Stewart to McCain: Will you reject and denounce Bush?
posted at 11:38 am on May 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
He’s no Huckabee, but Maverick usually fares well in these awkward comedy chat-show encounters. At the very least, he betrays no discomfort from the snoutful of self-conscious liberal hipness one gets when appearing on TDS or Colbert. Which, in fairness, may be due in part to how soft Stewart goes on him: To my continued surprise, Perino, Tony Snow, and now even the GOP nominee were treated to 10 minutes of schmoozing with only one or two glacing blows mixed in. After the media canonized Colbert for his White House Correspondents Dinner performance two years ago, you’d think he and Stewart would seize every opportunity to play Left-Wing Avenger. Credit him for showing restraint.
His one (gently broached) issue with McCain has to do with calling Obama Hamas’s candidate of choice, an apparently unfair shot notwithstanding the fact that it’s based on a quote from one of the group’s spokesmen. Since when do we take terrorists at their word, wonders Stewart? Answer: Since the left (and Ron Paul) first started pushing “blowback” as an explanation for hatred of, and attacks on, America. If Osama’s worth listening to vis-a-vis 9/11, Hamas must be worth listening to vis-a-vis Israeli policy. Know thy enemy, right? Except when it’s inconvenient.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Jon, I absolutely do believe this (as I said here at 8:56). I called it Rush’s epic mistake, and one he may pay for with his career.
I also agree that there are a few more bombs to fall between now and Election day. If I were Obama, I’d be very, very nervous, because I don’t believe Clinton has deployed her nuclear option yet. As for McCain, I’m sure there will be plenty of stuff to shake out about him too. We’ll see where it all lands come November.
McCain has a chance to shore up some of his eroded voter base by picking a smart VP. I have little confidence in his desire to do so, but that right there is the end game of his campaign for many.
We’ll see what we shall see…
Redhead Infidel on May 9, 2008 at 10:51 AM
+1
fossten on May 9, 2008 at 10:52 AM
I forgot to add that Clinton has to make sure Obama doesn’t win this election, in order to give her any shot at 2012. If she can’t be President, then she needs McCain to win. The political cycle plays to her advantage (12 years of either party almost historically guarantees a swing to the other), and McCain’s advanced age at the time of re-election (76) will be a huge liability. (Not to mention four ugly years of bi-partisan hackery.)
That’s why she’ll hang in there and undermine Obama for as long as she can. Clinton’s 2012 ambitions, and her political machinations to lay that foundation by torpedoing Obama, are McCain’s only hope of winning this year. He damn well knows this, too, which is why he won’t attack either Dems. He’ll let Hillary do the dirty work, she’s good at it.
Redhead Infidel on May 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Hillary will not have a snowball’s chance in 2012. She’ll be 64, and 4 more years of aging won’t be kind to her. Trust me on this.
fossten on May 9, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Agreed on that. I made the point a few weeks ago that “Operation Chaos” is as much about Rush rehabilitating his reputation as a power broker as it was about making sure Hillary’s campaign survives into the summer. With the media railing about Limbaugh corrupting the primary system now, all those stories in February about his impotence in the political process might as well have been written in 1992.
In the period between Iowa and South Carolina, Rush flirted around the edges at coming out for Fred Thompson, but for whatever reason (ratings?) had feet of clay in coming out and actually saying what he wanted to happen, in hopes that the conservative voters would do the right thing on their own and coalesce around his preferred candidates ideologically (Thompson, with Romney the second option). So he can grumble about McCain all he wants right now, but until I hear him say he was wrong for not endorsing Fred or Mitt, or someone else back in December or January, it’s hard not to see a certain lack of introspection in his hostility.
On the other side, I don’t think McCain has yet figured out fully how much crap he’s going to get once the big media folks who have their guns trained on Hillary right now start pointing them in his direction because they think he’s trying to take their boyfriend away (my guess is for people complaining about how “trivial” the questions to Obama were in the ABC Pennsylvania debate, we’ll be hearing about McCain’s opposition to a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday in Arizona in the late 1980s this fall pretty much on a 24/7 basis). Until his moment of media-love clarity occurs, I expect more tactical schmoozing of the major dailies and TV networks that drives conservatives bonkers, but I also hope that by the time the DNC convention is over in August, he’s figured out both who he needs to keep happy during the general election, and that he needs to keep the promises he’s making now if he does win election.
jon1979 on May 9, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Very true. However, SHE believes she’s entitled to this job and since she believes it, she will act on it.
Redhead Infidel on May 9, 2008 at 11:28 AM
The same people whining for immigration reform are the same type of people that gave us the problem to begin with. I love that tatic. You ignore a problem and allow it to fester out of control then you throw up you hands in phony frustation as if you have no idea how the problem exacerbated? Then insist the debate is over and demand the solution is to capitulate. Last time I checked amnesty reform was attempted under the table and when discovered was buried under calls of outrage.
I have a feeling Patrick has made use of cheap labor as most “Republicans” that support amnesty have. “Screw the sovereignty of our country as long as I make my buck” should be the new mission statement of the new and improved Republican party.
And Patrick your statement about “losing” the blacks is laughable. Tell me how the Dem’s really “WON” the blacks and then honestly tell me that the Republicans should have done the same thing?
Your arguments lend me to believe that you have not followed politics for very long.
ClassicCon on May 9, 2008 at 11:45 AM
That’s why conservatives, not moderates, are the RINOs today.
RushBaby on May 9, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I have said this all along, she is the nightmare, not Obama.
Obama is easy to beat, her on the other hand, I’m not so sure.
AprilOrit on May 9, 2008 at 12:51 PM
They weren’t pro-abortion. It was illegal for German and Austrian women to abort their babies. They allowed abortion for the peolples of the countries they conquered which is something entirely different.
The Myth of Nazi Gun Control
Quite right. National socialism was organised around a huge government which was sustained by an expanding war economy. FDR liked this idea so much he swiped it for himself.
Yup.
The Nazis persecited Christians because they were Christian not because of their political affiliation.
aengus on May 9, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I wish he would reject and denounce his “climate change” tour.
corona on May 9, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Didnt he back Buchannan in 1992? Did alot of good there…
Squid Shark on May 11, 2008 at 9:03 AM
If it makes you feel any better, I wont call you a RINO like I had to listen to you snide-ass “true conservatives” call me for 10 years.
Squid Shark on May 11, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3