Jon Stewart on Larry King Live

kinggovernor · 02-25-2008, 01:53 PM

He was on a couple of days ago, very good interview. He was actually much more versed in politicals than I thought, definetly one of the smarter comedians I have seen. Here he is talking about the primaries and I think he hit on an important point:

KING: That is a good point.

Now discussing the race, what do you make of, first, Hillary?

What...

STEWART: Hillary?

KING: What happened?

STEWART: What do you mean what happened?

KING: She was the presumptive winner.

STEWART: It's as though people within the know -- the media anointed her in a manner, but you know what happened?

People started to vote...

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: And that seemed to change the dynamic slightly.

KING: Oh.

STEWART: I just think it's interesting, within the Democratic race -- it's interesting that in the primaries, the Republicans and the Democrats, even in the primaries, function with such different rules.

KING: Yes.

STEWART: The Republicans are mostly winner-take-all states and the Democrats are proportioning and but don't worry about the proportions, you'll get a delegate.

Do you feel -- are you sad?

Oh, you only got 7 percent of the vote?

Have a delegate.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: Feel better. Have a delegate and a trophy saying you're number one.

And, you know, it's just interesting how the Democrats continue to -- and then even within that, they've got this system of well, it's going to be more populist. And you think well, that's a really interesting, straightforward -- nice integrity to it. And then they create this other group of people. It's about 33 percent...

KING: The super.

STEWART: ...that are super-delegates.

What are those, delegates that got bit by a radioactive spider?

Nobody even knows what the hell they are.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: And they're anybody that they choose them to be. And they actually end up ultimately making the decision.

So, once again, they've created a convoluted system, supposedly playing to the, you know, progressive nature of the populace, you know.

I think he was onto to something here. The democrats always want to make corrections and improve things. It seemed unfair to them that Jesse Jackson didn't get enough delgates in 1988, so they created this bizarre system. And in the end it does more harm than good and everyone is left unhappy.

To stretch this further, I believe it applies to other government plans. It is constructed to make everyone happy but it in the end it pleases no one.

kinggovernor · 02-25-2008, 02:02 PM

YouTube Video

its about 4 minutes in, it starts with other great points about McCain and the NYT

and it ends with a good point about Hillary.

Publius · 02-25-2008, 02:09 PM

Stewart is much more politically savvy than most people give him credit for. It's why I enjoy the Daily Show so much.

lew · 02-25-2008, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

He was on a couple of days ago, very good interview. He was actually much more versed in politicals than I thought, definetly one of the smarter comedians I have seen. Here he is talking about the primaries and I think he hit on an important point:

I think he was onto to something here. The democrats always want to make corrections and improve things. It seemed unfair to them that Jesse Jackson didn't get enough delgates in 1988, so they created this bizarre system. And in the end it does more harm than good and everyone is left unhappy.

To stretch this further, I believe it applies to other government plans. It is constructed to make everyone happy but it in the end it pleases no one.

Not only that, but it applies to EVERY SINGLE THING the government does. Whether it be war, welfare, medicare, etc, it doesn't matter.

Stylerod · 02-25-2008, 04:22 PM

Wait, wait, wait. They created this system because Jackson had hurt feelings for getting no delegates? Are you fucking kidding me? Sweet Jesus. These were the same people that wanted to stop grades in school because kids get their feelings hurt, aren't they?

kinggovernor · 02-25-2008, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Not only that, but it applies to EVERY SINGLE THING the government does. Whether it be war, welfare, medicare, etc, it doesn't matter.

I will have to disagree on that point.

kinggovernor · 02-25-2008, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Wait, wait, wait. They created this system because Jackson had hurt feelings for getting no delegates? Are you fucking kidding me? Sweet Jesus. These were the same people that wanted to stop grades in school because kids get their feelings hurt, aren't they?

My father's 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns brought the civil rights movement of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. fully into electoral politics, registered millions of new Democratic voters and changed the face and structure of the party -- including the rules.

We fought during the '80s to make the Democratic Party a party of inclusion, and we largely succeeded, as our two remaining Democratic presidential nominees this year illustrate. Back then, we registered millions of young African-American voters, an investment that has paid huge dividends to the party at every level for the last 20 years.

We fought to lower barriers to grass-roots participation and won rules changes that made our primary process fairer, smoother and more accessible to everyone.

These rules changes were bitterly resisted at the time, yet Democratic presidential nomination races since 1988 have been less acrimonious and fairer and have helped us win at least two, really three and maybe even four presidential victories in the years since (depending on how many stolen elections you believe took place).

What were those changes? We fought to eliminate "winner-take-all" and "bonus" primaries, which were very biased against grass-roots candidates, especially minorities -- and we won.

We fought to lower the threshold percentage for winning delegates from 20 percent to 15 percent -- and we won.
-Jesse Jackon Jr.

The delicate superdelegate predicament -- chicagotribune.com

Jesse Jackson Jr. represents the 2nd Congressional District of Illinois. He is a national co-chairman of the Obama for President campaign

lew · 02-25-2008, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I will have to disagree on that point.

I thought you might.

lew · 02-25-2008, 10:20 PM

I still don't understand why conservatives / Republicans tend to hold a healthy disdain toward government intervention at home and rightly realize that government at home is usually a failure...but yet also think it has some sort of Midas Touch when it comes to international relations and that our militarism is a great thing.

kombayn · 02-26-2008, 04:55 AM

I can get confused on the whole situation, in those statements, it makes the Conservative principals in voting stand out way better than the Liberal principlas that have a Socialist leaning. I mean 33% for real? These Super-Delegates can control that much of an election. That's completely retarded and needs to be done away with. I don't mind our system but come on that's just stupid, giving people a 3-to-1 power in voting. Seriously? Makes me disgusted I voted in that primary.

kinggovernor · 02-26-2008, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by lew

I still don't understand why conservatives / Republicans tend to hold a healthy disdain toward government intervention at home and rightly realize that government at home is usually a failure...but yet also think it has some sort of Midas Touch when it comes to international relations and that our militarism is a great thing.

I don't think our foreign policy is perfect but it is part of being a world superpower.