Sh*t Just Got Real™: The Rachel Maddow/Jon Stewart MSNBC interview.

[ladypolitik]

In Stewart’s hour-long interview on The Rachel Maddow Show was remarkable for Stewart’s unprecedented openness about where he stands when he’s not making jokes. Because Stewart respects Maddow, he took her up on her invitation to clarify the message many believed he sent out at his “Rally To Restore Sanity”: That there’s a parity of invective on

Comments

I'm just going to be over here.

[jesidres]

[theburningdoll]

[livinghope]

A+ gif! Sleeping Beauty is so underrated.

[lickety_split]

How is Sleeping Beauty underrated? It's one of Disney's best films and the artwork is flawless.

[draion]

I think livinghope just means socially underrated. You don't see Aurora being advertised as much as Cinderella, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, etc.

It's kind of like Hunchback of Notre Dame: it did incredibly well as a movie, and it's a very revered piece of literature (great read, even if it was a little hard for me, tbh), but you don't see people alluding to it as much as the titles with the princesses mentioned above.

/political comment (The Disney fan inside of me couldn't let this comment slide without putting his two cents' worth in.)

[mollywobbles867]

I'm watching it now in the rerun.

Jon Stewart totally missed the point on the weapons of mass destruction section. It doesn't fucking matter what Bush FELT. The only thing that should matter when it comes to declaring war is FACT.

The point

Jon

[ladyanneboleyn]

I don't think Jon would disagree with that. Their conversation at that moment wasn't really about the facts of what was/should have been done, but about the way the media portrayed Bush for doing it, and how that fed into the partisan media narrative.

[mollywobbles867]

That wasn't I got from that at all, but maybe I just don't understand Jon Stewart anymore. lol

[ladyanneboleyn]

I think he does become a lot harder to understand without his writers behind him and his desk in front.

[liveonthesun]

just watched it and i'm still mentally processing it, but i am so effing excited about people's comments.

[ladypolitik]

One thing that struck me right from the start was Jon's unwitting indecisiveness in what he wanted from modern political discourse

[keithmex17]

You've taken what I was feeling while I was making my comment down below and extrapolated it quite beautifully right thar.

[ladypolitik]

"false refereeing"*, FML

[ladyanneboleyn]

I don't know that he necessarily meant it that way... because then the question is, If he isn't really arguing for genuine discourse, what is he arguing for? Is he really trying to favor the Tea Party?

As seems to be his pattern since the rally, I think Jon is coming from a stance of "The specifics of what is happening aren't as important as finding out exactly why it's happening." The point I understood him to be making was, "These people might be individuals being played by powerful ideological organizations, but they are part of a movement of genuine anger. So let's try to figure out why these people are so angry instead of dismissing the Tea Party as a whole."

I don't think his problem was so much the specifics of the townhall interruptions, but the tendency overall to delegitimize the root concerns of Tea Partiers and dismiss the Tea Party as a bunch of crazies.

I don't feel like he articulated it well at all, but taken in context with all his other comments, I feel like that's what he was getting at.