Jon Stewart Strikes Me as an Honest Man

Jon Stewart Strikes Me as an Honest Man February 21, 2014

Here’s one reason why:

Yes. I get it. Not a conservative. Duly noted. But, given his obvious biases, still an honest man.

Meanwhile, this president continues to impress me as a stunningly provincial Chicago pol.

"Any law that required a priest to violate the Seal of Confession would, of course, ..."

On the Seal of the Confessional
"Wow! Is that so - that he never kneels before the Blessed Sacrament? I'd love ..."

I do not understand people who ..."
"Help us understand why Francis does not ever kneel before the Blessed Sacrament, Mr. Shea. ..."

I do not understand people who ..."
"Yes the Pope understands Catholic doctrine and how to shepherd with mercy, compassion and justice. ..."

I do not understand people who ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Elaine S.

    “this president continues to impress me as a stunningly provincial Chicago pol”

    The irony is that if Obama really WERE a classic Chicago Machine pol, he would probably have never run for POTUS — he would have run for mayor or alderman, offices which genuine born-and-raised Chicago Machine pols regard as their ultimate aspirations, and toward which they use state and federal offices as stepping stones. Rahm Emanuel fits this pattern more closely; he went from serving in Congress to being WH Chief of Staff to Da Mare.

    • Being from Illinois, I have to second Elaine.
      And real machine bosses prefer holding political appointments to elected positions. They consider serving at the people’s sufferance to be beneath them.

    • Yes, but do we know what Obama’s ultimate ambitions are? Who do you think will succeed Emanuel as mayor of Chicago?

      • Elaine S.

        Obama as mayor of Chicago? It’s an intriguing idea but I don’t see it happening. It would be rather difficult to go from being The God King adored by the Fourth Estate and hobnobbing with gazillionaires, Hollywood stars and heads of state to dealing with parking meters, potholes, snowplows, garbage trucks, building codes, bickering aldermen and all the nitty-gritty minutae that is part of running a big city. He’s never going to settle for being a big fish in a small pond, which is what mayors and aldermen and precinct committepersons ultimately are.

  • Dave G.

    I caught Stewart once going after FOX News. Problem was, I happened to have seen the FOX segment at a place I was interviewing for a job. I then caught the Stewart version. Naturally, it was supposed to show FOX as stupid/evil/liars, whatever. The problem? I had seen the segment, and the segments Stewart and co. showed had been edited. What he was accusing them as saying wasn’t what they were saying. That’s called, in my book, not being honest. Not that I have regard for FOX. I don’t. I used to say everything I wanted to know about porn stars I learned on FOX News. That was to mock to notion that FOX was some bastion of traditional conservative values. But spades and spades. Stewart showed me then I can’t take his segments at face value, using the ‘if they weren’t honest once we must assume other times’ principle. Or at least I can take him with the same grains of salt I take FOX and the other news outlets.

    • Stewart is more honest than most talking heads in his willingness to go after stupidity on both sides of the aisle.

      He’s less honest in how he (and/or his producers) edit clips to generate stupidity. They’ve also been known to aggressively slice-and-dice in-studio interviews with Stewart that didn’t go quite the way they’d liked.

      • Andy

        This I think is the nature of the beast – not condoning it, but recognizing who does – all comedians, many news outlets, people in conversations.

      • Dave G.

        Personally I don’t see him as any different than the others. Sometimes funnier. But when he puts on his pundit garb, I find him about the same as others. I’ve seen others go after their own sides when they believe their sides are screwing something up. Or aren’t living up to their expectations (not being conservative/liberal enough). And I can’t get past knowing that he’s deliberately used edited clips to discredit those he clearly disagrees with. I’m sure others do it. But that only makes him the same, not better.

  • AquinasMan

    Obama is more or less a political chimera. The circles he ran in were not part of the traditional Chicago political machine. He was closer to the Harold Washington/Bobby Rush/Carol Mosely Braun faction, while Michelle was close with Jesse Jackson’s family. (It was a marriage made in “heaven”).

    But whatever his allegiance, everyone wanted in on him — including the departed Cardinal Bernardin. Point: His influence as a “community organizer” transcended the usual Chicago kabuki theater. That’s how he got propped up at U of C. That’s how he got propped up for the state senate. That’s how he got propped up for the Senate. That’s how he derailed Jack Ryan. That’s how he got a plum speech at the 2004 Dem Convention. That’s how he got nominated in 2008. That’s how he got elected once, re-elected again, feted by prelates at pre-election dinners (celebrating the elite-of-the-elites), tolerated by the Clintons, bowed to by our zero-information population, and handed a pen by Congress and the Supreme Court with express permission to castrate our Legislature, defy the will of voters, and put into place the dystopian hell we’re hurtling towards at warp speed.

    No, not provincial. If the Obama administration is Saruman, Chicago is merely his Wormtongue.

    • Newp Ort

      How did Obama derail Jack Ryan? As I recall, Jack Ryan’s downfall was the revelation of having pressured his later ex-wife into going to sex clubs against her wishes.

      • AquinasMan

        Obama’s crew filed suit to force the courts to unseal the divorce records. Obama does not get elected without that move. Now THAT was classic Chicago politics.

        EDIT: And ironically, such moral terpitude on the part of Ryan was exploited for political gain by the same man who would work overtime to destroy the remaining vestiges of natural marriage all together.

      • The reason anyone ever heard about Jerri Ryans’ accusations (which she later retracted) is because the Chicago Tribune published the Ryans’ divorce court records: specifically the custody proceedings, which had been sealed to protect the couple’s son.
        Ryan intended to run despite the allegations, and he likely would have won if the cowardly Illinois GOP hadn’t pressured him into an eleventh hour withdrawal.

  • Andrew Simons

    Stewart has his blind spots, but he has a gift for cutting to the heart of whatever issue he’s looking at.

    • Bobby Lawndale

      No, he has a gift for cutting away complicated truths so that his uninformed viewers can experience the masturbatory pleasure of his glib self-righteous bullshit.

      • Andrew Simons

        Lighten up, Bobby. It’s okay to … laugh.

      • He can do two things!

  • John Barnes

    And he’s not kidding about the Montana situation. Democrats are so petrified they’ll lose Baucus’ Senate seat because they have a very weak, empty-suit candidate. Getting him into the office early was the only chance they had, and even then the odds are against them holding the seat.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    Stewart has never struck me as a member of the “Obama can do no wrong” camp. In fact, even back during the election, Stewart admitted on air that he wasn’t thrilled with Obama, but simply thought Romney was a disastrous alternative. As he put it, “Sorry. Lincoln ain’t runnin’ this year.”
    I’m no fan of Obama and didn’t vote for him. But Stewart is right on that count at least. A Romney Presidency would have been a colossal disaster for the U.S.

    • jaybird1951

      Please explain how Romney would have been a disaster. I do not see it that way. For one thing, we would likely be on the way to getting rid of Obamacare and a reduction in the deficits, not to mention certain pro life measures undoing what Obama has wrought. And there are the cases of the IRS and FCC. That is just a start to the list.

      • Mark S. (not for Shea)

        Romney’s economic policies mirrored those of the Bushes before him: Let the rich rule without restriction. It was the policy that got us in the 2008 mess. Granted, Obama has done very little to remedy the problem, but Romney would have been worse. And how on earth can you qualify Romney as pro-life???

        • The Deuce

          Obama changed it to, “Let the rich rule with active aid and political connections to myself.” There’s a reason the income gap is wider than ever under him with his hyper-corporatist policies.