Good.
I know Jon likes the guy but no one is served by getting a guest this huge and not holding him down and asking him important questions. Or at least trying to.
Good.
I know Jon likes the guy but no one is served by getting a guest this huge and not holding him down and asking him important questions. Or at least trying to.
When has Jon ever been nice to an important guest that he liked?
This interview is going to, in my mind at least, cement Stewart's status as the unofficial Court Jester.
Good.
I know Jon likes the guy but no one is served by getting a guest this huge and not holding him down and asking him important questions. Or at least trying to.
When has Jon ever been nice to an important guest that he liked?
This interview is going to, in my mind at least, cement Stewart's status as the unofficial Court Jester.
Well, people were worried he was gonna softball the President, which is silly.
It's like worrying "Oh man I hope Stephen Colbert makes fun of his guest while pretending to agree!"
The Muffin Man on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
Well so far before the first commercial it's been softball.
Henroid on
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
I could see people calling this softballing because Stewart is actually letting him finish what he is saying.
Well, it's pretty clear the interview is more about the election than about Obama himself. Not that Jon shouldn't try to get a hard question in there, but I think he's going to focus on the party in general.
Also, this is one of the interviews where it's not about asking tough questions so much as getting good jabs in. Making fun of the President is more impressive than trying to stump him, to me.
The social security point is ultimately the reasonably persuasive argument.
Also yeah, the sudden change in the President's body language was kind of fascinating to watch.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
Okay, after the first commercial break it has gotten to the good stuff. Jon pushing on things hard, Obama pushing harder, and at one point Jon pushing back even more (about the "timit" Health Care stuff).
Henroid on
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
This is a great interview though. Back and forth without yelling or name calling. No exaggeration or hyperbole from either side. No fluff questions or meaningless softballs. Just straight questions and answers about the important issues of last 2 years.
JustinSane07 on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
This is a great interview though. Back and forth without yelling or name calling. No exaggeration or hyperbole from either side. No fluff questions or meaningless softballs. Just straight questions and answers about the important issues of last 2 years.
This is a great interview though. Back and forth without yelling or name calling. No exaggeration or hyperbole from either side. No fluff questions or meaningless softballs. Just straight questions and answers about the important issues of last 2 years.
Brownie.
But yeah, I wish our politics was more like that. And the President is, ultimately, still a pretty damn persuasive guy.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
My only regret is Jon didn't touch on the civil liberties issues. That's where this administration most let me down so far.
If you're talking about gay rights issues, then that's your own fault because pre-2008 Obama agreed it was a state's right issue and not a federal one.
I liked how Obama kept cutting in on John after he started asking harder questions. I don't think he ever let him finish a single sentence after the second commercial break.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
Jon asked Obama something that Obama only barely touched on. It was about how when Obama did get into office, he found things weren't as easy as he thought they would be, etc.
Edit - I meant to say that it was something I would've asked Obama about myself, given the chance, and now it has been (finally).
A lot of it sounded like canned answers.. But you could definitely hear the sounds of a Pres who has come down to reality.
It is ESSENTIAL that the next 2 years are focused on eliminating or changing the Fillibuster, even if it means committing political suicide.
It won't happen. The Dems suggested it before they got control back, and it was shot down. That's largely why they didn't mind using it any more than they did.
If the Dems lose the Senate again, though, they really should offer it up again. It has to be brought up by the party out of power, though, imo, to even have a chance to work.
I was only half watching, but Obama tried to hit all the stuff they did in the last two years. If only they had spent two years doing that instead of letting the GOP control the message, they wouldn't be in trouble next week.
A lot of it sounded like canned answers.. But you could definitely hear the sounds of a Pres who has come down to reality.
It is ESSENTIAL that the next 2 years are focused on eliminating or changing the Fillibuster, even if it means committing political suicide.
It won't happen. The Dems suggested it before they got control back, and it was shot down. That's largely why they didn't mind using it any more than they did.
If the Dems lose the Senate again, though, they really should offer it up again. It has to be brought up by the party out of power, though, imo, to even have a chance to work.
Actually not true. The Dems were filibustering a bunch of judicial nominees and the Republicans threatened to remove it (the nuclear option). Then the Gang of 14 attention whoring monons brokered a compromise to keep the Senate more important the House.
Also: majority gets to make the rules, so at the start of a session before rules are adopted a majority could just tell the filibuster to fuck off.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
Colbert is picking up on the Rand Paul thread. It's kind of a shame this incident won't affect Rand Paul much.
Posts
my e-mail worked!!!!!!!! (not really but I will take the credit)
you're welcome, canada
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
real spoilers down below, for those who care
If it is wrong, do you want to be right?
It's the motherfucking President.
I won't do play by play, but.. damn.
Good.
I know Jon likes the guy but no one is served by getting a guest this huge and not holding him down and asking him important questions. Or at least trying to.
When has Jon ever been nice to an important guest that he liked?
This interview is going to, in my mind at least, cement Stewart's status as the unofficial Court Jester.
Well, people were worried he was gonna softball the President, which is silly.
It's like worrying "Oh man I hope Stephen Colbert makes fun of his guest while pretending to agree!"
No it hasn't. What interview are you watching?
Also, this is one of the interviews where it's not about asking tough questions so much as getting good jabs in. Making fun of the President is more impressive than trying to stump him, to me.
he is the President, he needs EXTRA PRECAUTIONS
Also, this almost feels like a damn debate. Go Jon.
Also yeah, the sudden change in the President's body language was kind of fascinating to watch.
This is probably the first "pundit" to actually hold his own with the Pres, and not let stock answers fly.
I hope someone out there is taking notes; we need to get back to this kind of Journalism.
Also, it's interesting to hear them cheer as much for the guest as Jon. I know it's the President, but still...
Are they going to pre-empt Colbert?
This is a great interview though. Back and forth without yelling or name calling. No exaggeration or hyperbole from either side. No fluff questions or meaningless softballs. Just straight questions and answers about the important issues of last 2 years.
I believe it was after Katrina, and being said to the director of FEMA
I was waiting for him to say, "...but should we?" just to get Jon to bol.
Brownie.
But yeah, I wish our politics was more like that. And the President is, ultimately, still a pretty damn persuasive guy.
It is ESSENTIAL that the next 2 years are focused on eliminating or changing the Fillibuster, even if it means committing political suicide.
I wish he had too, but ultimately we're in the minority on those issues, I think. The unemployment/health care issues are a bit more... immediate?
If you're talking about gay rights issues, then that's your own fault because pre-2008 Obama agreed it was a state's right issue and not a federal one.
Edit - I meant to say that it was something I would've asked Obama about myself, given the chance, and now it has been (finally).
It won't happen. The Dems suggested it before they got control back, and it was shot down. That's largely why they didn't mind using it any more than they did.
If the Dems lose the Senate again, though, they really should offer it up again. It has to be brought up by the party out of power, though, imo, to even have a chance to work.
Actually not true. The Dems were filibustering a bunch of judicial nominees and the Republicans threatened to remove it (the nuclear option). Then the Gang of 14 attention whoring monons brokered a compromise to keep the Senate more important the House.
Also: majority gets to make the rules, so at the start of a session before rules are adopted a majority could just tell the filibuster to fuck off.