borrowed and yet has been allowed a free pass on.

As I predicted, vague generalizations.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-25 01:13pm

Bullshit. When you say "I know what war is like; I've been there" you aren't saying that you should be voted in based on what you did 35 years ago, but rather, you are saying that you have experience which is applicable to the current situation. If you apply for a job and cite your experience, you aren't saying that you should be hired because of something you did 10 years ago, but because you have a certain type of relevant knowledge, which is useful today.

That's fair. To use your job analogy, you're also going to check references for that job. Now some are engaging in slander but some are just turning up fishy.

Second Article down

And accusing his detractors of harping unfairly on his past is perfectly legitimate since it happens to be true.

So no one should dare question his service or his conduct afterwards? Kerry is the one that's touted his service record. Now he's being questioned on it. That strikes me as eminetly fair.

Specifically what did his ads say? I've seen the anti-Kerry ads accusing him of repeatedly voting against the military. I have not seen these other ads you're talking about. More to the point, I asked you to name specific things he said which were wrong and should have been attacked. You have not done so.

A number of tax cut and education related ads have implied that they were the result of seperate bills.

As I predicted, vague generalizations.

Vague generalizations? What the hell is it you want? A taped copy of the commericials and speechs in question?

Kerry has been referencing his homegrown version of the misery index in a series of speeches. It's also made into at least one commercial.

Unfortunately the spinsanity article is down so I can't read the article, but I believe this is the one that mentions that.

And now there's this new one on taxes, which he actually referenced on the Daily Show.

First article

LMSx · Post by **LMSx** » 2004-08-26 06:39am

Nice Golden Mean fallacy. I notice that you presume both sides are flinging an equal amount of bullshit, even though only one side has been consistently tying Saddam to Al-Quaeda with no real evidence, pretending they were never wrong about WMD, pretending to have nothing whatsoever to do with an "independent group" that's been spreading lies about Kerry and has been tied to Bush for years (with far, far closer connections than the ones they tout as justifications for war against Saddam ), etc. And what have the Democratic distortions been on these issues? Exaggerating the bravery of Kerry's decision to sign up for swift boat service?

*pauses to restate thesis*

Okay. The Daily Show's staff and crew evidently think lowly of cable-news pundits reciting from talking points. Jon ably questions and prods Republicans who come onto TDS using said talking points as proof in of themselves, to actually backup and support their claims. (See: Henry Bonilla interview w/ National Journal rankings)

What I heard from Kerry was what I've heard from every news snippet since the Convention. The man was clearly on auto-pilot when he transformed Jon's question about voting against body armor and ended up with another rant about Iraq and how we were underprepared and did it alone. Straight from his stump speech. Yet ironically, Jon just let him cruise through the talking points Kerry's handlers probably drilled into him before the show.

Presenting Kerry with serious Republican objections to his arguments would have helped everyone, by presenting to the American public (or at least Comedy Central's audience, whichever's greater

) an informed debate on how Kerry presents himself, the Republican objections, and Kerry's rebuttals to those objections.

The Ed Gillespie interview did exactly that, when Ed said something, Jon offered up the Democratic response, and then Ed responded to that in turn. It's a good deal more enlightening interview.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-26 01:40pm

Stormbringer wrote:That's fair. To use your job analogy, you're also going to check references for that job.

And "references" would include only people who had direct observation of his activities during the previous job, not just someone who worked at the same company. See where I'm going with this?

So no one should dare question his service or his conduct afterwards? Kerry is the one that's touted his service record. Now he's being questioned on it. That strikes me as eminetly fair.

Wrong. He's not being questioned on his service record. He's being attacked on the basis of unfounded allegations by people who are using personal claims to attack and dismiss his service record as a bunch of lies.

A number of tax cut and education related ads have implied that they were the result of seperate bills.

In what way did they imply this? As I said, I haven't seen these ads.

Vague generalizations? What the hell is it you want? A taped copy of the commericials and speechs in question?

How about a specific claim instead of vague generalizations?

Kerry has been referencing his homegrown version of the misery index in a series of speeches. It's also made into at least one commercial.

And what's wrong with the misery index? More importantly, why are you bringing it up here, since I watched that interview and don't recall him mentioning it?

And now there's this new one on taxes, which he actually referenced on the Daily Show.

You mean his claim that middle-class taxes have gone up as a fraction of overall tax? That came from the Congressional Budget Office.

As for your claim that he's soft on Dems, that's more bullshit. The harsh reality is that the Dems haven't been putting out half as much bullshit as the Republicans lately, and while it might have been possible for Stewart to go apeshit nailing Kerry for comments made elsewhere, Kerry didn't say anything in the interview that warranted such attacks.

As for the implication that Stewart is just soft on Dems because he didn't grill Kerry, let's just say that if George W. Bush ever grows the balls to go on the Daily Show and gets ass-raped by Stewart, you might have a point. But to look at the Democrats' top man getting different treatment than a low-ranking Republican hatchetman and argue that it's proof of bias is just silly.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-08-26 01:46pm

John Kerry was not very good on the show, IMO, and I think he should Edwards should be media Johnny-on-the-spot more often. He's just better at this sort of thing that Kerry.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2004-08-26 01:51pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:John Kerry was not very good on the show, IMO, and I think he should Edwards should be media Johnny-on-the-spot more often. He's just better at this sort of thing that Kerry.

I feel that way too. Kerry's a demagouge, like any politician, so he'll get on those irritating rants about shit, but I think Edwards would be more in control of that sort of thing.

As it was, Kerry seemed to laugh off a lot of Jon's serious questions. I understand some were meant to be jokes, but others weren't.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

John Kerry on The Daily Show Tuesday

Re: John Kerry on The Daily Show Tuesday