Regarding the Rally for Sanity

[kat_chan]

Now I'm all for anything that energizes the under-40 crowd to be involved and get out to vote, so I'm not criticizing the rally for sanity/fear in theory. I have a greater problem with the execution, however. Specifically, with what Jon Stewart, who I usually love, had to say with his platform

Comments

[judecorp]

I am all over this re: the "I go, you go" crap. 100%

[gregrichey]

I think I totally heard something different than you two did, when he talked about "I go, you go." If not, then I'd totally agree too. I don't think he was talking about political parties literally taking turns though. I think he was talking about respecting your opponent (and fellow citizens we disagree with) enough not to engage in name-calling and hyperbole. For example, the constant Tea Party claim that Obama is a socialist or a terrorist-sympathizer is just so far off base that it doesn't lead to rational political discourse.

He probably focused too much on cable media, and was trying not to sound partisan in an attempt to be heard by more than just liberals... but I think the motivation for his speech was probably a growing frustration with birthers and others on the loony fringe who've somehow gained equal status with reasonable, respectable public servants and activists.

[gregrichey]

I love this, btw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnUfPQVOqpw

[kat_chan]

If that's what he was meaning, he used a crappy analogy with the merging traffic. Because what has been going on the last two years is that the Democrats have been the three lanes of traffic moving forward (Blue Dogs, moderates and progressives) and the GOP has been driving semis across the roadway, creating a roadblock, hoping to reverse the flow of traffic. A better analogy would have been bikes and cars sharing the road. Or, even better, don't speak in metaphorical terms and just come right out and say what you mean. Leave no room for interpretation. Because really, the way "I go, you go" sounds to me is that "Democrats get a turn, then Republicans get a turn" and that's really not a solution when one side clearly stands for all that will hurt this country and hold it back. The biggest examples of this that I can think of are Kasich vowing to kill the 3-C and McConnell saying the GOP's number one priority would be to ensure that Obama is a one term president.

[calebbullen]

Hard to respond to this without sounding preachy but I'll try

[kat_chan]

See, the problem is, that while I agree with your analysis, that isn't what Stewart said. He didn't say "things would work better if Fox didn't traffic in propaganda" but instead tarred fact-merchants like Olbermann, Matthews and Schultz with the same brush as Glenn Beck. He didn't say that "the Republicans are blocking things up, even when it's something that they've historically supported, just because it bears a Democratic label" but instead he talked about how we all work together day and day out, EXCEPT in the Congress. He was creating an equivalence between FoxNews and MSNBC, between the Democrats and the Republicans; one that doesn't exist. He does a greater disservice in ignoring the reality in the name of "non-partisanship", because that is no better than Breitbart giving air to the heavily edited ACORN video. Sometimes you have to crush people's feelings when you tell the truth. It's called "brutal honesty", it's not pretty, but it does more service to the people than turning a blind eye to the very real differences

[calebbullen]

I'm sorry did you just create an equivalence between The Rally to Restore Sanity and Breitbart giving Fox the O'Keefe ACORN video and on top of that accuse Jon Stewart of creating a false equivalency?

[mhaille]

I don't know that cable news is the problem, but I absolutely think that the news coverage of politics overall IS that much of a problem. We have 57 channels of opinion and nobody reporting on facts. That's a huge problem.