|
|
McCain chose the Market and it went down hill from there. It really didn't make any difference which he chose. It was "did you stop beating your wife?" to the max. But it was McCain who had baited his own trap. From word to word Stewart shot down every talking point as if he had been prepared for them -- a hint to Mssrs Russert, Stephanopolous, et al. Until McCain realized that he was the sitting duck and needed to go on a non-stop diatribe, haranguing over Stewart's third, fourth and fifth degree, the interview drilled enough holes into McCain's stump speech to make him think twice about his official announcement today.
But the interview was not as much an insight into the thinness of McCain's argument as much as a template for every Sunday morning news talk host. I'd suggest cable talk to listen up, but they're so busy talking, hearing anything but their own voice is asking them to do the incomprehensible.
How clearly Stewart explained the divisiveness of the Bush administration and their apologists' attacking anyone who questioned their butchering of a so-called foreign policy.
"If the architects of a house without any doors and windows doesn't admit that this is the house they built,"said Stewart, "and continues to say, 'no, it's your fault for not being able to look into it,' then I don't understand how we move forward."
No response.
McCain could only go to the surge. Stewart wanted to know how "10,000" soldiers in Baghdad would turn the tide.
No answer.
Stewart wanted to know how questioning the president's policy is more an undermining of the troops than extending troop tours, creating stop loss and the Walter Reed debacle; He found the administration's using of the "undermining the troops" gambit, "almost criminal," asking rather incredulously, "How does the President have the balls to justify that?"
No answer.
When McCain used "Al Quaeda itself told us" TP to defend the even older TP, "If we leave Iraq they'll follow us here," Stewart informed the cherry-picking, near candidate that Al Quaeda also said, "Our strategy is to trap America in a war that will bleed them of treasure and lives."
Nothing.
That it takes a comedian to get drive a Kenworth through a would-be president's humongous hole of bullsh*t is an awful commentary on serious talk shows. Still, it would be nice if Sunday morning "moderators" took a look at how neatly Stewart took the wheel and turned in an interview that actually revealed that with McCain, there was no there, there.
At the end of the deballing, Stewart leaned over to his old friend -- something he is wont to do at the end of every interview -- to whisper whatever it is he says. I don't know what McCain said back, but I'm sure it wasn't "Can't wait to come back."
Then on this morning "Reliable Sources," the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz's Sunday CNN show meant to dig into how the media did or didn't do their job on the past week's stories, the Jon Stewart/McCain interview revealed how so-called RS oversight didn't even understand what one particular story was about,
Kurtz said that McCain was "standing up for what he believes." Panelist and conservative talk show host, Blanquita Cullum, said that Stewart was all about doing an O'Reilly, Rosie, Trump, et al, in an attempt to increase his ratings.
Nowhere in the segment did they come close to what really came out of the "Daily Show" interview: John McCain did not stand up for what he believes -- if what he says is what he really believes.
Every Stewart question or statement regarding the Republican "undermining the troops" red herring was never responded to directly -- or even indirectly -- by McCain. The former straight-talk expresser just deflected by moving on to another and altogether separate issue, never attempting to defend himself, mostly because that artificial and fallacious talking point is defenseless. As Stewart said, "it is almost criminal."
But nowhere in this week's "Reliable Sources" was a discussion of how Stewart did the job the MSM seems hesitant to do: hold politician's feet to the fire. And in this case, Kurtz's media watch-dogging, missed seeing the dog attempting to pee on the truth. Those actually watching that interview couldn't miss it.
Kurtz said that McCain "didn't necessarily lose" by his performance on this week's "Daily Show." Maybe, if you call not being able to justify your own "beliefs" not necessarily losing . But Kurtz not appreciating the importance of the job Stewart did and McCain's incapability to "stand behind his beliefs," was his own loss.
|
