On The Daily Show on Comedy Central Tuesday night, Jon Stewart pressed former Speaker Newt Gingrich to agree that Reverend Jeremiah Wright should not be a major story, that every candidate and president has a "preacher who’s said crazy things." Stewart professed he was "really stunned" by the media’s focus, and he asked, "Isn't the silliness of this now boiling down to the strategy of shouldn't we be focusing on whether this is truly an issue?" He also claimed Wright is like many ministers, black and white: "Don't white preachers have very similar beliefs, but when they counsel a candidate, nobody really focuses on them?"
Gingrich was playful, but firm: "I think if you replaced the word, the various things he said about white America, like Ku Klux Klan America, if you replace those with the word ‘black’ and you imagine a white racist preacher who was as vehement as Reverend Wright, he would literally be ostracized in this culture." He also raised Obama’s connection to Weather Underground figure William Ayers. But Stewart wasn’t budging: "I think if he played that game of six degrees of separation with other candidates you could probably find equally vile characters circling the universe."
After Gingrich cracked jokes about how Obama couldn’t get the Clinton Foundation to send Reverend Wright around the globe for six months on good-will missions, Stewart grew serious:
STEWART: I'm stunned that this is such a big story. I'm actually stunned. Don't you think?
GINGRICH, with look of disbelief: Are you stunned-stunned, or just a little stunned?
STEWART: I’m really stunned.
GINGRICH: Really stunned?
STEWART: I’m really stunned that his pastor has become a focal point of this campaign.
GINGRICH: Okay. Well, there are many pastors that are as effective on TV being hateful with a kind of enthusiastic style.
STEWART: But should he pay for his ability as a preacher when certainly every president's preachers have said crazy things?
GINGRICH: Should Wright pay, or should Obama pay?
STEWART: Should Obama pay? And should the media be so... you know, just as an example. You said Senator McCain has the ability to stand outside of it. He went after the endorsement of Reverend Hagee.
GINGRICH: And then had to give it up.
STEWART: No. He went on George Stephanapoulos's show and asked him about it. He said I welcome his endorsement. He said I repudiate anybody who says anti-anything. But he just went I accept it. And they went, ‘oh, all right. What's the next question?’ I mean, that guy said....
GINGRICH: It could be a sign of media bias.
STEWART: Not media bias.You know what I'm saying. You know, Falwell and Robertson said 9/11 was because we secularized our culture, yet they're still allowed to play in the game. I don't understand why this is such a... ( cheers and applause ) I'm not blaming you. I'm just saying don't you find that surprising?
GINGRICH: Well, I think first of all there's a little bit of a difference between a church one guy went to for 20 years and the intensity of the statements. But what really made, I think what really made the difference, and where Obama had no choice was that when Wright went to the National Press Club, I mean this is not exactly a let's hide and, you know, get past the election. When he went to the National Press Club, I sensed that Wright was in a sense getting even with Obama, and that there was a level of anger. I mean, a couple of the things he said yesterday were so direct and so destructive of Senator Obama's own credibility that I suspect last night when he looked at it, Obama realized he had literally no choice.
STEWART: Right.
GINGRICH: Now I mean the challenge is going to be, I think it's first of all, will the average person believe there's much credibility in Senator Obama doing this and the second is what is right to do? What we learned so far is Reverend Wright is not exactly a shy, timid guy.
Stewart tried a very acrobatic spin, that somehow it was more necessary for McCain to avoid the endorsement of preachers he didn’t really know than for Obama to know and care about what his minister of 20 years had said in public, since that’s a "complicated" relationship:
STEWART: Isn't that the point though? Isn't the silliness of this now boiling down to the strategy of shouldn't we be focusing on whether this is truly an issue? Is it an issue if you went to a church... he knows Reverend. Wright in a complicated way. He’s had a 20-year relationship with him. These other gentlemen, Hagee, have actually just been approached for their endorsement. They seem much easier to avoid. It seems –
GINGRICH: That's part of the difference. If John McCain had gone to Pastor Hagee's church for 20 years, you'd have a lot harder, it would be a lot harder for John to go, "Oh, gosh, I didn't know he said those things."
STEWART: But it's not a question of not knowing that he said it. Isn't it a question of getting the full context of the picture? What I’m saying is --
GINGRICH: That's what Reverend Wright sort of went out of his way, if you read what he said yesterday he went out of his way to say let me explain this to you again. Do I think the U.S. Government invented aids in order to kill black people? Yes. At that point –
STEWART: He said after Tuskegee, you gotta think the government, you can believe anything.
GINGRICH: I think he does believe anything. The average American thinks that’s a little weird.
STEWART: Don't preachers by their very nature believe that in a causality that god lifts his veil of protection based on our actions? Isn't that not unusual for a preacher to believe in a lot of these things? Don't white preachers have very similar beliefs, but when they counsel a candidate, nobody really focuses on them?
GINGRICH: I think if you replaced the word, the various things he said about white America, like Ku Klux Klan America, if you replace those with the word ‘black’ and you imagine a white racist preacher who was as vehement as Reverend Wright, he would literally be ostracized in this culture.
STEWART: For you it's not the 9/11 statements, it's the racist statements.
GINGRICH: It's the totality. I mean I think somebody who says the things about america... and the thing that makes it very dangerous for Senator Obama is it's when it's then tied to William Ayers, the terrorist who is now a very radical professor of education. You start getting this network of people and say what does obama really believe? I think obama is one of the greatest performers of modern times. I think his campaign is extraordinary. I think that the message he offered of hope and idealism and of change was a very powerful message. And this sort of cuts directly under... I mean this begins to reduce him to being a politician at a point when his whole appeal was that he was somehow this very different person.
STEWART: Right. I think if he played that game of six degrees of separation with other candidates you could probably find equally vile characters circling the universe. ( Applause ) but I don't know.
GINGRICH: First of all with Senator McCain, there are a number of people who clearly were pretty bad, because they were his guards in the prison [in Vietnam]. So you can say he knew them.
STEWART Hey, man, Reverend Wright fought six years in the Marine Corps. So he can't be all bad, right? [Actually, it was two years in the Marines and four in the Navy.]
GINGRICH: I think Reverend Wright in many ways is a very complex American.
STEWART: Aren't we... you know what? That's a beautiful statement, because aren't we all? Wouldn't it be better if perhaps we were able to accept the complexity of people and events and issues?
GINGRICH: Then what would the news media do?
STEWART, after laughing: Promote books.
GINGRICH: That’s a good idea. I’m for that.
If there was another way for Stewart to shoot down the rising blimp of Wright news, he surely would have tried it.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center



GINGRICH: Well, I think first of all there's a little bit of a difference between a church one guy went to for 20 years and the intensity of the statements. But what really made, I think what really made the difference, and where Obama had no choice was that when Wright went to the National Press Club, I mean this is not exactly a let's hide and, you know, get past the election. When he went to the National Press Club, I sensed that Wright was in a sense getting even with Obama, and that there was a level of anger. I mean, a couple of the things he said yesterday were so direct and so destructive of Senator Obama's own credibility that I suspect last night when he looked at it, Obama realized he had literally no choice. 












Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Oh, give us a break. Six
April 30, 2008 - 17:02 ET by Chris NormanOh, give us a break. Six degrees of separation - that'd be one thing - but we're not talking even one degree of separation here - and Stewart knows it. What Stewart's demanding is, "Make it all go away, so he'll be elected..."
Drama Central?
April 30, 2008 - 17:24 ET by acumenIt certainly appears Stewart has a man-crush on Obummer.
Stewart certainly was serious in his defense of Wright and Obummer. I thought Stewart had a comedy show - When does the comedy start? It never ceases to amaze how libs lose their sense of humor when one of their leader's character is questioned.
Stewart really showed that
April 30, 2008 - 17:46 ET by mjgStewart really showed that he is on Obama's side. I realize that his is a comedy show. But to take the Wright story with such seriousness makes me realize that he is just like the leftists. Too liberal for me. I don't watch his show, thank God for that.
what was Newt thinking?
May 1, 2008 - 15:00 ET by ort777So we can assume Newt probably knows that Stewart and his audience are in love with Obama so why does he even show up on this show? I know the counter argument for this is probably going to be that the Dems say they shouldn't show up on Fox but when I think about the audience that watches this channel, I think young, already going to vote Democrat, hate Republican, anti-Newt so to show up and do anything short of parting the Red Sea would be considered a failure. And when was the last time Stewart visited a church? Sounds to me like he's a little bit out of touch with his comments regarding what's going on it the church today.
And to think that just last thursday
April 30, 2008 - 18:42 ET by PamStewert wasn't going to talk about the Democratic ticket until they had a clear cut winner!
The Left has always tried
April 30, 2008 - 17:12 ET by mattmThe Left has always tried to link republicans with religious figures they considered to be extremists, but none of those were the actual pastor of the republican they were trying to discredit.
Now they are criticizing people for linking Obama to his Pastor - how dare they!?!
Looks like the chickens really are coming home to roost.
But John....
April 30, 2008 - 17:17 ET by Interested and concerned CDNHow many show segments have you done on Trinity Baptist? How many interviews have you and your "team" done with Wright's congregation and making them look like fools?
We all know that McCain's age is not off the table for you and we all know you would have a field day if McCain had a mentor like this. I wouldn't be surprised if the Daily Show hasn't tried to get an interview with McCain's Mother for one of their hit jobs.
/I don't watch the show anymore perhaps I'm wrong here?
GINGRICH: I think Reverend
April 30, 2008 - 17:19 ET by bigtimerGINGRICH: I think Reverend Wright in many ways is a very complex American.
STEWART: Aren't we... you know what? That's a beautiful statement, because aren't we all? Wouldn't it be better if perhaps we were able to accept the complexity of people and events and issues?
Yeah...well try telling that to David Duke for instance and see what he thinks....mighty funny when the left do not like having their candidates looked into...their ties and past...why can't we just move on it matters not when it comes to them...
Earth to Stewert...the man is running for President...of course it matters!
What whining, change the subject, hypocritical, leftist creatures...their messiah is in big trouble and they have just got to fix this...asap.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
My Liberal Friends...
April 30, 2008 - 17:23 ET by The_PumpcropSeriously, my liberal friends want to squash all this Wright B.S. They say it doesn't mean a thing and it's not gonna matter at all how they vote. And yet they STILL bring up David Duke and "intruding Christian Values". More and more I see where Dems and Libs are MORE closed minded and judgmental then the Repubs and Libertarians has ever been.
(M.ostly S.implistic N.onentities B.roadcasting C.rap)
If Stewart will have Hillary on and ask her..
April 30, 2008 - 17:30 ET by Gary HallIf Stewart will have Hillary on and ask her.. play this clip and ask her to respond the the charges made by Rev. Wright; the charge that Hillary will, as her husband Bill Clinton did - [blanked] the black community just as he Monica Lewinski, then I'll consider his request to leave it alone.
The video: Rev. Wright's hatred of Bill & Hillary The transcript:
This is obviously, the last thing that the Sen. Hillary Clinton camp needs in the public airwaves - but it sure does liven up the discussion, does it not? Bill Clinton did the talk - but not the walk. The left side of the isle knows this - let them go to war over it. What's to be lost -the fictitious legacy of Bill Clinton.
Shameless beyond words...
April 30, 2008 - 17:34 ET by unkeeafPut the shoe on the other foot. We know what he'd be saying if this were a Republican. "How can we elect someone who has this kind of judgement?"
From the View to Stewart
April 30, 2008 - 17:42 ET by SnappyFrom the View to Stewart everyone is so wound up that this controversy is with the golden boy Dem they cant stand it. All you hear are "Im sure if you dug there are plenty of white preachers...etc" "Fallwell...etc" "Robertson...etc" They cant stand that this is news and thats its so damaging... Im sorry Jon, this is not going to swept under the carpet. Wright made sure that everyone knows exactly how he feels and its all in context this time.
GINGRICH: It's the
April 30, 2008 - 17:47 ET by Free ThinkerGINGRICH: It's the totality. I mean I think somebody who says the things about america... and the thing that makes it very dangerous for Senator Obama is it's when it's then tied to William Ayers, the terrorist who is now a very radical professor of education. You start getting this network of people and say what does obama really believe?
Newt ties it up pretty well here. The left wants this to disappear but it is only the primaries right now. This will continue to be an issue and I would bet it will become an even larger problem for Obama in the general when more people care about the character of the candidates. If Stewart is tired of this story now, wait until October.
Couple of thoughts: I think
April 30, 2008 - 18:54 ET by balboaCouple of thoughts: I think Stewart is talking about the media's coverage of this, not a conservative pushing of agenda.
And he has made fun of Wright and his wackiness.
I don't think Wright is very important in the grand scheme of Obama's candidacy. It's an issue, but not a huge one.
I think Stewart fails to see that a nutball preacher makes great film on news shows. That's a big part of it. McCain might have nutballs in his closet, but so far they haven't been filmed making craazzy statements.
Bal, Hillary's nutty preacher is the funniest
April 30, 2008 - 19:03 ET by sarcasmoSearch "Obama is a long legged mac daddy" for why. No, he's not close to Hillary, but IMO he's far more amusing than Wright because of what he says, and Obama, obviously, very much upsets him. :)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Jon's 3 "moments of zen..."
April 30, 2008 - 20:00 ET by MrShy"AND NOW, YOUR MOMENT OF ZEN...."
(or, for this episode, make that THREE hilarious moments...)
1) I think if he played that game of six degrees of separation with other candidates you could probably find equally vile characters circling the universe.
2) Isn't the silliness of this now boiling down to the strategy of shouldn't we be focusing on whether this is truly an issue?
3) I'm stunned that this is such a big story. I'm actually stunned.
... He achingly implores, of a man running to be POTUS, regarding his ONE / FIRST / DIRECT degree of seperation (or it might even be ZERO / NO degrees -- ??) of his 20-year long mentor, pastor, spiritual adviser, baptizer of his children and priest at his wedding. The pastor of his LOCAL CHURCH (so, no Jon, not someone "circling the universe".)
He asks, with a straight, non-comedic face, if it's "truly an issue". He is "stunned".
Now THERE is comedy.
Ahh, Jon Stewart. You smart, clever -- but ultimately liberally-blind, foolish comedian (that's right, "comedian") -- the joke's really on you and your adoring flock in the studio, and all that eagerly tune in nightly to chuckle alongside you (well, except me :))
But you're my guilty pleasure, I will admit. I still watch your show because you "make-a me laugh".
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
"But Stewart wasn’t
April 30, 2008 - 19:40 ET by ckc1227"But Stewart wasn’t budging: "I think if he played that game of six
degrees of separation with other candidates you could probably find
equally vile characters circling the universe."
Maybe, but that doesn't help your case. Why? Because 6 degrees of seperation aren't needed to tie Obama to the shady characters he is associated with. We aren't talking about knowing someone who knew someone that went to school with a guy whose mother once flew on the same plane as *insert vile character here*. Obama's vile associations tend to be on a 1st degree level. Heck, he's even married to one.
"STEWART Hey, man, Reverend Wright fought six years in the Marine Corps. So he can't be all bad, right?"
Timothy McVeigh, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Eric Rudolph were all military men, so I guess they can't be all bad, right?
I love the comments on this
April 30, 2008 - 19:47 ET by muh-oonI love the comments on this post. Somehow Stewart makes me 10 times angrier than any serious reporter in the media. I think it is because he seems like the next evolution in liberal media bias. First they claim to be unbiased and then their bias becomes obvious. Now, Stewart claims to be not only not biased, he is not serious either. So when he suddenly becomes serious and biased he is twice the liar as your average liberal newscaster.
What the unfunny Stewart is
April 30, 2008 - 20:03 ET by Jack BauerWhat the unfunny Stewart is really stunned about is, that try as he may, he can't get any traction on some preacher who endorsed McCain. And that's it.
If it really doesn't matter about Wright and Obama then why would Stewart even mention McCain and Hagee? If he genuinely believed it was a pointless and meaningless distraction then why keep harping on about another pointless and meaningless distraction. Two worngs don't make a right do they.
That doesn't make any sense, unless what he's really saying is that normally he'd be free to concentrate on baiting McCain, but everyone's talking about Obama instead.
And because he supports Obama that's what is pissing Stewart off.
I don't think Stewart's
April 30, 2008 - 20:12 ET by balboaI don't think Stewart's trying to "get traction" on a McCain controversy. He was wondering why there hasn't been more on it, since he thinks it's just as deserving.
He's not advocating for McCain coverage; he's saying that more could be made of the McCain "preacher" since there's so much being made of Wright.
Ultimately I think he'd like neither to get any coverage.
McCain's Preacher?
April 30, 2008 - 20:57 ET by CobraMan"He's not advocating for McCain coverage; he's saying that more could be made of the McCain "preacher" since there's so much being made of Wright."
Who is McCain's “preacher?” I know it's not Hagee.
You many not be aware of this, but McCain is Episcopalian and is a member of the North Phoenix Baptist Church in Arizona. His Pastor’s name is Dan Yeary. I haven’t heard about any controversy over this man or his church and McCain, have you?
Hagee, on the other hand, is a non-denominational Evangelical whose ministry is based in Texas. McCain is not a member of Hagee’s church nor does he attend any of Hagee‘s services. It’s obvious that Hagee IS NOT McCain’s “preacher” by any stretch of the imagination.
So, tell me again, just who is McCain “preacher?”
By "McCain's preacher" I
April 30, 2008 - 21:19 ET by balboaBy "McCain's preacher" I meant Hagee, not as McCain's actual preacher but as the example Stewart was using.
False parallel
April 30, 2008 - 23:16 ET by CobraManStewart is drawing a false parallel between Obama's controversial reverend and the man who endorsed McCain. There's no real controversy for McCain here. So why equate McCain with Obama, other than to draw attention away from Wright's statements and the effect they're having on Obama's campaign?
See CN's conspiracy
April 30, 2008 - 23:19 ET by balboaSee CN's conspiracy theories.
Your point is?
April 30, 2008 - 23:25 ET by CobraManAnd your point is, what?
Do you believe that there is a parallel between McCain and Obama here?
My point is that CN says
May 1, 2008 - 00:07 ET by balboaMy point is that CN says Stewart draws a parallel in order to help Obama get elected.
I do believe everyone has some oddball in their circle, but I think it is salient to point out that Obama's has been an advisor, where Hagee has not. McCain probably has someone equally distasteful in his circle, but that person has had the good sense not to get caught on film. :-)
I think the better parallel
May 1, 2008 - 00:08 ET by cleverpigI think the better parallel is between Hagee's endorsement of McCain and Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama.
Both support they can't control, but McCain stopped short of rejecting the endorsement. Obama rejected it... several ways, after some pressure from Hillary :)
→ good comparison CP
May 1, 2008 - 00:15 ET by Cool ArrowI think I can sign off on that comparison.
♣ a seal
Holy crap, Cool Arrow
May 1, 2008 - 00:34 ET by cleverpigHoly crap, Cool Arrow agreed with something I said.
This is NewsBusters, right? Where am I...?
→ Bizarro world
May 1, 2008 - 00:39 ET by Cool ArrowIn Bizarro world, April Fools occurs on April 30th.
But I see that Farakkhan's beliefs (even about Jews) are rooted in his religion.
And Like it or not, Soddom and Gomorah, have for eons been biblical examples of what can happen if a society turns its back on God.
♣ a seal
CA, much easer to do the unthinkable(unscrew the oil drain plug)
May 1, 2008 - 00:57 ET by upcountrywaterBreak apart the world wide oil flow.
that will bring on some random flying H-bombs.
La de da we go camping now, and forever.
I'm glad I lived durning the age of oil.
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Still not a good comparison cleverpig
May 1, 2008 - 00:17 ET by Dee BunkFarrakhan has been much more controversial and said many more hateful things then Hagee. I never even heard of Hagee before this election cycle.
→ Dee
May 1, 2008 - 00:20 ET by Cool ArrowI understand it from the point that it's not a personal relationship between McCain/Hagee or Obama/Farakkhan.
The support of these ministers doesn't directly reflect on the character of the candidate.
♣ a seal
I agree with that CA and it's certainly a better comparison
May 1, 2008 - 00:27 ET by Dee BunkThan Wright & Hagee, but it was more important for Obama to completely distance himself from Farrakhan. McCain did say that he didn't agree with Hagee's controversial statements.
CP tried to make it seem like Obama was somehow better for disavowing Farrakhan more strongly. Hagee hasn't been nearly as much of a lighting rod as Farrakan.
Hagee hasn't been nearly as
May 1, 2008 - 00:36 ET by cleverpigHagee hasn't been nearly as much of a lighting rod as Farrakan.
That is a personal viewpoint. I guarantee that for many people he is much more of a lightning rod! Anyway, the prominence of the person saying dispicable things should not enter into the equation. You either accept the guy's support or you don't. McCain accepted.
No it's not a personal veiw point, it's based on the
May 1, 2008 - 10:17 ET by Dee Bunknumerous things Farrakhan has said vs the few that Hagee has. See my post below for some of the examples.
You don't have to condemn someone completely just because you disagree that gay sex is a sin and flaunting it is wrong. McCain saying he disagrees with the statements is more than enough.
Seriously? You didn't hear
May 1, 2008 - 00:33 ET by cleverpigSeriously? You didn't hear about the "God sent Katrina to punish New Orleans for having a gay pride parade" thing? I thought everybody heard about that! I had no idea who he was either, until I heard he was the idiot who said that.
Anyway, my point is that McCain said he was honored by the endorsement. He said the Katrina statements were nonsense. Obama flat out rejected Farrakhan's endorsement. I think Obama's handling of the situation was straight up, McCain was trying to weasel.
cp, thank you man
May 1, 2008 - 00:40 ET by upcountrywaterFinally I know why katrina is still worshiped (mentioned again and again etc.)on the MSM..
katrina is your god cliverpig
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
No I didn't hear that CP
May 1, 2008 - 10:14 ET by Dee BunkI gave up on the media during the Katrina coverage. It was so outrageous and unprofessional - that is when I started coming to Newsbusters.
I think McCain saying that the statements were nonsense is enough. It's not like Hagee was condemning a whole race or Country. He just complained about flaunting gay sex. I certainly don't agree with his statements but his religion and most religions think Gay sex is a sin and flaunting a sin is a sin. If there had been a premarital sex parade or a Prostitution parade, I'd guess he would have said the same thing.
Luis Farrakhan has not only said things against Gay people but he's also disparaged Jews, White people, and America. He's called Hitler a great man. When it comes to Katrina, he spread kooky rumors about the levies being blown up on purpose. It's natural for religious people to think of a Hurricane as an Act of God and try to explain it. That is not nearly as appalling as blaming a conspiracy of white people trying to rid the earth of black people.
Sorry CP but religious people have every right to consider certain types of sexual acts as sinful - it's their business. They can condemn the flaunting of prostitution, premarital sex and gay sex and it doesn't mean they condemn the people who commit the acts only those who flaunt it.
There is also a huge difference between saying that a natural act that most that is logically thought to be created by God is trying to warn us in a religious way about our sins vs saying that Evil people in the flesh deserve to hurt and destroy us because they are better than we are. Falwell realized that when he said what he said about 9/11 and that is why he apologized. Farakan and Wright have never apologized for their comments.
The bottom line with this is, Farrakhan has said the same types of things as Hagee when it comes to religion and sin but he has also said much much more in terms of condemning people just because of their race. If Farrakhan's only controversial statements were against gay sex, Obama would not have criticized him as harshly.
We're not going to agree
May 1, 2008 - 23:53 ET by cleverpigWe're not going to agree here because I don't think condemning people for sexual orientation is any better than condemning them for their race or country. It's going to come down to you think orientation is a choice and I don't, so you feel okay about hate speech against something people could choose not to do. I don't feel okay about hate speech against who people are.
However, I do have to take issue with your characterization of his statement. I think that people can honestly love the sinner and hate the sin and really mean it. Rarely, but I do believe some people are sincere about that. Saying that god killed people because of a gay pride parade, though, is saying they deserved it, and that is not loving. It is not a warning or a metaphor. People died, and implying in any way that it was the fault of one segment of society is unforgivebly cruel. Cruel to the people grieving whether or not they are part of the targetted group. In my opinion.
So yes, in terms of his wider effect on the world, Farrakhan is a worse guy. However, as I said before, I don't think it is okay to accept an endorsement from a bad guy even if no one has ever heard of him. It is the content of his speech and actions that determine whether or not it is okay, not how much attention they get.
*
May 1, 2008 - 00:24 ET by R D Helmpeople are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Dave & Muh-oon
April 30, 2008 - 20:14 ET by MrShyYup to everything you both wrote.
And J/D ;) .... Did you watch last night's opening segment?? It's unreal how currently there is a treasure-trove of embarrasing, over-the-top funny and sad things going on in politics. But, OOPS, it's all happening on the side of the aisle that Jon is on. AND, now there's a a direct (no, not 6 DEGREES!) and close connection to his most beloved Democrat, Obama, of a horribly racist, angry and ugly man... who, by the way, wields a whole lot of influence, not only on Obama.
Outside of a small joke or two related to Wright, they then went into a whole sketch making fun of a conservative supreme court judge (forgetting his name) who did some interview with, you guest it, a liberal-baiting interviewee... so what do we have? Fodder for leftists like Jon. They made fun of THAT, and not all the scandalous stuff happening with their heroes (naturally...)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
MrShy, Stewart has done a
April 30, 2008 - 20:20 ET by balboaMrShy, Stewart has done a lot on Wright.
Yes, don't you see, if one
April 30, 2008 - 21:09 ET by Chris NormanYes, don't you see, if one uses Wright just as a butt of jokes as part of a comedy routine, sooner or later, his bile will no longer be taken seriously and the issue can be dismissed - like Stewart, more or less, demands. You know Bal, somethings are just too serious to be dismissed as comedy.
Rrright, so Stewart's goal
April 30, 2008 - 21:17 ET by balboaRrright, so Stewart's goal is to make fun of Wright as much as possible, thereby lessening the damage he does to Obama? Someone get Oliver Stone on the phone...
Yeah, Balboa, a conspiracy
April 30, 2008 - 21:59 ET by Chris NormanYeah, Balboa, a conspiracy of one. That's exactly, at least, in effect, what he's doing. However, my apologies for attacking your revered leader, Jon Stewart.
Lol. How dare you besmirch
April 30, 2008 - 22:04 ET by balboaLol. How dare you besmirch Fearless Leader! That might be "in effect" what he's doing, but I don't believe, in any way, that he's consciously setting about doing that. No way.
It doesn't matter what he
April 30, 2008 - 22:14 ET by Chris NormanIt doesn't matter what he started out to do. He's treated Wright as a joke and now he's demanding that the subject be dropped because Wright's - a joke and therefore unimportant. The thing is, Wright would be a joke - if his congregation was laughing at him, or he was yelling this this crap at an empty room. However, there are a lot of people who believe this garbage and he has done his best to make it spread. How are we ever to come together as a country with this kind of thought growing? It's really not material for comedy or should it be dismissed as such.
CN, Stewart's not
April 30, 2008 - 23:14 ET by balboaCN, Stewart's not "demanding" anything. Questioning.
Wright has proven himself a kook. That much is true. But in the end I don't think Wright has enough influence on Obama as to put America in any kind of danger should Obama -- by some miracle -- be elected president.
Mr S... well I don't want
April 30, 2008 - 20:23 ET by Jack BauerMr S... well I don't want to turn this into a love fest, but you are absolutely WRIGHT! And a fine handsome white man, to boot.
But seriously, as you allude... to Stewart the second most important thing about the Wright jive (after it being meaningless) is that NO ONE is talking about the Hagee jive (alleged).
I thinks that sorta gives away what stick is up Stewart's pasty white fat ass.
Just curious...
April 30, 2008 - 20:11 ET by JohnMOK, none of the above posts address this, so I'm going to ask:
Do you think it was deliberate that Wright's comments this weekend were so strident and "over the top"?
To me, it provides a plausibile justification for Obama to now reject Wright and his rants.
I think the weekend comments were 100% political orchestration...
(Should this be a Poll question?)
It's a possibility, JohnM,
April 30, 2008 - 20:17 ET by ckc1227It's a possibility, JohnM, but seriously, I just don't think they're smart enough to come up with something like that. Plus, Rev. Wright is just too good at what he does, so he clearly has experience delivering this type of material, meaning this isn't something new they just came up with. I suspect Wright has delivered these "sermons" many times before.
But, then again, I'm white and I clap funny, so what do I know.
very disappointed in Jon Stewart
April 30, 2008 - 22:19 ET by cmarieI was REALLY disappointed in Jon Stewart's comments last night to Newt Gingrich. To say that Jeremiah Wright is just as looney as any other minister is ridiculous. I'm glad Newt stood his ground.
Wright is exactly like Farrakhan and David Duke. All three are REPREHENSIBLE.
For Stewart to say that Obama attending Wright's church for 20 years, agreeing with Wright's racist rantings for 20 years, having his children baptized by Wright, happily exposing these children to Wright's hate mongering, and belonging to a church that promotes black supremacy, is UNIMPORTANT is downright sad.
I can't believe that Jon is so clueless in this respect. A presidential candidate's moral character and code of conduct is JUST as important as their policy on health care or immigration. How can Stewart be that naive?
As Newt said, if this were a white preacher spouting racist diatribes, supporting the KKK, there would be no dispute that person was a despicable bigot.
Transcript
May 1, 2008 - 07:45 ET by WhichWingFind the video, this was a good back and forth, with Newt coming out on top.
Tim: Why do you insert your own thoughts in the middle of a transcript? It should speak for itself, with your thoughts on either end of it, but not in the middle.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
There is nothing anti-American...
May 1, 2008 - 15:23 ET by Army BratThat this tool cannot defend.
A pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist.
Not sure that Stewart is
May 1, 2008 - 15:30 ET by balboaNot sure that Stewart is defending anything Wright said, is he?
No he's not, bal
May 1, 2008 - 15:34 ET by Cool ArrowYou're correct bal.
All Stewie's complaining about is the Media's willingness to report on Wright.
♣ a seal
I thought that referring to Wrights rants as silliness
May 1, 2008 - 18:12 ET by Army Bratwas a defense of same. They hardly seem silly to me.
Happy Trails...
I thought Stewart's point
May 2, 2008 - 06:22 ET by WhichWingI thought Stewart's point was the media's level attention on Wright vs. the attention paid to people McCain has surrounded himself with. That would explain why Newt said "Could be a sign of media bias." (or something to that effect)
Seriously though, the transcript doesn't do it justice, find the video. Newt made his point well, and while John didn't agree necessarily, he did concede to him on a couple of occasions.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw