Jon Stewart cracks me up! He’s insightful, snarky, and just great fun. I was watching The Daily Show last night, and saw the following clip:
This is Jon Stewart at his best, I think. His hyperbole makes my heart sing (I’m a hyperbole lover, always have been), and his insights are just brilliant. He’s right that the right has lost power and that it doesn’t sit well with them; he’s also right about the Stepford quality of many Obamamaniacs and their weird hero worship of him.
The funniest and saddest part of the video to me is, at least in some ways, the renaming of St. Patrick’s Day as Potato Day. Gotta say that Potato Day is infinitely worse than St. Patrick’s Day. Reminds me of someone telling me about the renaming of Easter as Ova Day. Ugh.
While I wasn’t a Bush fan, I’m far more worried about BO’s reign than I was about Bush’s, and I definitely fear BO’s plans for an ever-expanding government, the incipient government take-over of everything from the auto industry to healthcare and banking. While Bush’s policies were questionable (namely No Child Left Behind and the Iraq War in general), he didn’t have a socialist agenda, and he didn’t seem to be getting anywhere with some of his plans (Social Security got back burnered, healthcare reform reached a stalemate, and his carte blanche with national security was constantly checked). BO, however, is indeed moving on his plans, and they are just as scary as those that Bush couldn’t move on. There’s the difference, I think. A scary policy that can’t be enacted is not so frightening or alarming as a scary policy that can and will be enacted. So Stewart can say that Bush was just as dangerous as BO until the cows come home; that doesn’t justify BO’s dangerous policies, and it doesn’t make them any less dangerous.
It’s interesting to me that when anyone criticises BO the first thing that people do is compare him to Bush. Why not speak to BO’s merits on their . . . well, merits. How does saying that Bush was worse, make BO better (except by comparison, and then we’re at the lesser of two evils, no?)? If I say I’m worried about BO’s “civilian national security force” and fear that it’s a giant step toward fascism, how does saying that Bush unlawfully interred and tortured people change that fact? If I say that I’m worried that BO’s “merit pay for teachers” is a waste of time and money, how does saying that No Child Left Behind didn’t work well remedy that? If I say that BO is a stuttering fool without his dozen teleprompters, how does saying that Bush said stupid things and couldn’t pronounce common words change or improve BO’s supreme incompetence with extemporaneous speech? It’s puzzling to me. And frustrating.