Jon Stewart joins Team Rand after filibuster

posted at 7:21 pm on March 7, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

It wasn’t quite a full-throated attaboy, like the one he’d no doubt deliver with his clown nose off for a Democrat standing up against a Republican administration on something like killing non-combatant American citizens, but it’s not bad.

Stewart was stunned to find that Paul was actually doing a “good old-fashioned actual talkie filibuster” like the kind our grandparents used to see, highlighting how attorney general Eric Holder basically said in a letter to Paul that technically speaking, they would necessarily rule it out. Stewart praised Paul for using the filibuster “the way it’s meant to be used” and said that “drone oversight is one [issue] certainly worth kicking up a fuss for.”

I’m glad to see him give Paul a back-slap, because last week he was bemoaning Washington’s reluctance to talk about important issues. This was a pretty substantive one.

There were a lot of things that were wise about Paul’s filibuster. Undertaking it on a day when a bust of a snowstorm had left the press corps with nothing to cover, managing to stay impressively coherent and smart for 12 hours, and staking out the most unobjectionable possible ground from which to argue— drone strikes on non-combatant American citizens on American soil. On which subject, he simply asked for a clarification from the White House. The entire argument was the epitome of reasonable, calculated to win unlikely allies and make adversaries look silly. And, that it did. Yes, Paul’s filibuster opened up the issue of a more dovish American foreign policy, and challenged the White House to name limits to its power no executive is anxious to concede, but it was largely about this no-brainer resolution, which Democrats would not allow to come up for a vote. Sens. McCain and Graham were objecting to Paul’s broader philosophy today (and this phenomenon), not his actual, narrow argument. His actual argument is quite easy to get behind while remaining rather hawkish. At the very least, you’d hope they’d value how it highlighted the very unreasonable stance of the White House instead of trying to outunreasonable Obama all day. Oh well.

But I must now take a moment to quibble with Stewart on another subject from last night’s show. He thinks Katherine Mangu-Ward (and I) are wrong about universal pre-K. Take it away, Katherine:

I was part of a montage of people referencing the federal government’s own assessment of the efficacy of Head Start (and this earlier version of the same study) the closest thing we have to a pilot program for universal preschool. The findings of the study are pretty freaking bleak:

In summary, there were initial positive impacts from having access to Head Start, but by the end of 3rd grade there were very few impacts found for either cohort in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices. The few impacts that were found did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children.

Jon Stewart, who loves The Children, theorizes that we skeptics are looking at things backwards: The study demonstrates how much preschool rocks, he says—it’s just that the rest of the public education system sucks so hard that it erases all traces of preschool gains. While that’s not really what the (well-designed, well-respected) study shows, let’s imagine for a second that he’s right.

Which do you think is more likely?:

(a) We make preschool universal and that starts a cascade of awesomeness into the general public school system, or

(b) we graft a universal preschool entitlement onto the existing universal K-12 entitlement, and preschool starts to suck just as much as the rest of the system?

Call me a cynic, but I’m going with (b).

As always, caring about The Children means one must be in favor of handing over too much money to an entity with a proven record of failing to educate children, so that The Children can be universally uneducated, expensively.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

And Marco “Two-Face” Rubio, The Little Rat Punk, joined McCain and Graham on Team Obama and Brenner.

VorDaj on March 7, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Stewart? No thanks – we have enough closeted libs. We don’t need one who’s out in the open.

platypus on March 7, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Caring is everything.

Curtiss on March 7, 2013 at 7:26 PM

Stewart? No thanks – we have enough closeted libs. We don’t need one who’s out in the open.

platypus on March 7, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Closet libs? Marco Rubio both resembles and represents that remark.

VorDaj on March 7, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Jon Stewart is a d-bag. But yes, Rand Paul was awesome yesterday.

Jack_Burton on March 7, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Undertaking it on a day when a bust of a snowstorm had left the press corps with nothing to cover, managing to stay impressively coherent and smart for 12 hours, and staking out the most unobjectionable possible ground from which to argue— drone strikes on non-combatant American citizens on American soil.

Yep. Lot of people missed the importance of the s”no”wstorm.

budfox on March 7, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Stewart? No thanks – we have enough closeted libs. We don’t need one who’s out in the open.

platypus on March 7, 2013 at 7:24 PM

I’ll take his support if he can sell the extremism of Obama on this issue to the Fluke crowd..

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Caring is everything.

Curtiss on March 7, 2013 at 7:26 PM

Marco Rubio cares. Just not for you, but for Brennen and Mexican illegals and Muslim “Rebels”.

VorDaj on March 7, 2013 at 7:31 PM

If there were a Republican President and a Democrat Senator live-filibustering over the same issue, you would have seen an in-chair orgasm that would make Meg Ryan’s fake one in When Harry Met Sally look like a little tickle.

TXUS on March 7, 2013 at 7:35 PM

If there were a Republican President and a Democrat Senator live-filibustering over the same issue, you would have seen an in-chair orgasm that would dwarf Meg Ryan’s fake one in When Harry Met Sally.

TXUS on March 7, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Sorry, the first comment was slow to load, so I did a re-do.

TXUS on March 7, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Stewart is a liberal. Move along, nothing to see here.

Philly on March 7, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Gotta love Rand Paul “kickin’ it old school” filibuster.

BTW Mary, that wasn’t a back slap by Stewart. He just injected some humor about Rand’s old school filibuster.

antifederalist on March 7, 2013 at 7:57 PM

He’ll make him sound like a fool a little further down the road. It’s how they do things.
Set a precedent of being kinda on his side and then crap on him later. Then you can claim to have been in his corner and gave him a fair shot…but now he’s a wingnut.

Mimzey on March 7, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Who cares what Jon Stewart thinks about anything?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 7, 2013 at 8:08 PM

outunreasonable

Word of the day! Though, it could surely be used every day in DC.

ButterflyDragon on March 7, 2013 at 8:11 PM

The broken clock strikes again. We treat this clown like a battered wife treats her husband when he doesn’t beat on her. Who the Fuch cares what this a$$hat says about this or anything else, except O’Rielly when he tries to boot his ratings among the hip. It all makes me barf.

Jackalope on March 7, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Jon Stewart never stop lusting for relevance.

Jackalope on March 7, 2013 at 8:25 PM

…who cares?
jackoff Jon!

KOOLAID2 on March 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM

“Jon Stewart”? A liar from the jump.

BHO Jonestown on March 7, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Jon Stewart joins Team Rand after filibuster

Uh, can you be on ‘Team Rand’ and still worship at the alter of the ‘Great Obamass’? I don’t think so.

Pork-Chop on March 7, 2013 at 8:43 PM

“Jon Stewart” knows he is the next Keith Olberrman. 14:59 – it tolls for thee.

BHO Jonestown on March 7, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Not a good endorsement.

thebrokenrattle on March 7, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Jon Stewart joins Team Rand after filibuster

He’s such a smug punk, I don’t care that he may agree once in a great while with what a GOP pol says or does. Jon Stewart is clearly part of the crowd who think of Rand and his supporters as “tea baggers”.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 7, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Low information voters…

… suddenly informed.

Seven Percent Solution on March 7, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Jane Fonda example is actually a bad one – YES, we COULD have “dropped a drone Hellfire missile” on Jane Fonda – she was in North Vietnam, consorting with the enemy at the time.

PJ Emeritus on March 8, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Not to mention she was actually SITTING on an ACTIVE anti-aircraft battery at the time

PJ Emeritus on March 8, 2013 at 9:27 AM

His actual argument is quite easy to get behind while remaining rather hawkish.

And yet the great Lars Larson can’t grasp it. At least two callers (including me, for an entire segment!) took him to task for it yesterday, and he never got it.

cptacek on March 8, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Stewart? No thanks – we have enough closeted libs. We don’t need one who’s out in the open.

platypus on March 7, 2013 at 7:24 PM

They say that in Hollywood it is all about sincerity, and once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

Patrick S on March 8, 2013 at 10:05 AM