by Restore Fairness, Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:37:44 PM EDT
by Bertha Lewis, Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 04:42:42 PM EDT
I'm sure that many of you reading this have been reveling in Jon Stewart's take-down of banks, speculators, and financial commentators this week on The Daily Show. I have too. I think my favorite part was from last night's floor-wiping spectacular with Jim Cramer.
"Listen, you knew what the banks were doing, yet were touting it for months and months, the entire network was. For now to pretend that this was some sort of crazy, once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody could have seen coming is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst."
Exactly. You go, Jon!
Of course, he's taking a lot of flak about this from various sides - even the New York Times was a bit of a scold in their article today. So we at ACORN are taking a minute to thank Jon Stewart and The Daily Show for actually staying on this story and taking some of the biggest culprits to task.
And we'd like you to join with us and send him a thank you message as well. In a few days, we're going to deliver a big "Thank You" directly to The Daily Show's HQ in New York with all the messages.
by Bob Sackamento, Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:56:24 AM EDT
Stewart begins the clip with a $300K+ Cindy McCain outfit that would make the Cash Money Millionaires blush. Then he points out the errant stagecraft (Walter Reid Middle school, Lindsey Graham extolling victory with a cemetery backdrop, etc), impales Palin for her 27 million dollars earmark panhandle and exposes the hypocrisy of Veterans mocking Kerry's Vietnam service at one RNC convention, while soaking up McCain's POW-ness at another.
But the best part is at 4:20 (coincidence) into the clip. In this segment, Daily Show probably takes the cake for Bush/McCain cloned footage montage. This is as ad-worthy as it gets.
by Senate Guru, Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:30:18 AM EST
I know this is off the topic of the 2008 Senate races, but this has been sticking in my craw all week. By now, you're probably aware of the fairly twisted jokes Faux News personality John Gibson made out of the death of Heath Ledger, as well as Gibson's piling on, and subsequent half-assed pseudo-apology (probably at the prodding of corporate sponsors). And you're probably aware of the wingnut hate group who shall remain nameless here planning to protest Ledger's funeral ceremony because, as it clearly says in the Bible, it is an abomination not only to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, but it's also an abomination to play a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered character in a movie.
Why is it that more people (members of the media, bloggers, talk show hosts, people I overhear chatting on the subway) aren't talking about the plain fact that, in a conservative movement and a Republican Party in which anything other than Leave It to Beaver-style heterosexuality and family structures are frowned upon, to say the least, there is a very significant chunk of members who are gay? Really gay. Totally gay. And doing everything they can to hide it. And that the more vocally anti-gay one is, the more likely, it appears, that person is conflicted about their own sexual orientation?
Wikipedia's entry on "latent homosexuality" notes that:
A theory that homophobia is a result of latent homosexuality was put forth in the late 20th century. A 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr indicates that a number of "homophobic" males exhibit latent homosexuality.
This brings us to the ironic tale of former Congressman Ed Schrock. Schrock was a conservative legislator for Virginia, and was especially conservative on the gays. He co-sponsored an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage; and, this Navy veteran firmly, oh so firmly, believed that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy regarding "homosexual conduct" in the military should have been replaced by an outright ban on gay people from serving in the military. This guy was very anti-gay. Ipso facto, he must have been very heterosexual. Heck, he must have been the heterosexualest! Then why was it that Schrock, amid his second term in Congress in 2004, all of a sudden announced that he was dropping his effort to seek re-election to a third term? It probably had a lot to do with Schrock's very explicit audio-profile on a gay sex personals website. Schrock's veneer of, what George Costanza would call, an umblemished record of staunch heterosexuality was mortally compromised; so, after being yanked out of the conservative closet, he had to leave the conservative club.
(Much more after the flip.)
by Jonathan Singer, Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 07:01:08 AM EDT
Common wisdom holds that Tommy Thompson dropped out of the race for the White House due to his remarkably poor showing at the Ames, Iowa straw poll earlier this month. But could it have been something else entirely different that caused him to drop out?
Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson decided to forego his appearance on Comedy Central 's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" Monday night.
A spokeswoman for the show said that Thompson, who abandoned his campaign for president after a poor showing in the Aug. 11 Iowa Republican straw poll, said didn't need the publicity since he was no longer running.
Thompson's original decision to appear on the mock-news show had prompted concern among some supporters who said privately that they feared Thompson might not fare well with the quick-witted Stewart. [emphasis added]
Notice that Thompson supporters were concerned about their candidate appearing on The Daily Show before he dropped out of the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Thompson might spin this as a result of his decision to end his candidacy, but might The Daily Show have in fact played a role in Thompson's decision?