TNR to Jon Stewart- Get Tough

The good folks at the New Republic are pissed at Jon Stewart for making (in their eyes) nice-nice with Rick Santorum last night on the Daily Show:

Last October, Tucker Carlson made a good point. (It happens.) Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” had turned up on “Crossfire” to upbraid his hosts for “hurting America” and “doing theater, when you should be doing debate.” Carlson, unimpressed, suggested that Stewart, too, was failing the public: “Kerry won’t come on this show. He will come on your show. … Why not ask him a real question instead of just suck up to him?” Stewart went for evasion: “I didn’t realize that … news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.” When Carlson revisited the point, Stewart took the same tack as before: “You’re on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.” Clever line–but still a dodge.

The truth, as Stewart knows, is that “The Daily Show” isn’t just comedy. What gives his show heft–what makes it true satire–is that the program brings actual conviction to the stories it covers. Sure, it’s willing to digress into sheer silliness, but it just as often finds an ingenious way to make a serious point. The mystery, then, is why the sharpness vanishes as soon as a guest arrives on the set. No one asks that Stewart lay into someone like Reese Witherspoon; but why should John Kerry, a politician dodging real news shows, get such gentle treatment? And it’s not just Kerry. With most political guests, Stewart sticks to harmless questions and gentle quips, and he seems unable to pursue an argument. Rarely have such flaws been more pronounced than last night, when Senator Rick Santorum appeared on the set.

You with me so far? TNR is pissed that the host of a comedy news/spoof show on Comedy Central wasn’t hard-hitting enough for their tastes. Then, TNR’s piece gets sillier:

One imagines that with more preparation he could get better at anticipating the sort of fudging his political interviewees might try to pull. Instead, Stewart appears to be winging it. Perhaps the best summation of the interview with Santorum was given by Stewart himself: “I do think that these kinds of conversations are illuminating, for myself, and really only for me.” It was a funny, self-deprecating quip. Unfortunately, it was also true.

Apparently they missed this online chat with Rick Santorum by ‘real’ journalists (unrestrained by the FEC, we might add) yesterday in the Washington Post. Instead of putting through any tough questions, the WaPo moderators posed fewer hard hitting questions than Stewart, and instead took up the role of chief fluffers. Sample questions the moderators felt were appropriate:

What sparked your passion for the pro-life movement?

Mr. Santorum, I read parts of your book and it’s solid writing. I read most of the “capitals” in the book, but I didn’t read ‘Cultural Capital’. Could you sum up what is ‘the cultural capital’, and why it is necessary for a stronger society?

I am reading your book right now and admire what you have done to help strengthen the family, especially inner city minority families. Can you give examples of programs you have supported in Pennsylvania that actually help minority families?

Yeah, TNR. Jon Stewart is the problem.






63 replies
  1. 1
    Stormy70 says:

    The Daily Show does not pretend to be a hard hitting news show. It is on Comedy Central, and bills itself as not the news. Can’t it just be a show people like to watch because it is humorous? Why does TNR want to turn it into some fuddy duddy show?

  2. 2
    Nikki says:

    Yeah, TNR. Jon Stewart is the problem.

    Agreed, but I have learned that the WaPo online chats have 2 levels of censoring. The first is the online producer who sends the questions he likes to the guest. The second is the guest who then chooses which questions he will answer. So, as far as Santorum’s chat went, both he and the producer suck.

  3. 3
    Matt says:

    Agreed 100%. While I would have liked to see Stewart get a little tougher with Santorum (not Tucker-levels — it’s a public official, after all, but maybe Bernie Goldberg-level), the WaPo chat is indicative of a much more serious problem.

    That said, they are right that Jon can’t always hide behind the “comedy show” veneer on one hand, and simultaneously beef up the actual political roundtable aspects of his show (2 segment interviews becoming the norm, for example) on the other.

  4. 4
    Doug says:

    TNR just blows. They seem to reflect the ever-popular Lieberman wing of the Democratic party.

    Stewart has never held himself out as a hard-hitting interviewer or journalist. He bills himself as the guy in the back of the classroom throwing out spitballs. But, even in that role, he manages to be more informative than the “news” organizations that do bill themselves as hard-hitting journalists and interviewers. At least TDS calls the politicians and infotainment programs on their bull during the non-interview portion of the show (and sometimes during the interview itself). Shows like “Hardball” and “Cross-fire”, despite their rough & tumble sounding names, never really call anybody on anything.

  5. 5
    John Cole says:

    Nikki- It states that at the bottom of the page, which simply illustrates my point.

    Why is the Washington Post (or any news outlet) providing a forum for ANY politician to simply make the equivalent of a campaign speech?

  6. 6
    albedo says:

    Also, Stewart is hard-hitting when he wants to be/when he senses self-importance and hypocrisy. He took Bernard Goldberg apart last week.

  7. 7
    God I Loathe Those Christians! says:

    Maybe it isn’t right to expect that Jon do hard-hitting interviews on his comedy show. But shouldn’t they at least be entertaining? Last night’s interview with Man on Dog was neither informative nor funny. A waste of the air time, IMHO. And why make excuses about Jon making the best of the situation? Santorum didn’t force his was onto the show – Jon invited him.

  8. 8
    SomeCallMeTim says:

    Why does TNR want to turn it into some fuddy duddy show?

    Umm. ‘Cause TNR’s roster of “reporters” have proved to be woefully inadequate as purveyors of either news or sensible analysis? Stewart has stepped into TNR’s market (must read/watch for centrist lefties) at a time that TNR’s subscriber base and influence has plummeted. (TAP might have more subscribers at this point, and the Weekly Standard almost certainly does.) If you can’t improve your own reputation in the marketplace, decrease the other guy’s. And that’s pretty much it.

    At the end of the day, TNR’s staff is hoping that the magazine doesn’t go the way of Salon: largely considered irrelevant. We’ll see how it works out.

  9. 9
    Mikey says:

    TNR is complaining that a comedian is not hitting politicians with harder questions.

    Pot, this is Kettle – Check the status of your color. Over.

  10. 10
    Throwback says:

    Problem is, Jon’s previous work with the likes of Bernie Goldberg has increased expecttions. He definitely did not meet them last night.

  11. 11
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Also, Stewart is hard-hitting when he wants to be/when he senses self-importance and hypocrisy. He took Bernard Goldberg apart last week.

    Yeah, and I think people are upset that Stewart didn’t eviscerate Santorum the same way he did Goldberg. Which I guess I can understand, but it’s not as though he gave Santorum a pass–he hammered the Rickster on how relatively new the concept of marrying for love is, on the hypocrisy of Rick claiming he just wants a solid family unit for the good of society while claiming a solid gay family won’t pass muster, etc. I think instead of going right at Santorum the way he did Goldberg, he gave Rick just enough rope to let him hang himself.

  12. 12
    jg says:

    I know a lot of people who think the Daily Show was funnier in the past. Past being when we had a democrat in the WH. Weird huh?

    I love lamp.

  13. 13
    Geek, Esq. says:

    TNR once again misses the original point of The Daily Show–it’s a satire of the media.

  14. 14
    Dookiestix says:

    I personally don’t see anything wrong with John Stewart trying to be as civil as possible with his guests. That is part of his charm. If he were to attack his guests then he would stoop as low as the rest of the rightwing trash that we are subjected to every night on cable television. Why else would he hold Crossfire’s bullocks to the flame in regards to the evergrowing uncivil discourse we’re experiencing in this country? John Stewart has a way of merely pointing out the differences between him and his guests, and he does it in a way that’s refreshing, because the majority of interviewers who share the same, partisan ideology in their beliefs are much more vitriolic and merely come off as angry shills spewing forth their partisan hackery.

    It is when John does his opening monologues and segments that he gests his chance to truly skewer those same idiot shills (and the Bush administration), as well as Washington in general, becuase let’s be honest, it is really about the politics of Washington, be they Republican or Democrat, which Mr. Stewart has issues with.

    And remember, the Daily Show is on Comedy Central, not MSNBC, not NBC, and certainly not Fox. And it is by FAR the most funniest irreverent show on cable television.

  15. 15
    Miz Mel'nie says:

    It seems to me that Jon allowed Rick to stress over and over his REAL point, although it was not said out loud – that women are nothing more than breeders. John let Rick show himself for the sexist that he is.

  16. 16
    Mr Furious says:

    I didn’t see it yet (tivo), but I know exactly what kind of interview it was — the kind that isn’t probing OR funny, when, frankly, I feel embarrassed for Stewart while watching it.

    It’s a legitimate complaint, but only in the context of good/bad Daily Shows. Regular media members should STFU.

  17. 17
    Jude Law says:

    Not only did TNR miss the point, they really missed the point. I can’t believe they used Jon’s appearance on Crossfire as a reference point,his interview with Santorum was exactly the kind of interview Jon was grilling Crossfire for not conducting.

    It was a real debate (a real debate you have to have in 10 minutes anyway).

    And Jon isn’t hiding behind the “I’m a comedian” card, he is a comedian. It’s a comedy show. He’s a fake journalist. It’s not his fault that his fake journalism is often better than real journalism, he shouldn’t be held to that kind of standard.

  18. 18
    Matt says:

    Furious, it was definitely a step above some of his previous interviews with current elected officials (read: Kerry). He did actually challenge several of Santorum’s ideas.

  19. 19
    Kimmitt says:

    Stewart does a show a night; some are gonna hit and some are gonna miss.

  20. 20
    Don Surber says:

    It was a funny bit.
    What do we agree on? Hmm …
    They both got it.
    I question whether some people have regular bowel movements

  21. 21
    Gary Farber says:

    “Why is the Washington Post (or any news outlet) providing a forum for ANY politician to simply make the equivalent of a campaign speech?”

    Because it attracts readers, like you.

  22. 22
    JA_Prufrock says:

    1) I personally think Jon was maybe “forced” to tone it down a little after his dismemberment of Bernie last week…it was beautiful but remember Comedy Central is still Corporate therefore govt.

    2)I in no way expected The Daily Show to Support an outright attack of any guest..Santorum is a prick for sure but to go to the level of FoxNews ect would be a disservice

    3)The hardest issue for Santorum to argue was never brought up that Jon SHOULD have got him on at the least…and that is his view of women “barefoot and Pregnet” mentality..That bookof his definitely has aplace for women and Jon was too weak there…Even in sarcasm or jest he could have brought up the point that most Americans don’t agree with…

  23. 23
  24. 24
    Mr.Ortiz says:

    I personally think Jon was maybe “forced” to tone it down a little after his dismemberment of Bernie last week

    I think Jon Stewart toned himself down. First of all, it wasn’t funny, and nobody seemed to enjoy it less than Jon himself. Second, perhaps more importantly, Jon seems to take the host/guest relationship literally, as if they were guests in his home. He wants them to feel good afterwards. Unless it’s someone he really dislikes (lord help Novak if he ever shows up).

    The Daily Show does one hell of a tightrope walk between news and entertainment, and just like a real tightrope, the falls get more attention than the successes.

    p.s. Bring back the couch! (seriously, the formality of the new setup may be a factor in the unfunniness of the interviews lately).

    p.p.s. This live preview thing is sweet. Thanks, John!

  25. 25
    Jude Law says:

    “..But then again, calling Tucker Carlson a dick? Right to his face? That is a Golden TV Moment.”

    aww man, that still brings a tear to my eye.

  26. 26
    ppGaz says:

    Stewart has never held himself out as a hard-hitting interviewer or journalist. He bills himself as the guy in the back of the classroom throwing out spitballs. But, even in that role, he manages to be more informative than the “news” organizations that do bill themselves as hard-hitting journalists and interviewers. At least TDS calls the politicians and infotainment programs on their bull during the non-interview portion of the show (and sometimes during the interview itself). Shows like “Hardball” and “Cross-fire”, despite their rough & tumble sounding names, never really call anybody on anything.

    Ditto.

    Russert (March 04):
    Mr. President, we don’t seem to have found the WMDs.

    Bush:
    Well, they may have been moved to another country.

    Follow-up: None.

    (paraphrased slightly)

    A president insults the intelligence of every sentient citizen, and ….. nothing. Not a peep.

    If Stewart did only one good show a year (and he does many more than that) he’d be a year ahead of Defeat the Press and Tim the Tool Man. Tool, as in tool of the powerful, toady, butt-sucking asswipe of a journalist.

  27. 27
    Mike in SLO says:

    Jon Stewart had a civil discussion with someone he disagrees with, yet made simple, elegant points to illistrate his view, all the while giving Santorum all the time he needed to explain himself, thereby showing us the hypocrit Santorum is. Jon did what most journalists can’t do today. Why should he just attack his guest with a friendly audience cheering him on? That would be Crossfire or Hardball — thank God he tooka higher road! Last night’s show was the type of civil discourse rarely seen in today’s media. He gave a sitting Senator the respect his office deserves (regardless of what you think of Santorum, it is correct to give the office of a US Senator some respect; he could rip Bernie Goldberg apart because he holds no elected office. He was more respectful with a Senator. It’s called MANNERS. Some of us still remember those!) It was refreshing, albeit boring, but sane people could watch both sides presented, decide for themselves and come away not hating each other, even if there was no agreement. That’s quite a feat for a comedian. Then at the end, he got Santorum to agree to a bet a la Bill Bennett. Santorum didn’t even see it coming. The final film clip was a gay wedding. Just freakin’ brilliant if you ask me. Sorry, TNR, wrong again (and shall I say, as always???) Jon Stewart is still a better fake journlaist than any of the “real” ones.

  28. 28
    Orac says:

    What did they expect? Jon didn’t challenge RFK Jr.’s silliness when it comes to his fear-mongering about a dubious link between mercury and autism. Why would one expect him to go after Rick Santorum?

  29. 29
    BinkyBoy says:

    If Jon attacks every right wing nut that comes along, soon the right wing nuts will avoid him and we’ll be served up the same crap night after night until The Daily Show dies a horrible boring death.

    Every so often in those civil discourses that Jon holds with his guests there is a homer, nailed on the sweet spot that goes over the wall and is remembered forever. Santorum wasn’t one, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be one tonight or tomorrow.

  30. 30
    linda says:

    re the wapo chat. someone familiar with the set-up there said on another blog, the ultimate choice of questions to take was given to santorum. the point was also made that he took an inordinantly long time to select/reply in comparison to other guests.

  31. 31
    gcauthon says:

    This is what happens when two folks engage in civil discourse on television. Are people so simple-minded that the only way they can detect disagreement is when the host raises his voice and/or insults the guest? Since no chairs were thrown then I guess they’re in complete agreement, huh?

  32. 32
    DougJ says:

    Jon Stewart IS the problem. Well, he and his ilk are anyway. By mocking the President, he has given aid and comfort to the enemy and made all Americans less safe.

    Why Santorum would go on such a show in the first place is a mystery to me.

  33. 33
    Sojourner says:

    By mocking the President, he has given aid and comfort to the enemy and made all Americans less safe.

    You should have your own comedy show. Outing a CIA operative is in the best interest of national security but Jon Stewart is a threat.

    Come on, DougJ. You have to be a lefty mocking the right. Nobody could seriously believe the shit you write.

    I admire your sense of humor.

  34. 34
    David says:

    TNR has been on Jon Stewart’s case for years. I don’t know why. Their TV critic slammed Stewart for being “not funny” just as The Daily Show was becoming THE cultural phenom of the last few years.

    It might be just TNR’s strange liberal self-loathing. But they’ve had it in for Stewart and The Daily Show.

  35. 35

    […] TNR has a generally correct piece on last night’s Daily Show with Rick Santorum. John Cole also rightly points out that Stewart’s poor interview is hardly that important, but it is a bit disappointing. […]

  36. 36
    ppGaz says:

    DougJ is a troll. We actually have no way of knowing what he actually thinks about anything.

    I think he is actually Al Franken.

  37. 37
    DougJ says:

    “DougJ is a troll.”

    It takes one to know one ppGaz. And trust me, I’m not Al Franken: I’m not short or that whiny.

  38. 38
    d says:

    I liked the interview. I despise this administration, yet have plenty of friends who voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

    If only this year’s political discourse could be a little more like their conversation.

  39. 39
    Mr.Ortiz says:

    Okay, I just got home and watched the episode in question. TNR is (are?) out of their f’ing minds! Jon was polite but firm in his disagreement with Santorum. He didn’t give Rick a pass, nor did he let the show grind to a halt on issues which clearly weren’t going to be resolved in 8 minutes. Santorum acquitted himself well. I no longer think he is a psychopath, now I just think he’s a guy with lots of wrongheaded opinions. All in all, one of Jon’s best unfunny interviews.

  40. 40
    Steve says:

    How about John Kerry’s statement about Lance Armstrong? Now THAT was funny, in a reliving-2004 kind of way.

  41. 41

    Who, exactly, at the Washington Post interviewed Santorum? Someone from the night custodial staff? A doorman? Somebody who was there to deliver sandwiches?

  42. 42
    alex dante says:

    The whole line of being “hard-hitting news comedy” is beginning to wear a little thin with the Daily Show.

    Criticising the mainstream media for showing a semi-naked Hussein and then repeatedly using it yourself as a visual punchline… I’m fine with the comedy, it’s the creeping hypocrisy I have an issue with.

  43. 43
    ppGaz says:

    DougJ Says:

    DougJ is a troll

    It takes one to know one ppGaz.

    Actually, no, it doesn’t.

    And trust me

    And I would to that ….. why?

  44. 44

    TNR is the problem. And it always has been.

    Always.

  45. 45
    Mr.Ortiz says:

    Criticising the mainstream media for showing a semi-naked Hussein

    Not to put you on the spot, but I don’t remember that, I remember them reveling in that photo from day-one. Either you or I are confusing the Daily Show with something else (DailyKos? Balloon Juice? Other?). Can anyone with a better memory than me confirm or deny this?

  46. 46
    alex dante says:

    I remember them reveling in that photo from day-one.

    Well, the first time (which would have been late March/early April?), while it was still the ‘punchline’ it was at least in the context of examining the ethicality of the mainstream media using such an image…ever since then, though, it’s been purely a “look at the whacky guy!” graphic.

    It’s hard to take seriously criticism of rights’ abuses under the Geneva Convention when the exception seems to be “unless it’s funny for us to do so”.

  47. 47
    DougJ says:

    A picture of a murderous former dictator in his underpants is decidedly NOT funny. Anything but.

    John Kerry windsurfing, now that’s funny.

  48. 48
    Sojourner says:

    It might be just TNR’s strange liberal self-loathing.

    TNR is hardly liberal but they sure seem to be self-loathing.

  49. 49
    VRogers64 says:

    What, you want Jon Stewart to be a Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly of the Left??? I think it’s great that with gratiousness and respect, he shows how stupid some of the far right ideas are. He does it without insulting his “guest”, and without having to raise his voice. I praise The Daily Show for everything that it is, and what it is not.

  50. 50
    myCrackpotTheories says:

    OK, I’ve never understood this: why is windsurfing funny? I’ve sailed boats all my life, and windsurfing is one of the greatest sports there is. It takes skill, balance, strength, stamina. It’s harder to do well than skiing, biking, running, basketball, or sitting drunk on your ass watching NASCAR on tv. Why was Kerry criticized for windsurfing? And why did it stick? I don’t understand.

  51. 51
    myCrackpotTheories says:

    I know, it’s off-topic. Sorry.

  52. 52
    baronelmo says:

    I would like for DougJ to EXPLAIN to us how The Daily Show’s “mocking the president” comforts the enemy and makes Americans less safe. Somehow the concept of Al-Jazeera running clips of Jon Stewart for the amusement of terrorist enclaves doesn’t really compute. Wonder if DougJ would take the same stance about Stewart’s Oval Office jibes if Kerry had been elected…? Would he, my ass.

    Hope I never tell a Bush joke within earshot of this guy… might get punched out.

    Oh, well, whatthehell:

    Q: What’s the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?
    A: Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.
    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  53. 53
    Sojourner says:

    baronelmo:

    Good one!

  54. 54
    Janus Daniels says:

    myCrackpotTheories wrote:
    “OK, I’ve never understood this: why is windsurfing funny? I’ve sailed boats all my life, and windsurfing is one of the greatest sports there is. It takes skill, balance, strength, stamina. It’s harder to do well than skiing, biking, running, basketball, or sitting drunk on your ass watching NASCAR on tv. Why was Kerry criticized for windsurfing? And why did it stick?”
    Clearly, you have no empathy for the average Bush voter. Replace your religion with superstition, drink at least a case of Coors (or worse) beer, drive alone in a gas guzzler that has a “support our troops” stickers all over it (you must not merely suppress, but fail to notice any irony), spend all day watching False News (you must really believe what they tell you). Watch the windsurfing attack ad again. Now, do you understand?

  55. 55
    TXJill says:

    This DougJ character must really want to be like the folks who watch and love Jon Stewart for his witty satire, but can’t bring himself to admit he is really Liberal…yeah, much like being homophobic because a guy really is attracted to other men as we have seen with so many Repubs these days.

    Why else would such a loser lurk here?? Please, let’s not give him any more attention than we already have (including me). He wants us to get pissed. Instead, I think I will donate more $$ to a Liberal, Democratic cause.

  56. 56
    hornsofthedevil says:

    unbelievable.
    John Stewart is equating gay couples as being EQUAL parents to those with a mother and father?
    would John Stewart trade in his upbringing with his mother for that of another father? would he trade in his father for another mother?

    where do these looney left ideas come from – that one can conveniently discard everything they learned in their lives from the two sexes that raised them and think that those roles are interchangable?

    they are NOT interchangable. for a crownd that hangs its hat on the teachings of evolution its amazing how litle they know about the inportance of a child’s nurturing in the development of human beings. women are more skilled at different manners of raising a child and men are skilled in different areas as well.
    in the end the child loses out without a mother and a father.

    but don’t tell that to the left. the sensitivities of gay couples comes befoe the well being of a child to them.

  57. 57
    Sojourner says:

    but don’t tell that to the left. the sensitivities of gay couples comes befoe the well being of a child to them.

    I love the gay bashers. They’re so smug in their self-righteousness and hate.

  58. 58
    ckd says:

    hornsofthedevil:

    “in the end the child loses out without a mother and a father”

    Tell it to the kids whose parents are in Iraq. Tell it to the kids whose parents came home from Iraq via Dover AFB (“no photos, please”).

  59. 59
    baronelmo says:

    As a Northern California resident, I know several gay couples, both male and female, who have children… and without exception, they are bright, well adjusted kids that damn near any parent would be proud to call theirs. I doubt that any of these children would care to “trade in” their parents for the standard heterosexual model.

    Don’t you just love these self-appointed “experts” on gay parents who don’t personally KNOW any… who spout half-baked hypotheses about family life without a scrap of evidence to back it up?

    hornsofthedevil equates A) the family with two parents of the same gender with B) the family with a SINGLE parent. Utter nonsense.

    At least the likes of Michael Savage and Donald Wildmon are HONEST — they hate gays, don’t care who knows it, and have no need to clothe their disgust in silly pseudoscience.

  60. 60

    […] I’m with this John Cole guy that people who think Stewart should’ve treated Santorum harsher don’t really get the show, but there is one simple question that John Stewart should’ve asked: Should infertile couples be allowed to marry? It really seems to me like Santorum’s ill-conceived logic about the purpose of marriage as an institution really breaks down at this point. Correct me if I’m wrong? […]

  61. 61
    Phil says:

    First, I agree with Mike earlier – Rick Santorum is an elected official, and a fairly important one. Wrongheaded as he is, he represents actual voters, and not just his own stupid ideas vis a vis Bernard Goldberg. There should be different standards in interviewing a hack pundit and a elected official… even a hack elected official.

    Second, what Stewart MISSED asking Santorum in what I saw is “Does a policy that promotes male-female married couples raising children have to essentially be punitive towards any other family structure?”

    Let’s face it – that’s what you get when government is getting involved in promoting anything – at the most extreme government outlaws options (eg, the push in many states to outlaw gay couple adoptions) … at the less extreme government penalizes other behaviors (eg, by denying certain benefits to gay couples).

    Because of circumstances, a child is being raised by his father and his father’s gay partner. Should that child be penalized by government denying the same benefits to his “parents” as it grants to male-female couples?

  62. 62
    beetruetoyou says:

    Rick Santorum gets it all wrong. If legistating what’s best for people is his job then do it. What’s best for people is to be in loving supportive relationships, both children and adults, having jobs, having secure health care, living in peace, freedom to worship, assuring equal rights for all citizens, being able to trust their government. Why doesn’t he get on with the job he claims he’s called to do… Legistating what is best for Americans. Jon Stewart tried (softly) to tell him he had been raised by a single mother. Poor thing. I’m sure he is so damaged as a result. I wonder how Santorum responds. If only all the children who are in homes with one man, one woman who are experiencing poverty, abuse, drug and alcoholism, no health care could speak….One man, one woman marriages does not assure children of anything. Get on with the important stuff Rick. Do your job.

  63. 63
    Jonathan Trinlack says:

    No offense, but I really just don’t care. Yeah, I saw the bit on Rick Santorum on Comedy Central, and I completely disagree with his points… but who really cares? The man does have a right to his opinion.

    As far as the a priori joke Rick Santorum babbled on about, “History is tried and true, it is the right thing for a man and woman to have a child… yadda, yadda”, this was kinda bullshit. I have only read articles and shit, but there is no research biased and stupid enough to pin improper child-rearing on homosexual parents. As far as differential association and the look-glass self are concerned with cognitive development, there are still very objective studies that show childs reared under homosexuals have a .09 (9%) chance of becoming homosexual; this is commensurate to the population.

    More importantly, not discrediting others opinions and rights while extolling others (what rick santorum claims to do) is hypocritical to his stance on the whole gig. I consider denying the child a proper, loving home to have the importance of focus rather than denying a homosexual couple rights to a family. If Rick Santorum really does place his emphasis on this aspect (amongst any of the radical causatums he speculates on) then you’d think he’d chill the fuck out.

    Is sexual-orientation directly indicative of how well a job one would do as a father/mother? Hell no. Most likely, if anything, it’s indicative of your inherent biology… something insurmountable. But who really cares about this asshole… we should just point out some facts and call it good.

    thanks!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] I’m with this John Cole guy that people who think Stewart should’ve treated Santorum harsher don’t really get the show, but there is one simple question that John Stewart should’ve asked: Should infertile couples be allowed to marry? It really seems to me like Santorum’s ill-conceived logic about the purpose of marriage as an institution really breaks down at this point. Correct me if I’m wrong? […]

  2. […] TNR has a generally correct piece on last night’s Daily Show with Rick Santorum. John Cole also rightly points out that Stewart’s poor interview is hardly that important, but it is a bit disappointing. […]

Comments are closed.