Jon Stewart and Lynne Cheney
Fatback
6,746 Posts
I'm a little disappointed. I guess Jon is taking the civil road. BTW--Do you think they have agreed upon things that he can't bring up?You can watch it here. http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml
Comments
Did you catch that puff piece they did with her on Sunday Morning? All snapshots of crewcut Dick and prom queen Lynn back in the day. Inspirational...
No. I'll never forget the puff piece Hannity did with Cheney sitting in the studio on bails of hay with a tractor in the background. He brought Mary Landrieu on after--I guess for the Dem rebuttal--and all she did was laugh out loud. It was the first and only time where I really saw Hannity feeling humiliated.
and also I wonder if I'm the only person that read Lon Cheney for a second there...
The family resemblance IS[/b] startling...
He always seems to humanize the most awful people. I actually liked Scott Mcclellan for a second when he was on there. Gross. Sometimes he'll let them go unchecked and then come back the next day to slam them (i.e, John Bolton). The only time I've seen him outright diss someone (outside of the Tucker/Paul thing) was last week with Chris Mathews. I guess that's his style. But I'd like to see some of that incisive/funny criticism thrown in their faces live. Preferably with someone who matters (not like Mathews).
Sure. He checked her on her logic related to terrorist attacks since 911. I'm glad he did that, but I was hoping for that level of discourse throughout.
Yeah, I noticed that... the guests usually stick around and chat with the host while the camera fades out. Not her... she was gonzo!
Now if she were on the Colbert Report, it would have been a whole different story!
I thought the "You Don't Know Richard Cheney" segment that preceded the interview was great.
Her inhuman "They aren't American interests" comment prompted groans from both the studio audience and myself.
I liked the bit where Jon tries to get her to talk on what Dick's like at home, and the just starts talking about Iraq over him.
Totally. I think he's kind of an idiot, actually (not that I don't enjoy watching the show).
I can't stand it when the audience boos and moans while guests like her are on. I know its a comedy show and all, but come on.
and not a very funny comedian.
As much as I would have liked to see him railroad the bitch and make her cry, he would really be shooting himself and the show in the foot by doing so. The fact that he can talk so much shit on a daily basis and still have the people he's calling out come on for interviews is an accomplishment in itself.
True, but the people who watch his show: a) have a high media IQ and can see through quite a bit of bullshit and b) wouldn't buy her particular bullshit at any time.
Yea, pretty much every talk show has pre-interviews and things they agree not to talk about. If you just went at all your guests no one would come on your show. It's the only way Letterman got Bush on his show. I'm sure a lot of right wingers want to come on Stewart's show so they can demonstrate how this silly little comedian doesn't know about politics. Stewart may not be that funny himself, but the show makes right wingers look like idots every episode.
Have to disagree there, I just get annoyed by his anal retentive so-called left-wing audience.
it's just annoying how the audience is eating out of his hand. like, he'll just pause akwardly in the middle of a sentence and it's enough to evoke uproarious laughter. the Daily Show studio audience is like an echo chamber for his increasngly-uninspired and unimaginative comedy.
Colbert is the true talent on that network.
I think it might be more accurate to say that the only reason they go on these shows is to promote their new books.. any publicity is good publicity.
I didn't find it unhuman, at all. She made sense within the context of the conversation. She mentioned that, after the World Trade Centers fell, people thought there would be an immediate attack on America. Jon was of the mind that she was talking about any terrorist attack worldwide, which she wasn't. He unfairly left her out to dry on that one.
word, and the little dramatic, downward-looking pause on Stewart's part that was meant to suggest "pause, people, and think of the horrible thing that Ms. Cheney has just said, that other peoples' lives are not worth as much as Americans' blah blah blah." so dramatic and so stupid.
I find Cheney and his wife detestable. but she clearly prevailed in this exchange. Stewart stuttered and sputtered and tried to make her appear evil and she handled it well and made him look stupid.
But also recall that Jon, in response to Cheney saying, "We haven't been hit since 9/11, and Bush/Cheney should get credit for that," pointed out that since the bombing attempt on the WTC in '93, we hadn't been hit for 8 years, but none of the people deifying Bush want to give any credit to Clinton for that. So Cheney ticked off all these overseas attacks as if to say, "But there have been attacks since '93." Basically, she moved the goalposts, and then tried to claim that post 9/11, overseas attacks don't count. Can't have it both ways.
So what it is that upset you about it and made you say that Stewart "unfairly left her out to dry," then?
Here's exactly how it went down, courtesy of the magic of TiVo:
CHENEY: When the history books are written, that we will look back on this period of time, and we will say that on 9/11, we really thought that within 6 months we'd be attacked again, maybe 6 weeks. It's been more than 6 years, and that is not an accident. I think this administration, my husband and the president, deserve a lot of credit for that.
STEWART: The first time they bombed the WTC, it was 8 years until we got attacked again.
CHENEY: Yes, but there were many attacks between 1993 and the WTC coming down in 2001. Remember the USS Cole, for example. There were worldwide bombings going on, the bombings of the embassies in Africa. So the terrorists weren't reluctant to damage American interests and kill Americans. [pause] Friends?
STEWART: We're friends, but...you know they have been doing that all these past six years. The Spanish bombing, the English bombing, and then all the bombings in Iraq--
CHENEY : We're talking about American interests.
STEWART: Aren't we interested in... [crowd reacts] all right. I had assumed that they were our allies, but all right.
The rather clear implication, which is what the crowd was reacting to, was that the interests of (and deaths of) other people, including our allies, are not as important as American interests. Stewart didn't leave her out to dry at all. She said it, and the crowd (rightfully, I would say) was a bit repulsed by it.
And, of course, Stewart didn't even mention the attacks on "American interests," including embassies, that have happened since 9/11. So even by Cheney's own metric, she still wrong that "we haven't been attacked since 9/11."
It's extraordinarily manipulative politics, because it presents irrelevant information to argue about so that reality is never discussed. It's a consistent strategy throughout the administration.
Ms. Cheney's entire point was about terrorist attacks on Americans, whether in America or on foreign soil. Jon Stewart took her out of context and tried to imply that she was ignoring attacks on foreigners, which was not a part of her point to begin with.
If Jon Stewart wanted to fairly get her, he would have mentioned that Americans are being attacked by terrorists on a daily basis in Iraq.
But she was not trying to be whimsical about other terrorist attacks.
This is the only reason Paris is on Letterman. He rips her everytime! (of course it's the only reason Paris does anything)