Posts

(Videos after the jump)

I've started to not like the Daily Show over the last several years though I do still watch it occasionally. In my opinion, the best of what the Daily Show does is gather news clips and then run them together to illustrate how contrived or hypocritical public figures, typically politicians, can be. Take for example this collection of clips from the Daily Show's coverage of the Republican National Convention. I would say that the clips are good except that they're shameful and disheartening, so I'll say that they're used effectively.

Unfortunately, Jon Stewart kind of ruins it with his antics. For example after the Karl Rove clips he makes fun of the guy's personal appearance, which distracts from the important point that the clips make. I don't understand why he does things like this. I would say he's pandering to the audience but often the in-studio audience seems to have a better understanding of what they just saw than Jon Stewart himself does.

These clips are enough, in my opinion, to preclude the possibility of voting for anyone in the Republican party. There's such a carefully constructed but thinly veiled political agenda that it's painful to watch unfold. It's just so disingenuous that it's insulting.

This is a demonstration of why it's not possible to manufacture the truth from one moment to the next. Because sooner or later you find that you're arguing against yourself. And it's not the rest of the world's responsibility to try to untangle or determine when you're being sincere. The fact is, you're capable of insincerity, so we should just consider everything said to be untrue. By that standard, you've satisfied no one because you've argued against both sides of the issue.

Should you vote Democratic because of the utter lack of anything good or righteous about the Republican party? Well, it's a difficult question. It certainly doesn't imply that the Democrats are any better. Unfortunately, we have a 2-party system, so you often find yourself making the choice between the lesser of two evils. That won't necessarily lead to a better future, even if you feel better about the decision at the time you're making it.

I live in Massachusetts, so my vote doesn't count in national elections. I get off easy. But if you live in a contested state, then you have a lot of responsibility and an important decision to make. You certainly don't want me telling you who to vote for, so I'll just point out that it's a mistake, by which I mean flawed reasoning, to vote in favor of the candidate who is telling you that he agrees with your position on some key issue(s) after demonstrating that he's willing to lie to you or, and here's the tricky part, anyone else about those same issue.

If you vote Republican this election you don't know what you're getting, but I'd feel like a tool, and that alone is enough to keep me from casting a vote in their favor.

Likewise, I'd never buy anything from a salesman who was trying too hard to sell it to me, even if it was a fantastic deal. I'd rather give the business to somebody else. There'd be no way for the salesman to determine that I'm buying the product because it represents good value and not because of his pushy sales tactics. If I were to make the purchase, I'd risk sending the wrong message, which is more damaging in the grand scheme of things than paying more for the same product or service from someone else.

If people stopped voting for the candidate who told them exactly what they wanted to hear without regard for past performance or other indicators of future behavior then we'd get past this place we are now with politics where there is absolutely nothing respectable about the process or anyone involved with it.

It's like standing around and watching a bunch of people play a game of whack-the-toddler-in-the-head-with-a-stick and then arguing over who played the game the best.

Daily Show 2008 RNC clips, Nancy Pfotenhauer talking first about Hilary Clinton and then Sarah Palin

Daily Show 2008 RNC clips, Bill O'Reilly talking about Sarah Palin first and then Jamie Lynn Spears

Daily Show 2008 RNC Clips, Karl Rove talking about the qualifications of Sarah Palin first, and then Tim Kaine

Daily Show 2008 RNC Clips, Dick Morris discussing the issue of sexism and the 2008 presidential race, first talking about Palin then Clinton

The real question is this: Who do you vote for in an election between the guy who doesn't know anything and the one who forgot everything he used to know?