The first regular episode of the latest incarnation of Bill Moyers Journal on PBS featured Comedy Central host Jon Stewart (recently hailed by Moyers as "the Mark Twain of our day") mocking Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for appearing to be a "low-functioning pinhead" and comparing the Bush administration to the mobster characters in the movie Goodfellas. He suggested the White House press corps was a joke, suggesting they're the Washington Generals to Bush's Harlem Globetrotters: "the government is just you know, blowing the doors off the media."
First, the "Daily Show" fake anchor expressed amazement on the Friday night show that Gonzales would be so willing to look foolish and wildly incompetent so that Congress would fail in its attempt to impose oversight:
STEWART: Yeah, it's kind of astonishing. There is I used to have a real disconnect, I think, with the administration, I couldn't figure out what was going on. I think it's suddenly become clear to me. They would rather us believe them to be wildly incompetent and inarticulate than to let us know anything about how they operate. And so, they do Constitutionally-mandated things most of the time, but they don't — they fulfill the letter of their obligation to checks and balances, but not the intent.
For instance, Alberto Gonzales, and you've been watching the hearings. He is either a perjurer, or a low-functioning pinhead. And he allowed himself to be portrayed in those hearings as a low-functioning pinhead, rather than give the Congressional Committee charged with oversight, any information as to his decision-making process at the Department of Justice.
And I used to think, "They're doing this based on a certain arrogance." And now, I realize that it's because they believe there is one accountability moment for a President, and that is the four year election. And once you get that election, you're done.
BILL MOYERS: They're right, are they not?
STEWART: They're completely not right. The election moment is merely the American public saying, "We'd rather you be President than that guy." That's it. The next four years, though, you still have to abide by the oversight process that is there to prevent this kind of bizarre sort of cult-like atmosphere that falls along. I mean, I accept that kind of veil of secrecy around Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, but I don't accept that around our government.
There he is, Stewart the Idealist, trying to make a speech like Goldie Hawn at the end of the movie Protocol. This is one of those moments where Stewart betrayed his interest in putting his weight on the side of everything good and liberal. He likes to hit self-deprecating notes about his knowledge or the size of his audience, but his burning desire to punish Team Bush comes through, which is what makes him such an attractive guest for Moyers. A little later, he turned to the mob-movie references about the White House:
STEWART: And for the President to come out after that and say, "Everything I saw there gave me more confidence in him," that solidified my notion that, Oh, it's because what he expected of Gonzalez was, it's sort of like, do you remember in Goodfellas? When Henry Hill [the Ray Liotta character] got arrested for the first time and Robert DeNiro met him at the courthouse and Henry Hill was really upset, 'cause he thought Robert DeNiro would be really mad at him. And DeNiro comes up to him and he gives him a $100 and he goes, "You got pinched. We all get pinched, but you did it right, you didn't say nothing."
MOYERS: Gonzales said nothing.
STEWART: Right. And "you went up there and said nothing. You gave them no legal recourse against you, and you made yourself a smart man, a self-made man look like an utter pinhead on national television, and you did it for me."
Stewart has been hailed as a comedic genius by many players in the liberal media elite, and yet, he echoed the Moyers talking point that the Washington press corps are a garden full of pansies:
MOYERS: How do you explain that the Washington press corps, by and large, particularly the Sunday shows join the game with them? I mean, you watch those shows
STEWART: They don't all, I mean...
MOYERS: No, not all of them do, but there's a kind of wink-wink questioning going on there. You know, I'll ask the devil's advocate...
STEWART: Well, it's because it's the Harlem Globetrotters playing the Washington Generals. It's they're the only teams playing, and they know they've got to play each other every week, and they all have sort of assumed their role. And, I mean, at this point, the government is just you know, blowing the doors off the media. And not everywhere, and I think, this is where you know, a lot of those blog reporters and all of those things are bringing a lot of urgency and a lot of momentum to stories that wouldn't normally carry any momentum.
Here's a moment where Stewart tried to express his utter lack of self-awareness, and bluster about his modesty, even as Moyers mentally dressed him up in a white suit and tousled Mark Twain hair:
MOYERS: So, has it been within that period of time that you made this you wouldn't recognize it, but we recognize it, transformation from the stand-up comic to a serious social and political critic?
STEWART: I don't consider myself a serious and social political critic.
MOYERS: But I do. And I'm your audience.
STEWART: Yes, and I end up with one of your tote bags. But the important thing is, that I guess I don't spend any time thinking about what I am or what we do means. I spend my time doing it. And, I think that's I-- I'm not trying to be modest of self-deprecating or in any way trying to do that.
But that moment isn't quite as phony as multi-millionaire Bill Moyers, the prince of PBS Home Video profits, making jokes about his low pay at PBS.
MOYERS: Well, you could take me on as a correspondent.
STEWART: We would love to take you on as a correspondent.
MOYERS: Well, who would you...
STEWART: You know, the pay is pretty bad.
MOYERS: Yeah, well, this is PBS.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
no surprise
May 2, 2007 - 20:01 ET by JnobleJon Stewart is no different from the rest of the clueless libtards on TV. Like most of his other comedian friends, he thinks he's way smarter and hipper than he really is. I stopped watching his show years ago when he got a bad case of BDS.
BTW, doesn't anyone else think it's ironic that someone who says "ummmm" "uhhhh" and basically stammers his way through every interview would still have the nerve to constantly make fun of the way Bush talks? What a dope. He and Colbert can both shove it.
You think that Colbert is lib
May 3, 2007 - 12:10 ET by rightandlightYou think that Colbert is liberal?
There really isn't as much
May 3, 2007 - 12:20 ET by balboaThere really isn't as much call for a fake newsman to be eloquent as there is for, you know, the leader of the free world.
Stewart is completely right a
May 2, 2007 - 21:07 ET by balboaStewart is completely right about Gonzalez looking like a low-level pinhead and the President's "vote of confidence" the day after.
Of course Stewart would say t
May 2, 2007 - 21:28 ET byOf course Stewart would say that, he also said 'you remember in Goodfellas?' because he has the mindset. And you claim to share the mindset?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, my litmous test for President. BT(adapted)
The mindset that finds Gonzal
May 2, 2007 - 21:45 ET by balboaThe mindset that finds Gonzalez's performance embarrassingly absurd and Bush's approval of that performance even worse? You bet.
The mindset that says it was
May 2, 2007 - 21:53 ET byThe mindset that says it was in a movie it must be the truest, smartest, and bestest (and goldarn it people like me)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, my litmous test for President. BT(adapted)
I don't think that's what Ste
May 2, 2007 - 21:54 ET by balboaI don't think that's what Stewart was saying.
Bal, he implied that it
May 2, 2007 - 21:58 ET byBal, he implied that it was the same logic as used in the movie
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, my litmous test for President. BT(adapted)
It sure seemed that way. What
May 2, 2007 - 22:01 ET by balboaIt sure seemed that way. What other reason could there be for Bush's glowing approval?
What other reason could the
May 2, 2007 - 22:05 ET by Free StinkerWhat other reason could there be for Bush's glowing approval?
Could it be constant MSM Liberal bias in their reporting?
The MSM liberal bias should b
May 2, 2007 - 22:06 ET by balboaThe MSM liberal bias should be no reason for an Attorney General to act like a moron, and the president to say "Good show!"
To remain silent when you kno
May 2, 2007 - 22:09 ET byTo remain silent when you know that what you say will be twisted and the twist reported as fact seems the better course, but as Mr Bishop (below) has watched the proceedings i will waive my remaining time to my esteemed college from where ever he's from.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, my litmous test for President. BT(adapted)
I was bored
May 2, 2007 - 22:34 ET by Mr. BishopI have this tendency to watch CSPAN, read the USA PATRIOT Act and other long meaningless stuff like that, when I get bored. I was bored the night the Gonzales Inquisition was on, and flipping through the channels (Dog the Bounty Hunter was over.... hehe), I happened upon CSPAN and Gonzales... Knowing full well that it would not be reported accurately, I watched it. Upon watching the senators ask questions, interrupt Gonzales, and Gonzales getting his 5 seconds to answer -- I noted that his every answer was more then "I' don't recall" -- there was substance, but it was ignored. It was far better, I might add, then Hillary Rodham Clinton's "I don't recall" session in the 90's.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Staying silent would almost b
May 2, 2007 - 22:38 ET by balboaStaying silent would almost be better than "Uh, I don't remember."
these are essentially equival
May 2, 2007 - 22:43 ET bythese are essentially equivalent, though i don't believe that's what happened as you yourself have said that he was cut off in his answers
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, my litmous test for President. BT(adapted)
I think you look like less of
May 2, 2007 - 22:45 ET by balboaI think you look like less of a disingenuous knob with the former. :-)
??????Supreme Court, Nation
May 2, 2007 - 22:47 ET by??????
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, my litmous test for President. BT(adapted)
Not "you" you, but Gonzalez.
May 2, 2007 - 23:00 ET by balboaNot "you" you, but Gonzalez. Looks like a disingenuous knob by saying "I don't recall" instead of just staying silent.
Bal - I was refering specif
May 2, 2007 - 22:12 ET by Free StinkerBal - I was refering specifically to Bush's approval.
As far as the AG is concerned, Bush probably gave him the job because he considers Gonzalez a buddy. A qualified buddy, but Bush also triend to appoint Harriet Myers to SCOTUS . . . nobody's perfect.
I don't think the AG is the reason for Bush's low approval rating though.
And I think it's ridiculous t
May 2, 2007 - 22:22 ET by balboaAnd I think it's ridiculous that Bush approves of Gonzalez avoiding answering questions by hiding behind "I don't recall."
I did watch the hearings, a good chunk anyway, and Gonzalez, IMO, did everything he could to avoid answering any questions.
see note above\Supreme Court,
May 2, 2007 - 22:28 ET bysee note above
\Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, my litmous test for President. BT(adapted)
That's funny
May 2, 2007 - 22:28 ET by Mr. BishopWe, apparently, watched two different inquisitions. In the inquisition I watched, Gonzales was barely able to get a word in, even in answering the questions asked. Then, when he did say, "I don't recall", his statement was immediately followed with [along the lines of], "could you show me the exact text of which you speak. When a copy of the statement/notation was provided for Gonzales, that the senators quoted from, he made the point of reading the entirety of the statement, rather then the select portion(s) the senators questioned him on. The senators, realizing that the television was capturing his answer, immediately interrupted with, "Don't take my time to speak, you'll have your chance to answer..."
No... Gonzales answered the questions asked -- the senators didn't like them however, and the MSM only reported the select parts they felt like.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
We have different interpretat
May 2, 2007 - 22:36 ET by balboaWe have different interpretations. I saw Gonzalez trying to spin every statement, and the ones he couldn't, he said "I don't recall." So when the senators saw that he was trying to spin and thus avoid answering their questions, they cut him off.
Factually false
May 2, 2007 - 22:45 ET by Mr. BishopOne very specific instance I can think of to show your last statement to be false, was during the questioning of Diane Feinstein of Gonzales.
During that line, she asked Gonzales about his role in the choosing of US Attorneys to dismiss. She made a direct quote from a statement made from Gonzales, in a memo he had written, in which she implied that he did not have any hand in choosing the US Attorneys. Gonzales said, "I don't recall." He then asked for the memo she spoke about, received a copy that she was reading from. At that point, Gonzales corrected DiFi's question with the entirety of the statement, in context. He stated that he had set up a panel of people to make recommendations as to the firing of the US Attorneys. It was this panel that made recommendations, to which Gonzales did not know of any of the recommendations prior to that. Once these recommendations were made, Gonzales reviewed them, and then made his decision as to which would get the axe, and which would not.
Just before Gonzales finished the reading of the memo's statement in it's entirety, DiFi cut him off, and told him it was her turn to talk, and that he would not take up her time.
No... there is no interpretation of it balboa... what happened, happened -- there was no spin, just answers by Gonzales, to the questions asked.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Don't the Dems in congress ha
May 2, 2007 - 22:07 ET byDon't the Dems in congress have a lower rating even with the boost of the bias reporting?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, my litmous test for President. BT(adapted)
No it wasn't
May 2, 2007 - 22:07 ET by Mr. BishopI asked you before if you had actually watched the CSPAN coverage of the Gonzales Inquisition, and you never answered -- did you watch it?
I did -- and what I saw, was Gonzales, on every statement, correcting what a senator said, by putting his statements into context -- that was even when the senators were cutting him off answering their questions they asked -- because they didn't want him taking up their time. I did not watch any media coverage of the inquisition because I already knew they would only cover the parts of "I don't know", and ignore the rest of his sentences.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
I wouldn't worry so much abou
May 2, 2007 - 22:24 ET by Dave DI wouldn't worry so much about Stewart since his 15 minutes of fame is quickly drawing to a close.(And will pretty much be done with the 2008 elections.) I mean the fact that the media is paying so much attention to him is just proof of this.(When have they been at the front of anything?) Actually his hipness is also his Achilles Heel. His show is designed to appeal to 18-35 year olds but really how much longer are they going to listen to some guy who is literally old enough to be their dad?(And he definitely looks his age. This is definitely not an advantage for his show.)
(And will pretty much be done
May 2, 2007 - 22:26 ET by balboa(And will pretty much be done with the 2008 elections.)
Remember, the show started and flourished under a democratic president.
"Remember, the show st
May 2, 2007 - 22:31 ET by MightyMouth"Remember, the show started and flourished under a democratic president."
Thanks for pointing that out Amigo, it explains alot.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
It did? I mean I know it star
May 2, 2007 - 22:52 ET by Dave DIt did? I mean I know it started under Clinton but back then Stewart wasn't even on the show.(He took over in 99) As for flourishing I remember it taking off after Bush got elected and they switched to doing more political bits. (I mean seriously, look at the guest lists from 2000 vs 2004. There's alot of difference.) I stay with what I've said. Much of his appeal is to a younger audience. Stewart is getting older and looks it. This will turn his current demographic away from him and his importance goes with it.(I mean it's hard to be hip and fresh when you're in your mid 40's and this problem only gets worse every year.)
Sorry Bal. The Daily Show did
May 3, 2007 - 09:36 ET by Roger the ShrubberSorry Bal. The Daily Show did not get its legs until the 2000 election.
How many 18-35 year olds ac
May 2, 2007 - 22:28 ET by MightyMouthHow many 18-35 year olds actually vote? Let's face it they have better things to do like watch the View and pick up the kids. Hell, they can vote next time.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Stewart is a leftardo who p
May 3, 2007 - 08:31 ET by daveinbocaStewart is a leftardo who periodically plucks the hem of the robes of has-been losers like Moyers for cred on the airhead left. He's actually funny much of the time on The Daily Show, but is basically just a clever sock-puppet for the Dem political machine/MSM Darkness at Noon crowd.
When taunted by a Liberal in Parliament that he was going to die "on the gallows or of a vicious social disease," Disraeli replied "That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."