Daily Show (probably) will talk about Rand Paul when it's back on air next week

[Knightskye]

http://bit.ly/aWeAS1


In the wake of Rand Paul's endorsement of private businesses right to segregate, The Daily Show presents its most incisive commentary on race -- from Barack Obama to wise Latinas to Hentry Louis-Gates.

It's not surprising. They routinely go after Republicans on the show. I'm just wondering how much they'll skew his real position -- that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act and marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.

On a side note, how much scrutiny from the left did President Obama receive for his "We don't have information, but the Cambridge police acted stupidly" comment?

[JohnEngland]

Well if they use video clips, what exactly can they do anyway? It's not like a newspaper, where you can just write lies.

Doesn't the Daily Show use video footage?

But anyway, doesn't matter. The people who watch that show will either 1) Not live in Kentucky 2) Won't vote Paul anyway as he's not pro-abortion 3) Will be a libertarian who'll vote for Rand regardless of what the show says.

[RM918]

I used to watch the Daily Show when Bush was in office, not so great these days.

[sailingaway]

http://bit.ly/aWeAS1



It's not surprising. They routinely go after Republicans on the show. I'm just wondering how much they'll skew his real position -- that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act and marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.

On a side note, how much scrutiny from the left did President Obama receive for his "We don't have information, but the Cambridge police acted stupidly" comment?

John Stewart and Colbert have always been fair to Ron, I think they won't portray it as racism but may well portray it as 'dangerous libertarianism!!! Which is a meme that is absolutely trying to creep its way into the story line.

[libertybrewcity]

they should have rand paul on the show!

[BenIsForRon]

Rand Paul should go on the Daily Show at some point. Jon has given his father and Peter Schiff fair interviews.

[Mini-Me]

Rand Paul should go on the Daily Show at some point. Jon has given his father and Peter Schiff fair interviews.

I agree with this. Jon Stewart may be a liberal, but he seems to be a fair-minded person who's not really interested in partisan ambushes or deliberately dishonest smears. Rand should still go in prepared for anything, since he's in a different position than Ron and Peter were (as the Republican Party nominee for a Senate seat), but I believe it would likely go well.

[MichelleHeart]

If Jon Stewart doesn't jump in on the Rand Paul hate-fest bandwagon.

[sailingaway]

If Jon Stewart doesn't jump in on the Rand Paul hate-fest bandwagon.

I'd be really disappointed, and surprised, if he did.

[itshappening]

he'll make fun of him in some way, like show the footage and then say "HEY, YOU KNOW THAT LANDMARK LEGISLATION IN 1964, MAYBE IT WASNT' SO GOOD AFTER ALL... <laughter from crowd>

[BlackTerrel]

he'll make fun of him in some way, like show the footage and then say "HEY, YOU KNOW THAT LANDMARK LEGISLATION IN 1964, MAYBE IT WASNT' SO GOOD AFTER ALL... <laughter from crowd>

That was pretty good. You should be a writer for the show :)

[Gage]

Rand Paul should go on the Daily Show at some point. Jon has given his father and Peter Schiff fair interviews.
Probably best to do after the election. Treyson used Rand's trip to New York against him, no doubt Jack Conartist would go after him for going back.

[american.swan]

Jon hates hypocracy and lies. I think he should attack MSNBC for calling him racist when JON knows he isn't racist. He'll most likely attack libertarianism for the most part, though I'm unsure he should. Jon seems like someone who could embrace libertarianism at some point or to some extent. He's very polite to Ron and Peter.

Jon's number one goal is to make people laugh. I'm unsure how he will do that in this case. He can make libertarianism look "funny", but is the sarcasm of "funny" libertarianism supposed to come off as libertarians are great.

[Bman]

Probably best to do after the election. Treyson used Rand's trip to New York against him, no doubt Jack Conartist would go after him for going back.

I agree with you and Ben.

[Promontorium]

Stewart will rip him apart. He'll pick one minute detail, and stretch it out like golden thread to weave his tapestry of nonsense. It will be peripheral enough in detail to not actually criticize very much, but will be effective enough in allusion to mystify the viewership into believing Rand might as well just put on a robe and burn crosses, or he might go the "stupid Republican" route. Either way it'll be fucking depressing. And 900% more people will "know" Paul is "unelectable".



Edit: When. Ever. In the Stewart's 10 years on the Daily Show, has he ever personally sought out a reasoned explanation, and attempted to redeem the image of any conservative? And this doesn't count letting someone on to "talk". Not by a longshot. Has he ever, in even a faltering moment of drunkenness or confused alliances ever used any method, including his "spider web" tactic (where he shows a series of videos to show a link to prove something true or false). To defend any actual conservative who wasn't jumping over to the Dems, quitting, or out of the game?

[Valli6]

When. Ever. In the Stewart's 10 years on the Daily Show, has he ever personally sought out a reasoned explanation, and attempted to redeem the image of any conservative? And this doesn't count letting someone on to "talk". Not by a longshot. Has he ever, in even a faltering moment of drunkenness or confused alliances ever used any method, including his "spider web" tactic (where he shows a series of videos to show a link to prove something true or false). To defend any actual conservative who wasn't jumping over to the Dems, quitting, or out of the game?
This could go either way depending on whether or not the facts are actually researched. There have been times that the Daily Show steps away from the left vs right thing and shows us reality. For example:

There was a segment in April(?) where "correspondent" Wyatt Cenac ( http://www.thedailyshow.com/news-team/wyatt-cenac ) covers a tea party. I can't find a clip but - he keeps happily pointing out to members of the crowd that he's a black guy. He's there to get a sensational story about racist tea partiers and he's confident they will yell racial slurs at him. He becomes "frustrated" because the crowd just keeps acting like normal people. Toward the end of the segment he starts yelling that, not only is he black, but kind of effeminate and probably gay. He's "disappointed" at finding no one there hates him.
-------

I don't think it's too hard to pull together the video that illustrates what really happened here - that is, if they actually wanted to. I've been compiling a chronology of how it went down over a 24 hour period:

Jack Conway lies that Paul wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act on Chris Mathews' show.
http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/2010/05/jack-conway-starts-campaign-of-fear-with-a-lie.html
Mathews expresses some disbelief but undoubtedly many shocked viewers now believe Conway's opponent wants to overturn the Civil Rights Act and has supporters who favor such action.

Maddow interviews Paul with the intent of fanning this flame.
She will discuss nothing but one constitutional technicality concerning a law that was settled 46 years ago.

During this interview Paul makes the following statements concerning racism:
"I abhor racism"
"there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding"
"I don‘t believe in any racism. I don‘t think we should have any government racism, any institutional form of racism".*
"It took us 120 years to desegregate the South. And a lot of that was institutional racism, was absolutely wrong, and something that I absolutely oppose."
"I‘m not in favor of any discrimination of any form.*"
"In the totality of it, I‘m in favor of the federal government being involved in civil rights and that‘s, you know, mostly what the Civil Rights Act was about."
"I‘m opposed to any form of governmental racism or discrimination or segregation, all of the things we fought in the South"
"I really think that discrimination and racism is a horrible thing. And I don‘t want any form of it in our government, in our public sphere."
"The thing is, is that every fiber of my being doesn‘t believe in discrimination, doesn‘t believe that we should have that in our society. And to imply otherwise is just dishonest."
"I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don‘t in any form or fashion."
"Well, I think what you‘ve done is you bring up something that really is not an issue, nothing I‘ve ever spoken about or have any indication that I‘m interested in any legislation concerning."

MSNBC releases fraudulent transcript of interview.
This is the source of information repeated by the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and numerous other media outlets. http://dailypaul.com/node/135280
False claims are repeated over and over again. Bloggers jump to wild conclusions. Two days later, the Nation's Chris Hayes talks about how the inaccurate transcript changes the meaning of what was actually said. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/22/rachel-maddow-show-busts-new-york-times-misquoting-rand-paul

AFTER 24 HOURS:
Chris Mathews finally admits Jack Conway made a false statement.
MATTHEWS:
He has never called for repeal. Jack Conway was wrong last night in saying he had. That's a fact. That's a reportable fact. He has never said he wants to repeal it. In fact, he's never categorically said he would have voted against it had he been in the position to do so.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/errol-louis-rand-paul-guys-got-crack-histo
This point is not widely discussed or viewed as being particularly important.

The damage is done.
A large segment of the population now erroneously believe that Rand Paul wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act and that this is part of his campaign. Supporters are assumed to be racists.
-------

I won't hold my breath, but there's a possibility Stewart will consider the facts. Colbert on the other hand, seems so overtly concerned with always proving he's not racist, that he's unlikely to question the accusations.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

You simply cannot defeat Stewart in a debate on his show. The audience will always sit silently after you're done talking and errupt into boisterous applause after Stewart's every phoneme.

[gls]

Stewart will rip him apart. He'll pick one minute detail, and stretch it out like golden thread to weave his tapestry of nonsense. It will be peripheral enough in detail to not actually criticize very much, but will be effective enough in allusion to mystify the viewership into believing Rand might as well just put on a robe and burn crosses, or he might go the "stupid Republican" route. Either way it'll be fucking depressing. And 900% more people will "know" Paul is "unelectable".

Edit: When. Ever. In the Stewart's 10 years on the Daily Show, has he ever personally sought out a reasoned explanation, and attempted to redeem the image of any conservative? And this doesn't count letting someone on to "talk". Not by a longshot. Has he ever, in even a faltering moment of drunkenness or confused alliances ever used any method, including his "spider web" tactic (where he shows a series of videos to show a link to prove something true or false). To defend any actual conservative who wasn't jumping over to the Dems, quitting, or out of the game?

I agree. Stewart will intentionally distort the issue/Rand's words in order to score some cheap laughs from his audience of liberal ignoramuses. The Daily Show has mastered the art of pretending to be outside the establishment while in reality being one of its most successful mouthpieces. This became glaringly obvious to me after this year's C-PAC when they did two full segments mocking the neocon elements who were there while completely ignoring Paul's headline-making straw poll victory (and the subsequent dismissive/flabbergasted media coverage). After all they don't want their viewers to discover that (unlike Obama) there is a candidate out there who is actually against corporatism, the wars and the PATRIOT ACT.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's been a little too long now for them to retread anything. Almost everything has been said. They will try to come up with a new angle, or a joke that hasn't been used yet.

[Knightskye]

It's been a little too long now for them to retread anything. Almost everything has been said. They will try to come up with a new angle, or a joke that hasn't been used yet.

Or they'll do some short sketch with a cafe and they won't let Wyatt in. You know, even though Rand said he would march with Martin Luther King, Jr., and boycott any business that discriminated based on race.

But that's not good enough to some people.

[Inflation]

I'm sure TDS was planning on poking fun at Rand.

But now Rand is old news. He (and hardened 'Nam vet Blumenthal) will probably get a pass.

South and North Korea are about to throw down, as only crazy feuding Korean families can.

Zionist pirates are storming NATO relief ships and killing do-gooder peace activists.

Obama the Magic Negro has failed to wedge his waterproof Sea Unicorn into the BP oil volcano.

Old news is OLD.

IF Jon goes after Rand, instead of more recent, more pressing issues, his Liberal Agenda will be exposed.

[BlackTerrel]

When does the Daily Show return? Tomorrow?

I never watch it on TV but get it online from time to time.

[amisspelledword]

The Daily Show is only good to Ron and Schiff because they're critical of the party at-large. kinda like MSNBC is good to them, so long as they're no threat to them but only a threat to the GOP. since Rand has won the nomination, i'd be extremely and pleasantly surprised if the Daily Show didn't attack him

[BuddyRey]

When your name appears in a TV comedian's opening monologue, that means you've either made it or hit rock-bottom. Hopefully, the next several months will have unfolded to demonstrate that the former, not the latter, was true for Rand Paul.