My e-mail to Rachel about her interview with Jon

[UTUSN]

Subj: You were unduly star struck with Jon

(I'm posting this at democraticunderground.com)


The age of Jon STEWART is over for me. And I’m going to confess that, while I loved the small doses when his brilliance was breathtaking in skewering particular wingnuts I am a better sniper against wingnuts than I am a fan in any echo chamber of my Lefty side. This means I have only watched snippets of STEWART-COLBERT and whatever other few “Libs” (in-quotes, since I don’t now know anymore whether STEWART is a Lib) there are, while I spend tons of time monitoring wingnuts and fulminating against them, helplessly. It’s just easier to gig than to fawn. The good people don’t need that much minding while the bad ones need SLAPPING DOWN, NOW!1 Idolatry rubs me wrong, and when I do it, it’s for a few who are long dead like FDR, or way way back.

Now, whenever something WAY exceptional happened, like COLBERT’s turn at the White House Correspondents Dinner, I go WOW!1 Whenever somebody mentions an exceptional segment, I watch the YouTube as much as my machine or Windows 7 allows, but that’s about it.

He said, “I held the rally to show who I really am.” Well, I for one sort of thought I knew who Jon was, not that I had exactly pigeon-holed him before, but now that I think about what or who he really was, I would say I thought he was sort of what might be called “a Liberal gadfly,” and a really smart one, who could skewer wingnut ignorance, racism, and hatred like nobody else, but also those on the Left who committed some hypocrisy of their own: Really, a force for (purity?).

Instead, what we’re getting is somebody like a cartoon hermit/sage in a cave, an almighty PONTIFF talking down to us all about how we should show kindness towards ‘Baggers and Shrubs. My antennae actually went up back when he did the hit job on Crossfire, and at the rally where he featured the asshole from L.A. Law who wants a namby-pamby 3rd way instead of clarity, my stomach tightened up.

His gripes are supposedly about both the Wingnuts and the Left, that both “close down debate/discussion”, but he danced around when Rachel asked for specifics and he claimed that he was talking about EXTREMISTS on both sides who shout down speakers, but when she made the point that the Lefties who do that are “like, TWELVE ladies in Code Pink, compared to the entire (Faux) network,” he totally danced away and gave credence to the age old canard of LIMBOsevic’s that the loudest Wingnuts are JUST ENTERTAINERS, not serious political types! Yeah-right.

He gripes that we on the Left try to marginalize/delegitimate ‘Baggers by calling them ‘Baggers instead of stopping to wonder, Who are they, are they angry, why are they angry, let me talk to them. That we say we hate and demonize Shrub and CHEENEE, claiming (I would say “reporting”) that they lied us into the Iraq Attack and committed torture and other such things, while (Jon claims: ) Shrub didn’t stop with saying Saddam actually HAD WMD but rather went on to add the words, “is trying to RECONSTITUTE” his WMD resources so he didn’t totally LIE. He said Shrub is no Pol Pot. Oh, well then. But I would add that those twelve ladies in Code Pink are no Faux Network or LIMBOsevic either.

No, Jon, we suspect all too well what the ‘Baggers, Rethugs, and wingnuts are all about beyond their surface claims, things like racism, xenophobism, and all the way to the logical extensions that really WOULD end up in something like Pol Pot. And as for Shrub-CHEENEE, if there are little words to nitpick about, that’s what footnotes are for, not for LEAVING OUT the WHOLE FUCKING SCREW JOB. There just doesn’t need to be that much PAUSING to meditate and reach out.

Faux “is ideological but not partisan.” Wait, what?! He says Faux has been excellent at executing and marketing their product, which O’LOOFAH, et al. have been saying for years in contrast to Lefty products, and that’s true.

We and the media have been sold on “Liberal vs Conservative, Red vs Blue. It’s not about that, it’s about corruption vs not-corruption.” Umm-‘Kay. That’s fairly indisputable. We’ve always known that if every eligible voter actually did so there wouldn’t be a Rethug in office anywhere and that those maps of a “Red” continent with tiny pockets of “Blue” means geographic empty miles vs pockets of crammed actual population.

But his big thing is that he deplores the 24 hour cycle of cable news that is built for earth shaking events like 9-11 or the O.J. murders but these events don’t happen every day so the cycle magnifies or augments/ every little thing that comes down the pike into SOUNDING like the big enchilada things. Fine. So would Jon propose dismanteling all the 24 hour outlets, INCLUDING Faux? What, exactly, does he propose, something like a czar of appropriateness?! It sounds like he’s bucking for THAT position himself.

But, repeating because it’s important, he ignores and diminishes the disproportion and inequality of the wingnut propaganda machine compared to the Left’s. His bottom line seems to be the 3rd way B.S. No, Jon, I really DO believe there are enemies and I really do HATE them and pretty much understand them. And I’ll call them “HITLER” as shorthand.

[ladjf]

1. America would be better if if Jon would stick to comedy, his arena

of expertise. nt

[sasha031]

2. thank you, I am going to write a letter to Rachel too

she was so nervous about giving that interview. I did not watch it in it's entirety, Jon appeared too pompous for my taste.
There is no need for me to watch comedy central, I have MSNBC.

[UTUSN]

3. [e-mail] n/t

[sasha031]

4. Thank you so much for her address

:)

[stray cat]

5. So the term Evil Doers applied to any who disagree with you is apt?

or are they only evil if they disagree on specific issues or if they have an E for Evil as an initial?

And an OK term for Bush to use for other leaders or politicians as well

[UTUSN]

7. With me personally or with the general political world view that I assume all of us us here espouse?

I didn't invent the "scorched earth" attitude. It existed, literally, in actual warfare from time immemorial, and LIMBOsevic has been using it against us for 20 years and "amplified" (to use Jon's concept) by his later clones.

And, if we were in 1936 and facing HITLER himself, I would agree that expressing opposition to him in terms like "evil doer" and "you're either with us or against us" would be fine with me. And LIMBOsevic, HANNITY, COULTERgeist, INGRAHAM, and whassisname the guitar player who is a big shootist actually, really, literally use those terms in referring to US.

I, HERE, have been attacked by fellow DUers as DLC, Moderate, and similar terms with the context of being DIRTY WORDS. I accept and have totally voted for a wide variety of Dem candidates in the spectrum.


Anyway, I hate wingnuts and will excoriate them all I want. If you don't want to, fine with me, but I don't attack other Dems/DUers, even the ones who express their disagreement through disAPPROVAL. Ummm-'KAY?!1

So, when Shrub shredded the Geneva Convention and approved torture, is it fine for the other countries to do it, too?!1 And, by the bye, I detested Shrub years before he took power because I knew what he was before he did any of these things.

[sasha031]

6. my letter to Rachel

Dear Rachel,
I didn't watch your full interview with Jon Stewart last night because from what I saw, he acted like a pompous ass. I believe Jon Stewart is getting too much a deserved credit for being in our political process. What does he stand for, perhaps he should read Howard Zinn.
What is happening in our country is not funny and to even suggest yourself and the rest of MSNBC is anything like Faux does a great disservice to the more cerebral citizens of the US.
I am so thankful that we have you and the rest of your colleagues . As Keith said, " To be a voice of the powerless verses the powerful" The liberal progressive did not have a voice at all, except for AAR which is how I and millions of others found you. I am still saddened by that wonderful talk radio being cancelled, it was loaded with intelligent wit and truth. Progressives did not watch TV, unless perhaps Bill Moyers on PBS, and unfortunately public broadcasting is once again on the chopping block.
Faux and it's ilk has become more toxic throughout the years, it is destroying our country. I don't know if it will win, but at least we have you and the rest of MSNBC to lean on in the troubling times.
Do not let Stewart intimidate you, what does he have to worry about? He's filthy rich.

[UTUSN]

8. Excellent!1 I forgot to say what you did, that she and Keith should NOT backtrack!1 n/t

[sasha031]

10. your letter was beautiful

you brought up all the important points of the interview. Rachel needs support, I think she's a little intimidated by Stewart. Since when did they make him god, he should read Howard Zinn. As he said last like he identifies more with Seinfeld, which is fine. The left should not look towards him for guidance, just comedy.

[Erose999]

9. I was with you until you said you "hate them". My biggest beef with the "Tea Party" is that its all

about HATE, as you said with the xenophobia, homophobia, racism, etc. But to say that we "HATE them" really does nothing for us but puts us down to their level of hate and intolerance.

I will say that I "don't care for" their aggressive platform of anti-intellectualism and intolerance of those who do not conform to their ideal of White/Christian America.

And I think thats probably the one meaningful thing I took from the Stewart fiasco. We won't beat them by being just as bad as they are.

Now if Jon would just stop saying we are "just as bad as they are". LOL

[UTUSN]

11. So BE it!1 I luerve your last sentence!1 n/t

[UTUSN]

12. Other e-addy(s) for Keith, Tweety, O'DONNELL

Ed and MorningSmoe use e-forms for their e-mails & Smoe's is only activated during his circus's show air time.

Tweety: [e-mail]

Keith: [e-mail]

O'DONNELL: [e-mail]

[ellenfl]

13. kick for later. eom

[UTUSN]

14. Kick for the appreciative crowd n/t