It has been for too long. Strange, isn't it? That only Comedy Central (and, ok, the Times did run it two weeks ago), points out something like "the most liberal Senator" invention. If Katie Couric could do half the interview the Jon Stewart does, she might be able to call herself a journalist.

I can't see the clip since my comp and my browser are stupid. Anyone want to summarize?

Another case when government says something that you can't take to heart b/c you don't know who their source is...

Jon Stewart is a genius. I've always thought so - there should be a job at CNN or NBC or BBC once he's through with the Daily Show, he's an extremely talented journalist.

I saw that the other night.  I thought it was great the way he handled the interview.  Jon Stewart is the man and he's friggin' hilario. 

still... anyone want to tell me what goes on?

bush will be out if anyone with a brain actually votes

Neverworld: Jon Stewart goes on talking to a "republican"???  is what it seems like.  He tries to get an explanation as to who says that "John Kerry is the most liberal person in the senate".  The "republican" or representative or whatever goes on naming organizations that rank the members of the senate and such but never actually says who makes the statement that "John KErry is the most liberal..."  The man held no facts and Jon Stewart keeps kindly pushing to find out who is making that statement and who the republicans are quoting.  I don't think he ever got a good answer

and I have to show you guys this...  This guy just PISSES me off... Unfortunately my roommate keeps reading his site and laughs and tells me to look at it, but I can't stand this guy...  No rational thought, just flowing with whatever the republicans/conservatives tell him to.  Please take a look:

www.xanga.com/n2themax

It's really bad.  Just a quote from a comment he made on his own site:

"I'm not racist, I'm just stereotypical."  Enjoy, comment, and please help this poor soul.

Just to comment on what backthatbillup said about going with the party. I hate Party Kool-Aid drinkers. They take whatever their superiors thorw them and defend it. I am alligned with the Republican party but I do not agree with the Patriot Act, and some gun laws. I could however stand both if they were formed. In the 1920s rough gang activity began because of liquor's banishment and I can't fathom the risk of banning guns. When the gangs of the 1920s were in full run, they were pushing the policemen of America in the arms technology. Nowadays, that could mean nuclear bombs the size of a baseball! So, I'm not sure about banning guns.

Sorry got way off topic.

I'm not sure if Jon Stewart is liberal or conservative but I imagine he will harrass the president no matter what party. So, setting aside his jokes about Bush, the news is fair, and mostly unbiased as well.

omg! weezerbaby said something relatively intelligent (i ignored the first paragraph).

In any case, I'm not for banning guns, because there are people that want to hunt, but I am for a definite restriction on who can use them.

And thank you, backthatbillup. Oh yeah, don't bother reading n2themax... the guy is just a retard. It's a shame that people like him breathe perfactly good oxygen.

I'm impressed that weezerbaby sees The Daily Show as fair. It is indeed the most balanced thing on television (and in the interview in question the Republican is, of course, a Texas Congressman, and it is Stewart who finally has to explain that it is the right-wing National Journal that created those rankings and that they are clearly wrong.

But weezerbaby, your prohibition argument is kind of backwards. That era proves that we should probably legalize drugs and ban guns. Think about it.

I appreciate Jon Stewart's insistence to be kind to his guests and not try to embarrass or disrepect them.

Banning guns would only create modern gangs whose purpose it is to filter and smuggle guns into the United States. Legalize drugs? What good does that do for anyone? I know it is good for some medical ailments, but beyond that, it's just a sore excuse for a good time.

How do you moderate who gets guns and who doesn't get guns, neverworld, without having the government overpower our lives?

As banning drugs creates "modern gangs whose purpose it is to filter and smuggle drugs into the United States"

If that's the reason not to control handgun ownership, we need to legalize drugs. all drugs. cause, ya know, there's far more money (and thus incentive) in smauggling drugs than guns.

There is no spin free on public tv .... the media is controlled by no more than 3 news conglomerates which are largely republican owned and controlled.

before some of you eat off of that, I think I can almost speak on behalf of the regulars and say we liberals really don't believe what Magdalene said.

I thought PBS did a better job than all except C-SPAN of letting the speeches be heard, but their commentary was usually as meaningless and bizarrely "balanced" as CNN and MSNBC. They just yell less, and their "random connections" are different, but still nonsensical (the constant comparing of Kerry's speech to William Jennings Bryan's 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech, for example).

If what Magdalene said is true, then I don't know why these Republicans would hire the very liberal Wolf Blitzers and Bill Mahers to their stations.

Back to legalizing drugs, I still don't see how making it legal for your kid to go upstairs and get high will help. Before we just legalize everything to make everyone happy, we should try to use our police forces to their full advantage. Guliani gave NYC a very clean sweep pre-9/11 and made Times Square an actual safe place to be (not speaking from nowhere, I've been there).

well weezerbaby, you are the one who said that if guns (and by this I mean handguns) were outlawed criminal gangs would develop to import them. Of course this is exactly what drugs being outlawed has done. Whether drugs are worth it, or guns are worth it, is another question, I just want you to attempt some consistency.

And yes, "Giuliani" cleaned up Times Square, but this really involved 3 things: (a) the Clinton economy that made NYC incredibly successful and made midtown real estate too valuable, (b) the massive use of NYC's high taxes to acquire via eminent domain all the properties along 42nd Street, many of which were then given to Disney at no no cost for re-development, and (c) Giuliani's absolute campaign to rid Manhattan of poor people by first, shutting every SRO (single-room occupany) Hotel (basically the only cheap housing in the city) in the area, and a relentlessly cruel drive against the homeless that forced them from visible places to old railroad tunnels in Brooklyn and The Bronx.

But honestly, you don't know anything about it. You're simply not old enough to have seen the old Times Square, which was never particularly dangerous, it was simply X-rated.

I didnt see the old Times Square, no. But when my mother took a trip to NYC with her friends, the NYPD literally made them leave the Square at 10 and escorted them to their hotel.

Why would he do that if people were only going to be showing their skin?

Once again, we cant just legalize everything to make the gangs go away. Besides, Ive just come to accept what our Fathers wishes were, which was the outright privelage to own guns.

If we are going to outlaw guns that are dangerous, we should outlaw the use of engine-ran transportation like cars and airplanes, since both dwarf the number of deaths caused by guns.

You cant always have consistency when youre working with people. If that were true, everyone who committed a crime would be put to death. Consistent with punishment.

If the NYPD made them leave Times Square at 10 pm they must have been doing something illegal, most of the restaurants there are just getting into the dinner business at 10.

Why go after all the porn places? I don't know, but they spent an absolute fortune to buy up all those buildings and turn them over to Michael Eisner. The end result, I'm sure, is that the city collects more taxes.

I doubt my mother, an attorney, was doing anything illegal, narrator.

Narrator.. I must disagree with you.  My mother was getting out of work in Benton Harbor, MI when she was younger and the manager made sure that she was in her car at 5 o'clock, because "That's when the strippers came out and he didn't want anyone bothering her."

Also, when I was in Chicago looking at my friend's college, I accidently walked down the wrong road and two police officers stopped us and told us that we had to turn around because we wouldn't have any business down the road.

But I think Weezer was talking about his mom when she was younger.  Thereby, justifying why an officer wouldn't want some young women on those streets when it became dark outside (i haven't seen/heard of old Times Square, but you sort of made it sound bad).

I assume he was talking about recently. Times Square is a very 24 hour place, and these days squeaky clean. In the past (ten years ago) I could clearly see a cop suggesting that someone who looked like they didn't belong there, go someplace where they felt more safe. Of course the key point here is completely at odds with all of weezerbaby's political philosophy. New York is heavily policed because it has very high taxes. That has kept it (even in the 80s) among the safest big cities in America in crimes per capita. New York City changed what Times Square is like because (a) they have very little tolerance for private property rights interfering with civic goals (read the Times Square zoning rules, or look at the massive use of eminent domain) and (b) it's a high-tax, high-government service City that is the absolute symbol of activist, socialist government in this country. Like Europe, New York City's "right wing" (Bloomberg, Giuliani) is very far left.

Considering how much weezerbaby screams about his parents' tax burden in no-income-tax Tennessee, I'm impressed to see him so delighted with the positive impact high taxes can have.