I'll show you mine if you show me yours....

[sirkickyass]

They don't savage members of their own party. If you have an example where they have I'll be glad to consider it.

Jon Stewart killed Paul Begala (and Tucker Carlson) famously on CNN's Crossfire. Begala is one of the most recognizable faces/names from the Clinton administration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Stewart has repeatedly stated that he thinks Democrats are ineffectual and incompetent at getting any policies passed (examples: Larry King interview, Terry Gross NPR interview and one of my favorite Stewart quotes ""It's not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are playing chess. It's that the Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because once again they glued their balls to their thighs.")

Stewart went after Obama over Libya last month: https://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-critics-are-lining-up-now-jon-stewart-attacks-obama-over-libya/

Colbert is tricky because he's playing a character so any "criticism" of Democrats can be dismissed as part of the performance. However, I do remember that he went after particular Democrat Senators on the health-care debate. https://www.examiner.com/political-...senate-democrats-who-killed-the-public-option

These are just from memory running only google searches based on things I personally remember. I'm sure I could get you dozens if I did this in any systematized way.

But this is actually proving two different points:

1) That they do criticize members of the Democratic party; and
2) unlike the other people they were compared to, approval from Stewart and Colbert isn't a functional litmus test for suitability for office.

 

[VINYLONE]

They don't savage members of their own party. If you have an example where they have I'll be glad to consider it.

You can't be serious. You can't be.

 

[LogGrad98]

I have always thought Stewart was pretty balanced, even if his left leanings do still shine through from time to time. As was stated, Colbert plays a character, a character that I don't like so I don't watch his show.

 

[PearlWatson]

Jon Stewart killed Paul Begala (and Tucker Carlson) famously on CNN's Crossfire. Begala is one of the most recognizable faces/names from the Clinton administration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Stewart has repeatedly stated that he thinks Democrats are ineffectual and incompetent at getting any policies passed (examples: Larry King interview, Terry Gross NPR interview and one of my favorite Stewart quotes ""It's not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are playing chess. It's that the Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because once again they glued their balls to their thighs.")

Stewart went after Obama over Libya last month: https://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-critics-are-lining-up-now-jon-stewart-attacks-obama-over-libya/

Colbert is tricky because he's playing a character so any "criticism" of Democrats can be dismissed as part of the performance. However, I do remember that he went after particular Democrat Senators on the health-care debate. https://www.examiner.com/political-...senate-democrats-who-killed-the-public-option

These are just from memory running only google searches based on things I personally remember. I'm sure I could get you dozens if I did this in any systematized way.

But this is actually proving two different points:

1) That they do criticize members of the Democratic party; and
2) unlike the other people they were compared to, approval from Stewart and Colbert isn't a functional litmus test for suitability for office.

The first one is just media personality against media personality. The funniest part of his interview was to hear a partisan hack call other partisan hacks, partisan hacks.

On a tangent: It is unbelievable to me, especially after the past 2 years, that you believe Stewart when he says the Democrats are ineffectual in getting their policies passed.

Stewart's criticism of Obama on one thing is not "sinking an individual" unless your definition of sinking is really weak.

You seriously think you somehow proved #2?

 

[babe]

Liberals do their own group-cleansing in general; they won't even let conservatives "help". In the old days, the saw was that while Republicans circle the wagons and shoot out at their opponents, Democrats circle the wagons and shoot in----at each other.

I expect a showdown soon on the Chicago-run faction of the Democratic Party versus the Clinton/neoLiberal faction. Obama and the Black Liberation theology/ mob-ocrats as represented by Harry Reid and Jesse Jackson versus the bought-and-paid-for democrats completely owened by the establishment, as represented by Clinton and Lieberman. I don't think Obama will even get his party's own nomination for a second term. He is already in complete lameduck mode. But then, I could be wrong if George Soros pulls the lever again.

 

[PearlWatson]

Liberals do their own group-cleansing in general; they won't even let conservatives "help". In the old days, the saw was that while Republicans circle the wagons and shoot out at their opponents, Democrats circle the wagons and shoot in----at each other.

How is it that I see the exact opposite happening?

 

[sirkickyass]

Liberals do their own group-cleansing in general; they won't even let conservatives "help".

I think "block voting" records going back to 1994 don't support your theory. In practice, those on the left side of the aisle have been significantly more likely to cross-over than those on the right regardless of which party is in the majority. That tends to indicate little propensity for bipartisanship rather than a pattern of being shut out.

I don't think Obama will even get his party's own nomination for a second term. He is already in complete lameduck mode.

I think you would get long odds on that. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.

 

[One Brow]

On a tangent: It is unbelievable to me, especially after the past 2 years, that you believe Stewart when he says the Democrats are ineffectual in getting their policies passed.

The final products wind up looking little like the original policy proposals.

Stewart's criticism of Obama on one thing is not "sinking an individual" unless your definition of sinking is really weak.

The point was that Stewart didn't hae that kind of influence in the first place, regardless of what he said.

As an example of critcizing Democratic politicians, on last nights repeat he referred to Obama's budget proposal speech as needing to send royalties to the estate of George Orwell, and made fun of Biden sleeping during the speech.

You seriously think you somehow proved #2?

#2 can't be proven, since it is a negative and fairly nebulous to begin with, not to mention Stewart and Colbert don't actually endorse/oppose candidates directly.

 

[One Brow]

How is it that I see the exact opposite happening?

Each group sees the divisions within it's own ranks more clearly than the division within the oppositions. Human nature.

 

[PearlWatson]

The final products wind up looking little like the original policy proposals.

Not the policy proposals of the Republicans.

The point was that Stewart didn't hae that kind of influence in the first place, regardless of what he said.

He wasn't mocking any candidate running for office, so how would we know?
I think his mockery combined with other comedians on the left are part of what created the conventional wisdom that Palin and Bush are dummies. People on the left make similar blunders but they don't get gangbanged over it.

As an example of critcizing Democratic politicians, on last nights repeat he referred to Obama's budget proposal speech as needing to send royalties to the estate of George Orwell, and made fun of Biden sleeping during the speech.

It seemed as though during the campaign the comedians treated Obama with kid gloves, maybe the shine has worn off and their audience is more open to Obama mockery.

#2 can't be proven, since it is a negative and fairly nebulous to begin with, not to mention Stewart and Colbert don't actually endorse/oppose candidates directly.

Neither does Limbaugh.

 

[PearlWatson]

Each group sees the divisions within it's own ranks more clearly than the division within the oppositions. Human nature.

That's actually a good point.

 

[VINYLONE]

I think his mockery combined with other comedians on the left are part of what created the conventional wisdom that Palin and Bush are dummies. People on the left make similar blunders but they don't get gangbanged over it.

Did you not see that Katie Couric interview? A little intellectual honesty goes along way. A long ****ing way. Palin's inability to construct intelligible sentences along with her lack of substance is what makes her look like a dummy. I don't understand how you cannot accept this. Oh, yes I do, you're intellectually dishonest.

Had Al Franken done any of the same stuff, people would have lambasted him...and with good reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg

I mean, come the **** on!