A 4.6% increase?

Hey Noel, Tom Blumer would've taken that to six decimal points!

Just kidding, thanks. 

Noel, I'm glad you brought up that uberliberal Jon Friedman of MarketWatch. He's been on a tear lately regarding Cramer and Stewart -- praising, of course, Stewart in the highest terms possible.

I rarely write in to on-line sites ---- but I frequently do so to Marketwatch. Much of the stuff they produce is downright wrong, and I constantly take them to task over it. And the rest of the stuff is so laced with liberal talking points it makes you want to puke. So yes, if you hadn't pointed this out, I was going to jump in and make a comment myself.

___________________________________ 

The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech

Off the Cramer topic, but still on CNBC, Mark Haynes this morning had on a Republican analyst and a Democrat analyst to discuss Obama's PR blitz this week. Starting off with the Democratic analyst, who, of course, praised The One's CA swing, he next spoke to the Republican analyst who he sarcastically introduced with "I'm sure you disagree..." At the last second, almost as an afterthought, Haynes next brought in John Harwood, yet another Obama Praiser in the media. Once the GOP guy was done, Haynes started attacking his analysis, comparing Obama's policy to Bush's "no policy". Again, CNBC gangs up on Republican or a conservative: three against one. I used to like Haynes, but now I find he's become a caricature of himself - detached and grumpy. He sometimes acts like he doesn't give a fig about what's going on around him. Plus, he's becoming more openly liberal or, at least, pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. I guess I'll have to stop watching CNBC now - and our local cable company doesn't offer Fox Business Channel - damn...

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

Stewart seems to want to have it both ways. He'll play serious political/financial/what-have-you pundit. Then, if called on it, suddenly he's "just a comedian."

He was absolutely vicious to Cramer. Then, he shows a clip and makes fun of himself. But you had to see both shows to "get it," I guess. Was he serious in the interview? Or was it just a "bit?" The ability to back-pedal makes it hard to tell.

A good gig, if you can get it.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

Ok, why is Zucker defending against something that was never said in the first place?  Now I'm just going by the episode on which he had Cramer, because I'm no Stewart fan and I haven't watched that show since its first season (he was way too fond of mocking Christianity, and that was that), but judging from the episode he wasn't "pinning the whole economic downturn" on Cramer.  That's ridiculously over the top.   (If he said it elsewhere, then I'd like to know.)   It was more like this guy is no different from any other scam artist who is part of the problem, and that's accurate.  He kept lying and trying to cover his own *ss and it didn't work, not that that makes Stewart any kind of hero.

Meh, two pigs wrestling - who wants to get in the middle?  You end up covered in mud either way, and probably raped by pigs.