Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
scott@scottlongonline.com
I, unlike most people in my demographic, don't watch the Daily Show. I like Jon Stewart, but it's just never been something I make an effort to watch. I like it when I do, but ... hey, there's no good explanation.
But when he's on, he's ON:
Fair and balanced? No. Partisan? No. It's just freakin' funny and sad, all at once. That it takes a comedian on a comedy channel doing this is the really sad part. Why couldn't Brian Williams - a funny guy himself - do a segment on the Nightly News where he does the same thing, pointing out the hypocrisy on all sides? Katie Couric is bad for the anchor slot, but this kind of giggling turn might be something she could make a centerpiece for herself. Same for Charlie Gibson, who's experience on GMA would serve to lighten things up.
But no, the network newscasts won't and Jon Stewart will get laughs, but won't get heard outside his demographic. Liars will keep lying, pundits will keep saying whatever is doing well with focus groups, not what is true, and politics will stay politics as usual.
***
I've also noted that during the RNC -- and with Fox News' tag of "Restoring Honor and Dignity to the White House" -- that the Republicans are trying to throw W under the bus without ever saying his name or acknowledging that he's one of them. Mitt Romney going even harder right in his convention, setting himself up for 2012, was one of the WTF moments of this whole campaign for me. He's just not likeable or believable in the way that Sarah Palin came off or in the way that Mike Huckabee does without trying. With Bush's presidency now an acknowledged failure and pictures of McCain and Bush together used as political tar, isn't this dodge by the Republicans actually adding fuel to the fire?
The Nightly News telecast basically exist now as a vehicle to push the products of prescription drug companies. Look at the ratings for the convention this week. CBS is getting half the viewers to it that Fox News is doing. The American public sees the networks as entertainment only, besides their local news.
I mean, are we supposed to be surprised by this, or was this just an excuse to show some liberal smugness? (redundant, I know)
Where are the Daily Show clips about the media-created John Edwards narrative about him being a devoted family man, juxtaposed with the baby-daddy truth? (Gasp!) Etc.
One minor quibble: I disagree with the misuse of the word "hypocrite." Watching political spinmeisters being internally inconsistent isn't technically hypocrisy. It's just being a shameless liar. There's a difference. If Sarah Palin spoke out against abortion and then secretly killed her baby in the womb, that would be hypocrisy.
Always plenty of hypocrisy to go around for both sides. We shall see plenty from the left describing her lack of experience while trying to maintain that Obama's lack is different.
Still the biggest laugh I've ever gotten was when not one but two pundits including McCain's wife suggested that Palin would be good at foreign affairs because Alaska was so close to Russia.
Must be a great time to be a political comic. This stuff just writes itself.
http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=178983
Nobody ever said that only the right has a bunch of lying scumbags. Those are the voices in your head again.
Hypocrisy is to hammer an opponent on a lack of experience then name a running mate that might as well be a kindergartener in terms of experience.
If McCain had nominated Vlad Putin, the right would be fawning over his ass too. When Jesus is on your side, I guess you don't ever make mistakes.
-snicker-
And if it were only "spinmeisters" who lied (screw the hypocrite tag and let's get down to business). For instance, here's what Reuters says: "In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called 'Bridge to Nowhere,' political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska's Congressional delegation during her run for governor."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_nm/usa_politics_palin1_dc_1
I have a serious question that might sound dumb. Okay, in 2000, Gore won the the popular vote, and Bush won the Electoral College vote. I know how the Electoral College system works, I think.
Now, I turned 20 this year, so this will be my first Presidential Election vote. My question is, and it has been asked many times by many others, does my vote honest to goodness, truly count in directly electing the President? Or is it just a "survey" just to make naive people (like myself) into thinking their vote counts?
15 Depends. If you were planning on voting for Obama, then yes, your vote doesn't count. Tell your friends not to vote, either.
The Electoral College drives some people nuts, especially those who would love to see the will of the coastal metropolises (metropolii?) determine the fate of the republic for everyone else. The electoral method we use is supposed to ensure that campaigns secure the interests of broad coalitions and many states, even small ones. If we went with a straight popular vote, then no one would ever bother to campaign anywhere but big cities.
Also, the framers were also trying to keep from any sort of mob rule by having electors and not just popular acclamation. At least that's how they sold it in the Federalist Papers.
Wow, thank you for that explanation, it makes sense now. Thanks for making it a simplistic and clear answer.
left-leaning, sure. but their main goal is always the joke, and they've killed dems before. of course, repubs have been in complete control for 6 of the last 8 years, so they're the bigger target. if obama wins in november, i'm sure that the next year will be full of pointing out his / senate's / house's hypocrisy.
but the main thing is, no other media outlet points out the hypocrisies. and that's terribly sad.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.