tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-128105122024-03-13T09:04:09.558-07:00Lincoln Madison<a href="http://LincMad.blogspot.com">LincMad.blogspot.com</a>: Political Commentary, Analysis, and Satire<br>An Internationalist Perspective on Everything from C-SPAN to South Park to BBC World to Al Jazeera!<br>Now read in more than 150 countries!Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.comBlogger898125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-34921349224312745962018-07-06T21:28:00.000-07:002018-07-06T21:28:23.639-07:00What the crowd heard in #AgentOrange's #EltonRecords speech<div style="text-align: justify;">
#AgentOrange, a.k.a. 45, a.k.a. Верный* (#VernyyBro), gave his #EltonRecords speech in Montana yesterday. The speech has been widely mocked on TV, on Facebook, on Twitter, and around water coolers from coast to coast. If you read his words dispassionately, they’re just this side of gibberish. But we focus on that fact at our peril, because his audience didn’t think it was gibberish at all. They truly believe that they know exactly what he meant.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here’s my translation of what Cheeto’s audience heard, into proper #Presidential English. The actual quote follows below.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, our Trump campaign rallies have broken attendance records at many, many venues. We break those records, not for an Elton John concert or a hockey or basketball game, but for an event where the main attraction is just me standing at a podium, speaking unscripted in front of a group of people who believe that I am super smart and doing a super duper job of MAGA. Don’t worry about the obvious fact that I am beyond sloppy in my choice of words, taking for granted a broad and deep shared understanding with my target audience. To those Liberals with their San Francisco Values, I sound like a fool and a jackass who couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag, rhetorically speaking, but <b>you</b> understand that <b>that’s a good thing</b>. If those so-called Elites, the people with fancy education who are careful what they say, think that I’m a buffoon, I can sneak things right under their (and your) noses while all of you are distracted by the outrage-du-jour. You, my audience, my base, know that I’m smart, just like Trump University was a great educational opportunity and Trump real estate was and still is a great investment. Don’t pay attention to what I say, watch what I do, and put all of your faith in your belief that I will do whatever specific thing it is that you imagine that I promised you personally, while politically I run circles around the people who to you look like the people who have criticized your sloppy words or poor command of facts, your whole life.</div>
</blockquote>
The actual quote from #SoCalledPresident Donald J. Trump:<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>[some stuff about Elton John and breaking records]</i></span> So we break all of these records. Really, we do it without, like, the musical instruments. This is the only musical: the mouth. And hopefully the brain is attached to the mouth. Right? The brain – more important than the mouth, is the brain. The brain is much more important.</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We’re clearly not getting anywhere pointing out to Trump’s faithful that he’s sloppy in his extemporaneous thinking; they believe that he knows what he means even if it doesn’t perfectly match what he says, and they don’t care about the discrepancies. What we need to show them is that the “organ” Trump is missing is none other than his own brain, to show them that he really doesn’t understand what he’s <i><b>doing</b></i> rather than merely that he follows his gut and speaks without double-checking (or even checking) his words. Agent Orange is pretty stupid, pridefully ignorant, and manifestly unwise in terms of anyone’s interests but his own — but he’s nowhere near as dumb as he looks.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
* as in “Верный Слуга,” Russian for “Faithful Servant”</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-75600132211371546652015-10-05T20:15:00.000-07:002015-10-06T03:37:17.611-07:00The Funds and the Furious: Trevor Noah transcriptThis is an unauthorized rush transcript of the second half of the lead segment of <i>The Daily Show with Trevor Noah,</i> 2015-10-05.<br />
<br />
<b><i>The Funds and the Furious:</i></b> Trevor Noah literally puts words in politicians' mouths<br />
<br />
<i>[intro regarding the remarkable success right-wing Republicans have had over the last few years in curbing a woman's Constitutionally guaranteed right to have an abortion; transcript begins at approximately time stamp 5:05]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Trevor Noah:</b> It's truly amazing how much the Pro-Lifers have been able to accomplish in the anti-abortion fights. Just imagine what they could do with an issue where the facts are on their side! Yes, yes, that is such a deep thing to think, but what other issue could appeal to those who love life?? <br />
<br />
<i>[transcript continues with embedded video below]</i><br />
<b></b><br />
<a name='more'></a><div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;">
<div style="padding: 4px;">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:comedycentral.com:0dc1b477-bf90-4ac2-8a5b-e4616950bb92" width="512"></iframe></div>
</div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Get More: </span><a href="http://www.cc.com/" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Comedy Central</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">,</span><a href="http://www.cc.com/funny-videos" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Funny Videos</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">,</span><a href="http://www.cc.com/shows" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Funny TV Shows</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>CNN News Room voiceover, 2012-12-27 09:27a EST:</b> According to the Brady Campaign to Reduce Gun Violence, there were more than 97,000 people shot in America this year — more than 250 each DAY! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[<i>full-screen graphic, crediting The Brady Campaign</i>Gun Violence in the U.S.:<br />
• 97,000 shot in America in 2012<br />
• Over 250 shot each day </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[<i>chyron:</i> America Divided on Gun Ownership]</blockquote>
<b>Trevor Noah:</b> Now, now, think about it, people: Imagine if we could bring some of that Pro-Life passion into being more — well, pro-life. Then, after a mass shooting, instead of this reaction:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Jeb Bush, 2015-10-02 at Conservative Leadership Project #CLP16:</b> I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this. [flash cut] Look, stuff happens; there's ALWAYS a crisis.</blockquote>
<b>Trevor Noah:</b> Instead of that, we could get this reaction:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Jeb Bush, 2015-09-27 Republican candidate debate on Fox News:</b> I am completely Pro-Life. I believe that we should have a Culture of Life. It's informed by my faith, from beginning to end.</blockquote>
<b>Trevor Noah:</b> Wow! Somebody get that man a tranquilizer! Wooo! Which is ironic, because usually Jeb Bush IS the tranquilizer. [graphic: Jeb Bush in 'T' superhero costume] Which sounds like the worst movie title ever. "Help me! The bus is heading off the bridge!" "Look, uh, stuff happens. There's always a crisis. It happens." Even Carly Fiorina, instead of this reaction to the Oregon shooting:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Carly Fiorina, 2015-10-02, at Tim Scott for Senate event:</b> I think we need to know a little bit MORE about this incident...</blockquote>
<b>Trevor Noah:</b> We would get this reaction:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Carly Fiorina, 2015-05-12 at 4:46p EDT:</b> I am really tired of being called "extreme" on this issue. [flash cut] [emphatically] Every life is filled with potential.</blockquote>
<b>Trevor Noah:</b> That's right, Mrs. Fiorina. Maybe not the potential to become President, but definitely — DEFINITELY — in the top 12. And the other thing: if Pro-Lifers want to fight for lives OUTSIDE the womb, they don't even need to change what they're saying. They just need to ... add a little bit more.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Rick Perry, 2013-07-07:</b> My work is behind me to make sure that innocent life is protected. <i>[still Rick Perry's face and mouth moving, but suddenly with a curiously South African, rather than South Texan, accent]</i> And obviously you can't let someone get out of a background check, just because they buy a gun at a show, rather than a store. That's just idiotic!</blockquote>
<b>Trevor Noah:</b> You see? Even without the glasses, he's still pretty smart! You try it, Representative Joe Barton (R–TX):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Rep. Joe Barton, 2015-09-17:</b> I think every life is precious. I think that the Congress should do everything we can to protect that life <i>[with a curiously similar South African accent]</i> by passing a ban on high-capacity magazines, for instance. I mean, you're going deer hunting, not playing Call of Duty, for Christ's sake!</blockquote>
<b>Trevor Noah:</b> Wow. Wow. Barton makes a point that is both compelling and oddly pop-culture savvy, but it shouldn't be surprising. This is really just common sense.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Rep. Bradley Byrne (R–AL) on the José Díaz-Balart show on MSNBC, 2015-01-22:</b> If we save ONE life, that's important. And it's important to the American people that we save every life we possibly can <i>[that South African accent again]</i> which is why I can't understand why Congress passed a law banning health agencies from even RESEARCHING gun violence. What the hell were we thinking??</blockquote>
<b>Trevor Noah:</b> Once again, I couldn't have said it better myself....<br />
<br />
The point is, if Pro-Lifers would just redirect their powers towards gun violence, the amount of lives they could save would reach Superhero levels. They just need to have a superhero's total dedication to Life, because right now they're more like comic book collectors: human life only holds value until you take it OUT of the package, and then it's worth nothing.<br />
<br />
We'll be right back.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-35840902763634143042015-07-02T23:15:00.000-07:002015-07-03T19:18:47.414-07:00Transcript: Jon Stewart on Donald Trump and the MediaJon Stewart opened <i>The Daily Show</i> tonight (Thursday, 2015-07-02) with a segment about Donald Trump, his recent comments about immigrants coming in from or through Mexico, the media coverage, and the attempts by some politicians and Fox News talking heads to minimize what Trump actually said. The video and transcript follow, below the fold.<br />
<br />
Short URL for this post: <span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><a href="http://j.mp/jstew-trump">j.mp/jstew-trump</a></span><br />
<span class="fullpost"></span><br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;">
<div style="padding: 4px;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:thedailyshow.com:43dcb916-15e8-4858-9005-10be031b34cc" width="512"></iframe><br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;">
<span class="fullpost"><b><a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/">The Daily Show</a></b><br />
<a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>, <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos">More Daily Show Videos</a>, <a href="http://www.cc.com/full-episodes">Comedy Central Full Episodes</a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<span class="fullpost"><br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> ... I want to talk about one person who has been there for me, really throughout this whole run, but especially near the end of the run. His name is, uh, Donald. <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[applause]</span></i> And he's a good man. And Donald recently glided back into my life on his solid gold up-and-down people mover, cranked up the unauthorized Neil Young, opened up his crazy hole, and made a promise to me that I would never be without material again.<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>Trump:</b> When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems. And they're bringing those problems with us <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[sic]</span></i>. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and <b>some</b> — I assume — are good people.</span></blockquote>
<span class="fullpost"><b>Stewart:</b> That's our good friend Donald Trump, reminding America that as many as a <b><i>handful</i></b> of people <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[laughter]</span></i> coming across our southern border are not rapists — he assumes. He's <b><i>sure</i></b> about the rapist part, but feels that — I guess by pure law of averages — there are probably some non-rapists caught up in that tide, whether they are unable to rape for medical reasons, or, uh, whether they are just all raped out. <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[laughter]</span></i> As you can imagine, this statement from a <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[pauses, looks at notes]</span></i> Republican Presidential candidate <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[stifles a laugh]</span></i> — was noticed.<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>News announcers:</b> — NBC announced their plans to cut all business ties to Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
— Univision is dropping all ties with Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
— Macy's joins the list...<br />
<br />
— Add Serta mattress company to the list...<br />
<br />
— Even Ricky Martin is yanking his foundation golf tournament off of a Trump property...</span></blockquote>
<span class="fullpost"><b>Stewart:</b> I am <b><i>shocked</i></b>! <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[laughter]</span></i> I am shocked — that <b><i>so many people</i></b> were OK doing business with Donald Trump, up to this point. But you know our P.C. culture: it immediately moves to shut controversial speakers <b><i>up.</i></b> And censor them. By interviewing them, everywhere, all the time.<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>News announcers:</b> — But I want to know whether not you stick by these comments.<br />
<br />
— Do you regret that you didn't have a script? Do you want to apologize for anything?<br />
<br />
— Would you take any of that back?<br />
<br />
— Do you regret saying that specifically about rapists, or do you stand by it?</blockquote>
<span class="fullpost"><b>Stewart:</b> And before you answer, remember my question included the words "regret," "rapist," and "you" — which, in the news business, is called "<b><i>a hint</i></b>." <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[laughter]</span></i> Now, obviously, Mr. Trump was speaking extemporaneously. Did Donald take this opportunity to walk back his comments? To express regret over misrepresenting the situation, of saying something inelegantly? Of course not. You know why he's not walking them back? Because walking is for Losers. Winners glide, usually down escalators, into malls.<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>Trump:</b> — Of course they're criminals in many cases. Why would I change that statement?</span><br />
<span class="fullpost">— Some are good and some are rapists, and some are killers.</span><br />
<span class="fullpost">— I don't think it's a small percentage [of Mexicans who are good people]. It's a lot.</span><br />
<span class="fullpost">— And I'm not just talking Mexico, I'm talking about all over the world they're coming through the southern border.</span><br />
<span class="fullpost">— I'm not knocking anybody.</span><br />
<span class="fullpost">— If I were doing Mexico, I'd be sending the killers, the drug dealers, the rapists —</span></blockquote>
<span class="fullpost"><b>Stewart:</b> It's an interesting glimpse into the policies of a possible Trump Presidency. <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[mocking Trump]</span></i> You know, I would definitely and lawlessly put all my country's criminals on a bus, and send them to the next closest country to the north. I guess what I'm saying is: Suck on that, Canada. <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[normal voice]</span></i> Now, I know it's a fools errand to try and disprove the ravings of a madman, but according to a study published in the peer-reviewed journal <i>Criminology,</i> there actually is <b><i>NO</i></b> correlation between increased immigration of <b><i>ANY</i></b> kind and increased rapes or violent crime. Apparently killing and hurting each other is one of those jobs Americans are still very willing to do themselves. Donald, can you point to <b><i>ANYTHING</i></b> that backs up your statement?<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>Trump:</b> This was an article by Fusion. Somebody said Fusion is owned by Univision. This one says, "80% of Central American women and girls are <b><i>raped</i></b> <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[emphasis by Trump]</span></i> crossing into the United States."</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>Don Lemon, CNN:</b> That's about women <b><i>being</i></b> raped, it's not about criminals coming across the border or entering the country.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>Trump:</b> Somebody's doing the raping, Don — I mean, you know —</span><span class="fullpost"><br />
</span></blockquote>
<span class="fullpost"> <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[Daily Show audience laughs]</span></i><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Touché. I believe we have our campaign slogan:<br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span class="fullpost"><b>TRUMP 2016: SOMEBODY'S DOING THE RAPING</b></span></div>
<span class="fullpost">Now look: it's hard, it's hard, it is hard to get mad at Donald Trump for saying stupid things, in the same way you don't get mad at a monkey when he throws poop at you at the zoo. It's a monkey. It's what they do. In some ways, it's on you for watching. What <b><i>does</i></b> get me angry is the <b><i>ridiculous</i></b>, disingenuous defending of the poop-throwing monkey. <br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>Steve Ducey, Fox & Friends:</b> you know, a lot of politicians would've apologized by now, and said, "Well, this is what I <b><i>really</i></b> meant..." <b><i>That's</i></b> really what he meant, largely. You know, there <b><i>is</i></b> a problem when the southern border is not secure.</span></blockquote>
<span class="fullpost"><b>Stewart:</b> <b><i>Nobody</i></b> would be canceling their business with Donald Trump if he had said, in his speech,"You know, there's a problem when our southern borders are not secure," but That. Is Not. What he said.<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>Trump:</b> When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people. </span></blockquote>
<span class="fullpost"><b>Stewart:</b> He's still not even sure! <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[laughter]</span></i> if <b><i>some</i></b> are good people!<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>Rep. Steve King (R–Iowa):</b> Well, I think what happens is that it gets distorted, perhaps a little bit ... He didn't say most Mexicans were rapists. Umm, he said "They are" — he's speaking generally, speaking of the criminals that are doing this.</span></blockquote>
<span class="fullpost"><b>Stewart:</b> I don't even know what that means. But I know that that's <b><i>not</i></b> what he said! Let me play this again at a speed even Steve King can understand:<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>Trump</b> <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[slow playback]</span></i><b>:</b> They're rapists, and some, I assume are good people.</span></blockquote>
<span class="fullpost"><b>Stewart:</b> <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[slowly]</span></i> Get it, Steve? <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[normal voice]</span></i> Do you understand?? <b><i>That</i></b> is what people are upset about. So, are we settled?<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>Fox & Friends:</b> Should he apologize for what he said?</span><span class="fullpost"><br />
</span><span class="fullpost"><b>Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas):</b> I don't think you should apologize for speaking out against the problem that is illegal immigration. I recognize that the P.C. world, the mainstream media, they don't want to admit it....</span></blockquote>
<b>Stewart:</b> That is such buzzword nothing bullshit! <b><i>Who</i></b> doesn't want to admit <b><i>what</i></b>?? One last time, let's get straight what Donald Trump said. All together now, follow the classy ball.<br />
<span class="fullpost">
<br />
<i>[graphic: Slandero Gigante <span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">(Difamación Gigante)</span>]</i><br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>Trump</b> <i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[with text on screen, karaoke style]</span></i><b>:</b> They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.</span></blockquote>
<span class="fullpost"><b>Stewart:</b> <b><i>Stop pretending!!</i></b> he didn't say and is sticking to what he said, which is, Mexico is purposefully sending us drugs, killers, and rapists, and within that group, there may be — he's not sure! — <b><i>some</i></b> people who are good. <b><i>That's</i></b> the part he's not sure about. He's sure about the overwhelming number of killers and rapists and drug addicts Mexico has sent us. <b><i>That</i></b> is what he fuckin' said! <i><b>But</b>,</i> the one good thing to come out of this, is that the farce of his candidacy is finally exposed, his <i><b>unseriousness</b>,</i> on display for all people and voters to see, and the Results. Will. Be. Obvious.<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="fullpost"><b>news report:</b> The billionaire has jumped to <i>second</i> place among Republicans in a recent national poll, also placing second in the first two critical battleground states of Iowa and New Hampshire.</span></blockquote>
<span class="fullpost"><b>Stewart:</b> Fuck me. We'll be right back.</span><br />
<span class="fullpost"><br />
</span><span class="continued"> Click below for more... </span><br />
<span class="continued"><br />
</span> <span class="continued">#DonaldTrump #JonStewart #DailyShow #Transcript #SlanderoGigante</span><div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-48657689488014481592015-02-10T03:02:00.001-08:002015-02-10T03:32:06.357-08:00Transcript: Bassem Youssef on The Daily Show with Jon StewartOn 2015-02-09, <i><a href="http://thedailyshow.com/">The Daily Show</a></i> had a segment featuring Bassem Youssef (باسم يوسف), an Egyptian satirist whose program <i><a href="http://www.albernameg.com/">Al-Bernameg</a></i> (<i>The Program</i> • <i>البرنامج</i>) was banned by Egyptian television. Bassem gave some background on US involvement in the Middle East, and some thoughts about how we should move forward.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"><br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><iframe frameborder="0" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:thedailyshow.com:7dd87038-4a1e-47ce-94bb-ea8dbb4fb1ba" width="512"></iframe><span class="fullpost"><br />
</span> <div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="fullpost"><span class="fullpost"><b><a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/">The Daily Show</a></b><br />
Get More: <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/indecision">Indecision Political Humor</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></span></span></div></div></div><br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Welcome back. Now that we know that everything we hold dear in this world ... is a lie!! — especially about the Middle East — it makes you wonder, what <i>IS</i> going on over there?<br />
<br />
<b>Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 2014-01-23:</b> A wave of crises engulfing countries all across the Middle East...<br />
<br />
<b>Fox News, 2014-08-01:</b> In the Middle East, things are just basically falling apart...<br />
<br />
<b>Fox News, 2015-01-21:</b> Big trouble in the country of Yemen...<br />
<br />
<b>CNN, 2015-01-25:</b> The growing terrorism problem in Egypt...<br />
<br />
<b>CNN, 2015-02-09:</b> Very, very gruesome and ugly battle over there...<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> <i>[thumbs up, ironic smile]</i> Here to help us make sense of it all is Egypt's foremost political satirist, host of the now banned television program <i>Al-Bernameg,</i> Bassem Youssef. Bassem, thanks for joining us! Welcome!<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Thank you, good to be here!<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Bassem, obviously right now, the Middle East, spiraling out of control, so tell me, what <i>should</i> America do about this?<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Well, how about <i>[big smile]</i> — nothing? <i>[audience laughs & cheers]</i> Oh, thank you. Yes, I feel the love. Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> I, uh ... okay, we haven't tried that one yet.<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Yeah, we noticed. How do you think our region got this way in the first place? For decades, America propped up a "Who's Who" of military and theocratic dictators. <i>[photos of the Shah of Iran, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan]</i> They gave you what you wanted: oil, airfields, oil, security arrangements, oil — and, let's not forget, <i>[speaking softly, reaching across to Jon Stewart's hand]</i> a few torture black sites.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Hey, hey! ... "Mrs. Robinson, are you trying to seduce me?" <i>[laughter]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Ah, we know what you're into. "Mr. Grey will see you now..." <i>[laughter]</i> And in return, the dictators got someone their people could hate instead of them. When the garbage doesn't get picked up for a week back home, who do you think people blame?<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> I'm gonna go with the sanitation department.<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Exactly! We blame America. <i>[laughter]</i> So, you see, everybody gets what they want. It's a "win-win," Jon.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> It's not a "win-win," Bassem. Not a "win-win." Not for the people; for them, it's a "lose-lose," and then no garbage pickup "lose."<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Oh, "the people" <i>[scoffs]</i>. You don't want them choosing their own government.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> No! I — I don't??<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> What if they elect someone America doesn't want? If you had a friend who was a manager at Best Buy, but he's always a total asshole, would you want him fired?<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> <i>[hesitates]</i> I mean, if I would lose my "friends and family" discount ... Ohhh. <i>[laughter]</i> You're saying the next guy might make us pay retail.<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> If he even lets you in the store, Jon.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Well, you know what? That's okay. The people choose the wrong government ... we'll help them get it right. We'll send in a few tanks, maybe some boots on the ground, some advisors, you know, to ...<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Are you listening to yourself, Jon? Let it go. <i>♬ Let it go, let it go, slam the door and ... ♬</i><br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> <i>[covering his ears]</i> I thought drones were the worst thing we exported to that region. That's ... whooo!<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> The princess, she's the devil! <br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> I know.<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Seriously, though, you can't let it go. America is like a dog with a hot spot on its butt, called the Middle East. And you think you have to keep licking it, but you're just making it worse! <i>[laughter]</i> <br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Are you saying — are you saying that America has to —<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Uh huh, yes! <i>[brings out plastic cone]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Oh no, not the cone!<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> You need the cone, Jon. America needs the cone. Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> We can't wear the cone! Son of a bitch! <i>[applause and laughter]</i> Wait a minute! <br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> What?<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> You're doing it, too! You're blaming America!<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> What, me??<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Yes! You are. You're pretending that we're responsible for all the Middle East's problems. <br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> <i>[scoffs]</i> No.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Admit it! That "hotspot on our butt" was festering before we even licked it!<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Gross! Ewwww!<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Quit blaming the dog! The metaphor was yours. Look: America didn't create <b>all</b> the corruption that cripples Middle Eastern governments. We didn't establish the <b>entire</b> patriarchy or the medieval justice systems. You know what? I got a song for you, buddy! <i>♬ I'm so fancy ♬</i> No, that's not it. <i>[laughter]</i> <i>[slaps desk]</i> <i>♬ We didn't start the fire... ♬</i> — 'cause it was all fucked up before we even got there!<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Let it go!<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Oh, stop! I'll ask you one more time: what should America do?<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Okay. We want you to fuck off and leave us alone. <i>[cheers and applause]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> All right. You know what? Fine! Fine. Done!<br />
<br />
<b>Bassem Youssef:</b> Yeah! <i>[pause]</i> But not right away. <i>[laughter]</i> We could still use the aid money. And a few weapons. And some investments. What I'm saying is, if you could fuck <i>gradually</i> off, that would work better for everybody.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Bassem Youssef, everybody.<br />
</span><span class="continued"> Click below for the full transcript in English • انقر هنا للحصول على النص الكامل باللغة الإنجليزية ...</span><br />
#DailyShow #MiddleEast #BassemYoussef #باسم_يوسف<br />
<br />
short URL for this entry: <tt><<a href="http://TinyURL.com/bassem2015a">http://TinyURL.com/bassem2015a</a>></tt><div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-24961174251807959302014-09-25T23:07:00.000-07:002014-09-26T14:04:14.158-07:00Jon Stewart rips Congress and the media for ducking the ISIS war debateOn tonight’s <i><a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/">Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a>,</i> the first segment, “The Way We War,” was devoted to Jon Stewart venting his frustration that the Congress won't even talk about the war against ISIS, and the news media is doing anything but hold their feet to the fire. Embedded video and an unauthorized transcript follow, after the fold. <i>(update: attributions clarified, with several names added; still don't know the name of the reporter who asked Speaker Boehner about Congress’ role)</i><br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"></span><br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;">
<div style="padding: 4px;">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:thedailyshow.com:18f560ce-c977-45f3-98f0-70bb0c443fa6" width="512"></iframe><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;">
<span class="fullpost"><b><a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/">The Daily Show</a></b><br />Get More: <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/indecision">Indecision Political Humor</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<span class="fullpost"><br />
This is an unauthorized rush transcript of the lead segment of <i>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</i>, Thursday, September 25, 2014 (2014-09-25). [Source video copyright ©2014 Comedy Central]<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Breaking news today: Attorney General Eric Holder stepping down after nearly six years on the job.<br />
<br />
<b>President Obama:</b> Eric has agreed to stay on as attorney general until I nominate a successor and that successor is confirmed by the Senate.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>[exaggeratedly]</i> So. he. will. never. leave. <i>[laughter]</i> Because not only is Congress slow to move on any confirmation hearings, currently they're. busy. shitting. their. pants.<br />
<br />
<b>Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), 2014-09-20:</b> ISIS is a threat.<br />
<br />
<b>Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY, Senate Minority Leader), 2014-08-28:</b> They have the potential to hit us here at home.<br />
<br />
<b>Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), 2014-09-21:</b> They have killed thousands, they are marching on...<br />
<br />
<b>Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), 2014-09-21:</b> We can't bury our head in the sands <i>[sic]</i> on this...<br />
<br />
<b>Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), 2014-09-03:</b> Action must be taken.<br />
<br />
<b>Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), 2014-09-14:</b> This President needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed back here at home!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>[affecting a Southern belle]</i> All of us killed! ALL of us!! We'll be as dead as the art of how to properly squire a lady at cotillion. <i>[stage whisper]</i> (Always bring an extra pair of gloves, for punch can spill!)<br />
<br />
So, we appear to be facing an existential threat, urging the President to act, but I was under the impression CONGRESS could also do something about this. Like, uh, uh, Declare. War.<br />
<br />
<b>television reporter on C-SPAN, 2014-09-11, to Rep. John Boehner (R-OH, Speaker of the House):</b> If the Congress is such an equal partner — as it is — why not write a resolution on your own?<br />
<br />
<b>Speaker Boehner:</b> Typically, in my time here in Congress, that's NOT how this has happened. <i>[... flash cut ...]</i> The President of the United States would REQUEST that support, AND would supply the wording of a resolution to authorize this force. And at this point in time we've not gotten that request, we've not seen that language.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We would LOVE to help stop the greatest threat our country has ever known — <i>[laughter]</i> — but not if it means we're going to be RUDE. We're not gonna be rude! That would be gauche. But at least Congress can agree on one thing... <i>[sigh/laugh]</i> I'm just kidding; they can't.<br />
<br />
<b>Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV, Senate Majority Leader), 2014-09-10:</b> <i>[</i></span><i>on the Senate floor]</i> The President HAS the authority he needs now to act against ISIS.<br />
<span class="fullpost">
<br />
<b>Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Fox News, 2014-09-10:</b> The President should come to Congress and ASK for authorization...<br />
<br />
<b>Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), 2014-09-11:</b> <i>[</i></span><i>from the Capitol building]</i> The President has the authority to immediately act... <i>[sic, split infinitive and all]</i><br />
<span class="fullpost">
<br />
<b>Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) on Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC, 2014-08-29:</b> I think the President has to come to Congress.<br />
<br />
<b>Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC, 2014-09-11:</b> I believe he <i>[President Obama]</i> has the authority to move on it.<br />
<br />
<b>Leader McConnell (R-KY), 2014-09-09:</b> <i>[with other Republican Senators behind him]</i> The President should be seeking Congressional approval, PERIOD.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It is so heartening to see Congress, usually gridlocked along partisan lines, finally reaching across the aisle and COMING TOGETHER to get nothing done. <i>[laughter]</i> Or, is there something else going on here?<br />
<br />
<b>Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) on C-SPAN, 2014-09-12:</b> I think, at some point in time, when we come back, after the elections, I think there will be a CONSIDERATION of a larger authorization for the use of force.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> AFTER the midterms! We'll do it after the midterms! We won't deal with the country's Existential Threat until Congress deals with ITS Existential Threat. All right. <br />
<br />
<i>[<b>graphic:</b> map of Syria indicating recent bombing sites, a warplane, and the Capitol dome; <b>caption:</b> THE WAY WE WAR]</i><br />
<br />
So, what we've got here is an incredibly complicated Constitutional conundrum — what James Madison in Federalist #51 referred to as "a total pigf*#k." <i>[laughter]</i> WHICH branch of government has the power to take us to war?? Is this even a "war" at all? If it isn't a war, then what is it?? <b>NOW</b> is the time for an adult conversation about how our government makes its most important decisions and functions in crisis. And to <b>lead</b> that discussion, I give you Our National Media.<br />
<br />
<b>Bill O'Reilly, The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News, 2014-09-24:</b> <i>[<b>video</b> of President Obama stepping out of the Marine One Presidential helicopter, saluting two Marines while holding a cup in his right hand and fixing his suit with his left hand, <b>caption:</b> LATTE SALUTE]</i>: President Obama's so-called "latte salute"...<br />
<br />
<b>voiceover, Al Jazeera English, undated:</b> <i>[similar video footage]</i> Holding a coffee cup in his right hand....<br />
<br />
<b>Megyn Kelly, The Kelly File, Fox News, undated:</b> The great coffee escapade...<br />
<br />
<b>Rev. Al Sharpton, Politics Nation, MSNBC, undated:</b> "Coffee-gate"<br />
<br />
<b>voiceover, Fox 5 New York, MyFoxNY.com:</b> <i>[similar video footage, <b>caption:</b> THE "COFFEE" SALUTE]</i> President Obama in hot water....<br />
<br />
<b>voiceover, The Five, Fox News, undated:</b> <i>[similar video footage]</i> Some people think it was disrespectful...<br />
<br />
<b>voiceover, Al Jazeera English:</b> Hashtag <b>#LatteSalute</b><br />
<br />
<b>Ronan Farrow, Ronan Farrow Daily, MSNBC, 2014-09-24:</b> <i>[<b>caption:</b> "Controversy in a cup: Latte Salute"]</i> The coffee salute — went viral.<br />
<br />
<b>Andrea Mitchell, Andrea Mitchell Reports, MSNBC, undated:</b> <i>[<b>caption:</b> "Strike on Syria: U.S. launched more strikes in Syria and Iraq overnight"]</i> This is blowing up online...<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We are so fucked! <i>[laughter]</i> I don't even know what to do. <i>[cheering]</i> First of all, we're currently fighting — if I may say — so, apparently we're currently fighting ISIS <b>and</b> Ebola, two things that are LITERALLY "blowing up" and "going viral." So, if you're NOT going to cover the important stuff, at least don't use words that REMIND US of the important stuff you're not covering. <br />
<br />
<i>[<b>graphic:</b> Obama and Marines cut out and dropped against the Presidential seal, <b>caption:</b> CUP IN THE AIR]</i><br />
<br />
Okay, now, to be fair, latte-gate wasn't ALL the news talked about yesterday, but where I might have given the President salutes with coffee cups an espresso-sized shot of attention, the news channels went for the full double venti coverage, with ONE network going ESPECIALLY deep.<br />
<br />
<i>[<b>quick succession of video clips:</b> News Nation with Tamron Hall, CNN political commentator Margaret Hoover, abc7 NYC "The World News Now Mix", CNN clip, Today Show with <b>caption:</b> President's "coffee cup" salute draws criticism]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Sandra Smith, The Five, Fox News, 2014-09-24:</b> LEARN the proper respect of the salute...<br />
<br />
<b>Karl Rove, Fox News, 2014-09-23, 10:19p EDT/7:19p PDT:</b> <i>[caption: "Unpresidential"]</i> It's insensitive!<br />
<br />
<b>Stuart Varney, Fox News, "Minding your Business" segment, 2014-09-24, 12:28p EDT/9:28a PDT:</b> <i>[<b>caption:</b> Pres. Obama saluted Marines using a coffee cup in his right hand]</i> What's the meaning of it?? That's it...<br />
<br />
<b>Brian Kilmeade, Fox & Friends, Fox News, 2014-09-24:</b> It looks terrible...<br />
<br />
<b>Dr. Keith Ablow, Fox News, 2014-09-24, 12:27p EDT/9:27a PDT:</b> <i>[credited as "Fox News Medical A-Team" on "Minding your Business" segment]</i> It's outlandish! And it's disappointing...<br />
<br />
<b>Steve Doocy, Fox & Friends, Fox News:</b> PUT your coffee in the other hand...<br />
<br />
<b>Sean Hannity, Hannity, Fox News:</b> Our commander-in-chief displayed his COMPLETE disrespect for the men and women in uniform...<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>[stage whisper]</i> Shut! Up! <i>[cheers and applause]</i> You don't really care — <i>[cheers and applause]</i> You don't really care about this. You have no principle about this. You're just trying to score points in a game that no one else is playing. Here's how we know:<br />
<br />
<b>Eric Bolling, The Five, Fox News, 2014-09-24:</b> <i>[caption: Criticism brewing over Pres Obama's informal salute to Marines while holding a latte]</i> It's an arrogance that he portrays <i>[... flash cut ...]</i> These people put their lives on the line for us — <i>[female voiceover: You're right!]</i> — show the respect, salute these guys.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, the principle here is <b>"Show respect for the people who are putting their lives on the line for this fight."</b> Here's Eric Bolling on that VERY SAME episode:<br />
<br />
<b>Kimberly Guilfoyle, "One More Thing" segment:</b> <i>[caption: UAE's 1st female fighter pilot was country's team leader in Syria strikes; still photo montage of fighter pilot giving thumb's up, etc.]</i> The first female pilot flying for the U.A.E. <i>[United Arab Emirates]</i> <i>[... flash cut ...]</i> dropped the bombs on ISIS on Monday night <i>[... flash cut ...]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Eric Bolling:</b> Would that be considered <b>"boobs on the ground,"</b> or no?<br />
<br /><b>Stewart:</b> First of all, <b>FORGET</b> the rapant sexism in that statement. Second of all, she's a PILOT, so whatever gender-specific equipment she might be carrying — is in the fuckin' air! <i>[laughter]</i> And thirdly, what was the quote that someone said earlier in your program? <b>These people are putting their LIVES ON THE LINE for us; show RESPECT. So, FUCK YOU and all your false patriotism!</b> <i>[cheering]</i> When Bush took us to war, <i>[cheering continues]</i> any criticism was shouted down as TREASONOUS. When Bush took us to war, any criticism was shouted down as treasonous, but a President <b>YOU</b> don't like has the country poised on the same precipice, and no transgression — no matter how IMMATERIAL and RIDICULOUS — is too small to cite as evidence that this President <b>"isn't as American"</b> as you are. You want a hot cup of cognitive dissonance? Watch this!<br />
<br />
<b>Sean Hannity, Hannity, Fox News, 2014-09-23, 10:19p EDT, split screen with guest Karl Rove:</b> Would President Bush ever DO THAT??<br />
<br />
<b>Karl Rove:</b> Yeah, are we surprised? <i>[flash cut in background video as it loops]</i> I mean, we've got a chai-swillin', golf-playin', basketball trash-talkin', uh, "leadin' from behind," "I got no strategy," uh, "Osama bin Laden is dead, GM is alive," community-organizing commander-in-chief. HOW DISRESPECTFUL WAS THAT?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yeah, yeah, now, while "Palin-in-a-bald-cap" <i>[Karl Rove]</i> was feeding us a steaming bowl of liberal epithets, <i>[mockingly]</i> "He drinks chai!" So that means when he sucks dick in the back of a Volvo, it has that "cardamom zing"!<br />
<br />
But in their haste, they forgot to <b>ANSWER THE QUESTION:</b> Would. President. Bush. ever salute the troops with a cup of coffee in his hand?? And the answer is NO!, because HIS HANDS were too filled with DOG <i>[photo of President Bush holding one of his dogs while saluting]</i> — a SCOTTIE, out of RESPECT. So, here we've got two Presidents, both sending the United States to war, citing the same legal authorities, <b>BOTH</b>, without any seeming exit strategy, and both holding shit in their hands while saluting our troops.<br />
<br />
But in their diseased minds <i>[photos of Keith Ablow, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, and Steve Doocy]</i>, ONLY ONE did that because he loved America. The OTHER did it because HE HATED IT!</span><div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-66941985615137688572014-08-19T02:35:00.000-07:002014-08-19T03:25:57.964-07:00Transcript: Capt. Ron Johnson press conf in Ferguson MO 2:21 A.M. 2014-08-19<i>[updated 5:25 A.M. CDT, with improved link to video clip]</i><br />
<br />
Captain Ron Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol made a statement and answered some questions at an impromptu press conference at 2:21 A.M. on Tuesday, August 19, 2014, regarding the events of Monday night. You can watch the video here on <a href="http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage-001/Police-say-31-arrested-during-Monday-night-protest-271792511.html">KMOV.com St. Louis</a>; what follows below the fold is a transcript of the whole thing. I have added emphasis in an attempt to reflect Capt. Johnson's vocal inflection.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Captain Ron Johnson, Missouri Highway Patrol<br />
2:21 A.M. CDT, Tuesday, August 19, 2014<br />
Unauthorized rush transcript of televised statement<br />
<br />
<i>[invocation by Rev. Bob Briggs of the St. Louis County Chaplain Program] </i><br />
<br />
<b>Captain Ron Johnson:</b> I want to begin by thanking the brave men and women of law enforcement who tonight took another strong step forward in restoring order to the city of Ferguson. Throughout the night, these officers reacted with restraint and calm, despite pockets of disorder and coming under violent attacks, on several occasions.<br />
<br />
Tonight began peacefully, with calm and orderly protests. Other law enforcement officers and I interacted on numerous occasions with protesters, who shook hands with officers and expressed their opinions. This was the freedom of expression that we're committed to protecting.<br />
<br />
At 9:40 P.M. more than 200 people walked toward police officers at the corner of West Florissant [Ave.] and Ferguson Avenue. They were loud, but not aggressive. They came to the line of police officers, chanted, and then seemed to be turning around and thinning out. Police did not react.<br />
<br />
In fact, several of the protesters encouraged the crowd to turn around, indicating their message had been heard, but that's when bottles were thrown from the middle and from the back of the large crowd that gathered near and within the media staging area.<br />
<br />
These criminal acts came from a tiny minority of law-breakers, but anyone who has been at these protests understands that there is a dangerous dynamic in the night. It allows a small number of violent agitators to hide in the crowd and then attempt to create chaos. The catalyst can be bottles thrown, Molotov cocktails, and of course shots fired. Protesters are peaceful and respectful. Protesters don't clash with police. They don't throw Molotov cocktails. It is criminals who throw Molotov cocktails and fire shots and endangers lives and property.<br />
<br />
In the dark of night, there were at least two people shot. We have been criticized for using SWAT trucks during protests. We did not deploy those into the crowd until things deteriorated, and tonight we used a SWAT truck and another large vehicle to get into a violent, dangerous area to extract a gunshot victim. Those vehicles not noly provide protection for officers, tonight they helped us get people who were wounded by gunfire, and get them to safety.<br />
<br />
Tonight there were numerous reports of shots fired, we had two fires (one at a business and one at an unoccupied residence). In the area of West Florissant [Avenue] and Canfield [Drive], our officers came under heavy gunfire. Our officer confiscated two guns during a car stop near the media staging area.<br />
<br />
These are not acts of protesters, but acts of violent criminals. Our officers reacted with professionalism. Once again, not a single bullet fired by officers, despite coming under HEAVY attack. Four St. Louis Co. Police officers were hit with rocks and bottles and sustained injury.<br />
<br />
Because of the dangers posed tonight, I want to encourage the GOOD people of this area to come out and protest tomorrow, during the DAYTIME hours. Make your voices heard, when you can be seen, and we are not the COVER for violent agitators. That is my suggestion. I'd like the people concerned about peace in Ferguson to consider THAT.<br />
<br />
As of 2:00 A.M., 31 people have been arrested tonight. I've said that many a criminal element that have come through Ferguson are not from this area. Tonight some of those arrested came from as far away as New York and California.<br />
<br />
I want to address the role of the media in what is going on here. Tonight, media REPEATEDLY had to be asked to return to the sidewalks and get out of the streets when clashes were going on in the streets. If these situations are going on, we need to have that area clear. This is a matter of your safety, and the safety of others. We need the roads clear, so that we can safely and quickly remove vehicles to other sectors where people are under threat.<br />
<br />
Clearing the roads is a matter of safety. Please clear the roads when asked.<br />
<br />
Please don't interfere with officers, and let's give attention to the peaceful, not to those determined to disrupt and call attention to themselves. Let's not glamorize the acts of criminals.<br />
<br />
Finally, I want to say I am inspired once again by the citizens of this area, who with courage stood in chaotic situations and encouraged the peaceful demonstrations to move on to other areas within the situation as it was deteriorating. They are part of the energy and goodness of this community.<br />
<br />
That energy can light up and inspire, and it can help us move past violence. Let us do that together. The people of this community deserve that. The businesses here in Ferguson and all of North [St. Louis] County deserve that. We all deserve that.<br />
<br />
I want to thank Mrs. Tijera [sp?] who I saw cleaning up bottles; she came all the way from South County to clean up the streets of West Florissant.<br />
<br />
On the table you see two guns that we confiscated tonight. These guns were in a vehicle that we approached that was right across, or near, the media area where each of you [reporters] are standing. The vehicle pulled into a parking lot, had its windows down, and prior to pulling there, our air unit had followed that vehicle as it had fired shots near the Canfield Apartment [approximately 3 blocks west of West Florissant & Canfield], and when our officers approached that vehicle, several of you from the media who were at the location of West Florissant and Ferguson, began to cross the street and take pictures and walk up, prior to our officers securing that vehicle.<br />
<br />
Here on the table, we also found this Molotov cocktail tonight, and many of these were thrown last night [Aug 17] and today [Aug 18]. I've talked to many of you in the media that says you have not seen these being thrown. Many of our peaceful protesters haven't seen these being thrown, because a lot of times they're thrown without their knowledge, and as many of you saw today who were staged at West Florissant and Ferguson, you saw the bottles — the FROZEN bottles, the glass.<br />
<br />
We also had one individual who walked between us, law enforcement, as we were standing there, lined up across the street, and threw down a firework device, that was a bang, in an attempt to agitate the crowd, as if law enforcement was throwin' out some object.<br />
<br />
I will take a few questions.<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> The shooting victims, any updates on their conditions?<br />
<br />
<b>Capt. Johnson:</b> We do not have any shooting — any updates on their conditions right now.<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> Male/female?<br />
<br />
<b>Capt. Johnson:</b> They both were male.<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> You hinted that you wanted people to protest tomorrow during the daylight hours. Are you suggesting a possible curfew tomorrow?<br />
<br />
<b>Capt. Johnson:</b> No, sir. What I want is, our PEACEFUL protesters to come in the daytime. All these criminals at night, that are masking themselves, and hiding themselves behind peace: let them come at night so we can identify them, so we can take them away from our community, and put them away and make our streets clear, so they can no longer mask themselves behind the peaceful protesters, and define this city. And I'd ask you [reporters] not to glamorize THEIR activities.<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> And if they come at night? What happen? And if protesters — pacific [peaceful] protesters — come during the night, what happen? If they go back home, stop?<br />
<br />
<b>Capt. Johnson:</b> If it comes at night, they're violent protesters?<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> Not violent.<br />
<br />
<b>Capt. Johnson:</b> The peaceful protesters, I would ASK that they come in the daytime. I would ask.<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> And if they come at night?<br />
<br />
<b>Capt. Johnson:</b> If they come at night, they have a RIGHT to be here. But I'm asking them, for THEIR safety, the safety of the kids that they bring out, and for our attempt to put this neighborhood back together — back together — COME DURING THE DAY, and let us deal with those that are bent on ruining our community and not let them mask themselves behind you.<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> Several people have been shot with rubber bullets in the past week. They've all been shot in the same area. Is there a program or training with the police telling their snipers to shoot protesters in certain areas of the body?<br />
<br />
<b>Capt. Johnson:</b> Not that I am aware of.<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> You said there was no curfew tonight, and yet at about midnight, you all sent everyone along on their way. How is that NOT a curfew?<br />
<br />
<b>Capt. Johnson:</b> That's — we did not have a curfew tonight, and, matter of fact, we told some of the protesters that they could stay AS LONG AS THEY WANT, but after SAFETY was a concern, it just happened to happen at midnight, just to happen at midnight, and so, because safety was a concern — and you know, you were out there, you saw the chaos, you saw the shootings — we just had officers in the midst of GUNFIRE. We had officers in the midst of gunfire, and I guarantee you those officers' wives and husbands and parents are calling them now. I stood there and listened over the radio and heard the screams of those officers, who were under gunfire. I went back to our SWAT vehicle and saw the gentleman laying in the back who had been shot. I saw a car pull up and drop a gentleman off that had been shot in the hand, that was dazed, walking down the street. We can't have this. We do not want any CITIZEN hurt, we don't want any OFFICER hurt, but when you're shooting into apartment complexes, and children are lying in their bed in apartment complexes, and bullets are flying through the air, the old saying on the streets, as they say, "A bullet has no name." We do NOT want to lose another life in this community.<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> [jumble of questions on top of one another]<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> But if you don't like violence, how come your cops are dressed like the military, with military gear?<br />
<br />
<b>Capt. Johnson:</b> [no answer]<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> Why are our First Amendment rights being infringed upon? I know the risk involved. I served in combat...<br />
<br />
<b>Capt. Johnson:</b> [no answer]<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> You mention that some of these people are coming from New York or California. Is there any effort done to stop these people coming into —<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> — and were they journalists? The people that were arrested?<br />
<br />
<b>Capt. Johnson:</b> These people were not journalists that were arrested, but yes, they are coming in.<br />
<br />
And can I — I need to answer another question. I'm going to tell you, in the midst of chaos, when officers are running around, we're not sure who's a journalist and who's not. And yes, when I see somebody with a $50,000 camera on his shoulder, I'm pretty sure, but when some journalists are walking around, and all you have is a cellphone, because you're from a small media outlet, some of you may just have a camera around your neck, so yes, we are.<br />
<br />
We may take some of you into custody, but when we DO take you into custody and we have found out that you're a journalist, we have taken the proper action.<br />
<br />
But in the midst of it we cannot — in the midst of it, and in the midst of chaos, and trying to move people on — we HAVE to be safe. We have to be safe.<br />
<br />
And we are providing protection for journalists — we had a journalist who was trapped in the midst of that gunfire, in the midst of that chaos, and we're providing protection for them. We took journalists back to their trucks.<br />
<br />
But I'm going to tell you, this nation is watching each and every one of us. This nation is watching law enforcement, this nation is watching our media, and I'm gonna tell you, if we're going to solve this, we're gonna have to do it TOGETHER — we're gonna HAVE to do it together — and I want YOU to think about that tonight. We're going to HAVE TO DO IT TOGETHER.<br />
<br />
But I can tell ya, I talked to one journalist today, and he talked about us using our SWAT vehicles and the SWAT outfits that they have on, but I told him, the other night, when we stood on that line, and those businesses were being looted, and now those families are saying, We can't rebound from those — we can't rebound. It's ruined our livelihood, and we stood there.<br />
<br />
And the next day, I woke up and the media station said that we did not do enough, and I stood on that line and officers were crying, and officers were angry at me for standing on that line and letting that happen, and today some of those officers walked by me, because THEY'RE hurt, and they're ashamed that we stood there, and I'm telling you, we're gonna make this neighborhood whole.<br />
<br />
We are going to make this community whole, and we're going to do it together. And I am NOT going to let the CRIMINALS that have come out here from across this country or live in this community, define this neighborhood and define what we're going to do to make it right. Have a great day.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-48550105012633451722014-06-20T04:33:00.000-07:002014-06-23T14:41:12.651-07:00Transcript of Jon Stewart and Hamid al-Bayati 2014-06-19Jon Stewart's guest on the 2014-06-19 episode of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was Hamid al-Bayati, who served as Iraq's permanent respresentative to the U.N. from 2006 to 2013. They talked about recent events in Iraq. Embedded video and transcript of the broadcast segment, and links to the extended interview on the Comedy Central website, after the fold.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><iframe frameborder="0" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:thedailyshow.com:394bac43-ffc7-4e3a-b7f4-e2e16760e615" width="512"></iframe><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/">The Daily Show</a></b><br />
Get More: <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/indecision">Indecision Political Humor</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div></div></div><br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> My guest tonight was the permanent representative of Iraq to the United Nations from 2006 to 2013. Please welcome Hamid al-Bayati.<br />
<br />
How are you doing? Have a seat. Thank you very much.<br />
<br />
Thank you so much for joining us. We very much appreciate your being here because on American television there are a lot of talking heads saying what's going on in Iraq, but we don't — boy, I don't know how to put this — know that much about it. You perhaps might know more. So, what happened?? What's going on there right now?<br />
<br />
<b>Hamid al-Bayati:</b> Jon, definitely I know more than most of the Americans. [audience laughs]<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That kind of goes without saying. I figured that. So hit me: what happened?<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> The Iraq I was born in and grown up in is the Iraq of unity. People — the majority of people — love to live in peace and harmony, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, [inaudible] they lived for centuries. However, there are minority who are extremist [or "a minority, far extremist,"], unfortunately do high noises, louder noises, and the media pick up these noises and make it bigger. Now, there is a fact that there is a spillover from instability in Syria. ISIS is al Qa'eda in Iraq and Syria, in the beginning. Then al Qa'eda consider them too extreme and they —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Al Qa'eda considers this ISIS group —<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> — too extreme for them. Imagine, you know.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, al Qa'eda, the group responsible for 9/11, they see these guys and go, Nah, I can't work with them.<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> Exactly. They are too much. So now we are facing this group who are brutal. United Nations report that they are committing war crimes, they execute thousands of people, including civilians, in Mosul and other areas.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But let me ask you: so, the reports that we get is [sic] — we leave Iraq, everybody says Iraq is ready, [from the perspective of a hypothetical Iraqi:] "We're going to take over the security and governance of this nation [of Iraq]." You were there during that time; you felt good about that arrangement, everybody felt good. These guys [ISIS] roll in and the Iraqi army seems to disperse, and they take over this area in Mosul, and the local people — because it seems like they've now joined up with the original Ba'athists from Saddam's old group, and they seem to be allied now. Is that what's happened?<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> Yes, not only ISIS. ISIS is 5, to 6,000 personnel —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Five to six thousand? Seriously? That's it?<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> The highest estimation is 10,000. However, the Ba'ath Party members headed, or led by Izzat al-Douri [عزة ابراهيم الدوري], who was vice president for Saddam, the insurgency group like Naqshbandi group [جيش رجال الطريقة النقشبندية] and other groups are joining.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So this is similar to what had occurred in the Anbar Province —<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> Exactly.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — in 2006, 2007?<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> Yeah, exactly. But the most important thing that the Iraqi army was not well equipped. We asked for, for example, jet fighters. We didn't receive them yet. The Congress approved F-16's since many years, we haven't received them. Now, we ask — this is why the Iraqi government officially request an air strike by American forces. Now, President Obama announced today [2014-06-19] that they would take certain targets, precise attacks, whenever they feel it's important. I think it is important that we gather together to fight this extreme group, because they are like a cancer.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, you would like us to join the fight?<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> I said this is the Iraqi government's request —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> The Iraqi government would like us to join the fight?<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> Yes. They request American air strikes, not to send troops, ground troops. That's a difference between — only Americans and drones in Yemen, in Pakistan, in other areas.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> This is what — You would like our drone program. We have many different packages. What would you like? So, let me see: let me get your order right.<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> Okay.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> The Americans would — you know, I feel like we're in a very strange position, in that we did destabilize you —<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> Thank you.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You're welcome. [audience laughs] I think Americans feel like we had spent an awful lot of money, a lot of blood, for reasons that — you know, we can fight about whether or not it was right to go in or not [sic], but that maybe we <i>do</i> have a moral obligation to the Iraqi <i>people</i> after doing that, but our ability to withstand sort of being the fabric that holds the country together from these sectarian violence issues and these extremist violence issues, is not a <i>tenable</i> position for us to be in.<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> Well, there is an imporant factor: that Abu Musad al-Zarqawi [أبومصعب الزرقاوي] — and by the way —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Zarqawi was the old leader of the group, the Jordanian that was killed a while ago.<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> Yes, exactly. ISIS originally was part of Zarqawi's group, who was separate than al Qa'eda. Zarqawi wrote a letter to Osama bin Laden when he announced allegiance to him, saying that if the Iraqi government gets any stronger and controls the situation, we will have no option but to pack and leave, as we did in Afghanistan, and the only solution is to bring sectarian war between Sunnis and Shi'a. This is why they —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So they're fomenting this war? They want this larger sectarian war.<br />
<br />
<b>al-Bayati:</b> Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi [أبو بكر البغدادي], whose real name is Ibrahim Awad al-Badri [ابراهيم عواد ابراهيم علي البدري], his side to play that sectarian problem.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> He wants to foment this war. Well, let's do this: let's take a break. Can you stick around for a little bit? Because what I want to talk about when we come back is, would he be able to inflame that sectarian war if the Maliki government had been more open to power-sharing with the Sunni minority, and has that played a role in this; so when we come back, we'll talk a little bit more about that. A lot more with Hamid al-Bayadi after this. So [fades out]<br />
<br />
Links to the extended interview:<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/75grk8/exclusive---hamid-al-bayati-extended-interview-pt--1">part 1</a> <i>(almost identical to the above)</i></li>
<li><a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/18y99a/exclusive---hamid-al-bayati-extended-interview-pt--2">part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/hc0qqp/exclusive---hamid-al-bayati-extended-interview-pt--3">part 3</a></li>
</ul><br />
All videos are copyright ©2014 Comedy Central.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-58473954435511829992013-10-15T02:08:00.000-07:002013-10-15T02:08:09.216-07:00Debunking an "Obama is anti-Christianity" screedA Facebook friend of mine recently posted a link to a list of supposedly SHOCKING!! quotes from President Barack Obama, with 20 quotes about Christianity and 20 quotes about Islam, supposedly demonstrating his hostility to the first and devotion to the second. I called him on it, and asked him to show me one single quote from the list and show how it demonstrates bias in any way. He couldn't, and yet he still maintains that somehow I am confused in not seeing the apparently obvious fact that Obama is the essence of evil, aiming to destroy the Christian heritage that made America great, or something like that.<br />
<br />
Here is my point-by-point refutation of those claims, leaving them as a smoldering ruin.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><h3>
20 Quotes by Barack Obama about Islam</h3>
<b>#1. "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."</b><br />
<br />
So what?? Obama is preaching tolerance, which Christianity also teaches.<br />
<br />
<b>#2. "The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer."</b><br />
<br />
Again, so what?? He thinks the Muslim call to prayer sounds beautiful.<br />
<br />
<b>#3. "We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country."</b><br />
<br />
First of all, just in case anyone is unclear, the country he's referring to is the United States, not Kenya or Indonesia. Secondly, Islam <i>has</i> done a great deal over the centuries to shape the world. In particular, Europe might still be recovering from the Dark Ages if it weren't for the Islamic scholars who preserved much of the knowledge of the ancient world.<br />
<br />
<b>#4. "As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam."</b><br />
<br />
See #3 above. Also, where would civilization be without, oh, say, algebra, just for one example. Most people hated algebra in school, but you can't have science and technology without algebra. Without Islam, we wouldn't have the computers through which you are reading my words. Also no iPhones, electricity, cars, or multistory buildings.<br />
<br />
<b>#5. "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance."</b><br />
<br />
Why, yes, as a matter of fact it does. Go back to, say, the 14th century. Which society is more tolerant of people with different beliefs, Christian Europe or the Islamic Middle East? It's not even a contest.<br />
<br />
<b>#6. "Islam has always been part of America."</b><br />
<br />
There were Muslims (or Mahometans, to use the 18th-century term) in what is now the United States, even before the founding of the nation. There were thousands of Muslim slaves, even before the Mayflower set sail, but there were also Muslims who came here of their own volition.<br />
<br />
<b>#7. "We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities."</b><br />
<br />
Yes, cultural exchange benefits both sides. Muslims will see that Americans are not minions of the Great Satan, and vice-versa.<br />
<br />
<b>#8. "These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings."</b><br />
<br />
Simple fact: Christianity and Islam have more in common than the geographic proximity of their origins. Islam doesn't always live up to its lofty ideals, but neither does Christianity and neither does the United States.<br />
<br />
<b>#9. "America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."</b><br />
<br />
Simple fact: there are Muslims in the United States — right now, as I write this! Most of them are asleep (It's pretty late, even out here on the West Coast.), but tomorrow many of them will go off to their jobs DESTROYING AMERICA by being doctors and lawyers and short-order cooks and teachers and truck drivers and janitors and police officers and just about every other profession you can think of. As to those common principles, see #8 above.<br />
<br />
<b>#10. "I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam."</b><br />
<br />
America is not, and must not see itself as being, at war with Islam. We are at war with a small faction in the civil war within Islam. Going to war with all of Islam because of a few fanatical extremists would be very much like going to war with all of Asia because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. We need to work <i><b>with</b></i> the vast majority of Muslims to isolate the violent extremists, for our <i><b>mutual</b></i> benefit.<br />
<br />
And by the way, President George W. Bush said exactly the same thing, many times. In fact, it was one of the few things Dubya got right.<br />
<br />
<b>#11. "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace."</b><br />
<br />
See #10 above. The problem is not Islam. The problem is violent fanatical extremist Islam. More to the point, in the term "Islamic fundamentalism," <i>Islamic</i> isn't the problem. Any group of people who believe that they have a monopoly on the perfect truth of God, is a threat to humanity and certainly to civilization as we know it.<br />
<br />
<b>#12. "So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed."</b><br />
<br />
Yes, President Obama lived in a majority-Muslim country, and has visited others, and knows Muslims even here in the United States. How, exactly, is that shocking??<br />
<br />
<b>#13. "In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education."</b><br />
<br />
See #3 and #4 above. The world would be a far more ignorant place if it hadn't been for the centuries of Islamic devotion to innovation and education. It is true that the modern-day Islamic world has a spotty track record in embracing education for women, and that is a serious blindspot, but the history of Christianity has plenty of lapses in embracing the value of education, too. More to the point, though, Obama is speaking of the best of Islamic tradition in the hopes of encouraging Muslims to embrace it more fully.<br />
<br />
<b>#14. "Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality."</b><br />
<br />
Religious tolerance is another realm in which modern-day Islam is falling behind where it was a millennium ago, but Islam overall has a better track record than Christianity on both of those counts.<br />
<br />
<b>#15. "Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality."</b><br />
<br />
Yup, it is. There are Middle Eastern Muslims, European Muslims, African Muslims, Asian Muslims, and Muslims from every part of the globe. Nothing shocking about saying that.<br />
<br />
<b>#16. "The Holy Koran tells us, 'O, mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.'"</b><br />
<br />
I don't have the foggiest notion why anyone would find that statement shocking, unless for its disavowal of transgendered and intersex people.<br />
<br />
<b>#17. "I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month."</b><br />
<br />
Again, why on earth would anyone find this statement shocking? Part of the job of the President is to be the President of all the people, not just those who share his religious beliefs. President Obama has hosted Iftar dinners, as well as Easter egg hunts, Christmas parties, Passover Seders, and who knows what all else.<br />
<br />
<b>#18. "We've seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants — farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe."</b><br />
<br />
Again, nothing remotely shocking here. Many Muslims have immigrated to the United States, and most of them have been upstanding citizens who contributed to society in a variety of ways.<br />
<br />
<b>#19. "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."</b><br />
<br />
Nothing remotely controversial here — unless you're an Islamophobe. Aha! Could that perhaps be the crux of the issue? Obama is evil because he isn't Islamophobic <i>enough</i>!<br />
<br />
<b> #20. "I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story."</b><br />
<br />
Yup, pesky historical fact: there have been Muslims in the United States every single day of its existence.<br />
<h3>
20 Quotes by Barack Obama about Christianity</h3>
<b>#1. "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation."</b><br />
<br />
This is one that Obama got badly wrong. The United States never ceased to be a Christian nation, <b><i>because it never was one to begin with!</i></b> The Founding Fathers carefully, specifically, explicitly, intentionally created a <b><i>secular</i></b> nation. There is a world of difference between a secular nation that has a Christian majority and "a Christian nation." Christianity has no special legal standing in the United States, never has had, and never will have.<br />
<br />
<b>#2. "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."</b><br />
<br />
The very first treaty that the United States signed — ratified <b><i>unanimously</i></b> by the Senate — stated unambiguously that the United States is in no way a Christian nation and that it is not the enemy of Islam. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution, but we were going out of our way to proclaim to the world that we are a secular nation, not a Christian nation.<br />
<br />
<b>#3. "Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith."</b><br />
<br />
The friend who posted the link to this screed is fond of pointing out various barbaric bits of the Holy Koran, and indeed there are several, but the Holy Bible has quite a few of its own. The bottom line is that no one can live 100% by the dictates of either text, since both contain unconscionable passages. Indeed, Obama soft-pedals a bit on this one, because Leviticus doesn't merely <i>suggest</i> that slavery is OK, it <b><i>explicitly and specifically</i></b> says so. It also bans polyester-cotton blend fabrics, by the way, along with cheeseburgers, catfish, and pulled pork. Thank goodness we as a society have chosen to completely ignore those particular passages in the Holy Bible!<br />
<br />
<b>#4. "Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages — the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity — are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life."</b><br />
<br />
Yup, there is no such thing as a person who lives entirely by the whole of the Bible, because it cannot be done. Even apart from the bits that are just plain ludicrous in the modern world, there's the simple fact that there are many passages in the Bible that directly contradict one another. That statement may be shocking to those who <b><i>delude</i></b> themselves into thinking that they are Biblical purists who dot every i and cross every t, but to anyone in contact with reality, it's just common sense.<br />
<br />
<b>#5. "The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics."</b><br />
<br />
The Catholic Church says unambiguously that you are forbidden by God to use any form of even semi-reliable birth control, but the vast majority of their flock do it anyway, because they recognize the church's edict for the anachronistic bullshit that it is. And as for same-sex marriage, since we live in an intentionally secular nation, any law must have a valid secular purpose, and a law that is based solely on a religious prohibition serves no such purpose. If you try to get the state to enforce your religious beliefs, you run the risk of having the state enforce someone else's religious beliefs on you.<br />
<br />
<b>#6. "I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount."</b> (<i>The Audacity of Hope</i>)<br />
<br />
Everyone — yes, everyone — who professes Christianity, picks and chooses which parts of the Christian canon they follow. Denying hospital visitation or health coverage to gay couples serves no valid secular purpose, and it is choosing to emphasize the angry, vengeful Old Testament deity over the loving New Testament deity.<br />
<br />
There's also the inconvenient fact that the people who take Romans to be more important than the Sermon on the Mount are not Christians, they are Paulians. Paul contradicts Christ, but many so-called Christians take Paul's word over Christ's. (Indeed, it was the teachings of Paul that first pushed me away from the Christian faith of my childhood.)<br />
<br />
<b>#7. Obama's definition of sin: "Being out of alignment with my values."</b><br />
<br />
And if your values include obedience to God, there you are. Again, nothing even controversial, much less shocking, here.<br />
<br />
<b>#8. "If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that was all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they?"</b><br />
<br />
In other words, Works are the proof of your faith. You can't rape, pillage, and murder by day, and then say, "Oh, Jesus, save me!" and expect to skate right into heaven if you die in your sleep. Obama's perspective here is squarely in the mainstream of American Christian thought.<br />
<br />
<b>#9. "This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people [who] haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior [are] going to hell."</b><br />
<br />
Even the Pope says that Christ isn't the only way to stay out of hell.<br />
<br />
<b>#10. "I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup."</b><br />
<br />
The vast majority of human beings are not Christians. Many millions of human beings have never heard of Christ or the Bible. If you believe in a loving God, then you cannot believe that someone who never heard of Christ will burn in eternal damnation because he or she didn't accept Him as a personal savior. You also cannot believe that an infant who dies is going to hell for lack of having accepted Jesus, but that is a doctrine to which many so-called Christians adhere.<br />
<br />
<b>#11. "I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing."</b><br />
<br />
Stop the presses! Aligning yourself with your faith and your values is a good thing?? How <b><i>dare</i></b> he!!<br />
<br />
<b>#12. "I’ve said this before, and I know this raises questions in the minds of some evangelicals. I do not believe that my mother, who never formally embraced Christianity as far as I know … I do not believe she went to hell."</b><br />
<br />
Another shocker — Obama believes that his mother, who was a good person but who never (to his knowledge) accepted Jesus into her heart, is not burning in hell. Wow, just really leaves you speechless to know that this godless heathen loves his mother and thinks fondly of her, even after her death.<br />
<br />
<b>#13. "Those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God’s will. They have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths."</b><br />
<br />
We live in a secular democracy. "Because God says so!" isn't a valid reason for a law. Isn't now, has never been, never will be.<br />
<br />
<b>#14. "If people find [Obama's support for same-sex civil unions] controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount."</b><br />
<br />
Read the Sermon on the Mount. It's full of admonitions against judging others, favoring instead love, compassion, kindness, and humility.<br />
<br />
<b>#15. "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."</b><br />
<br />
This quote caused quite a hullabaloo in the 2008 campaign, but it's unassailable on the substance. People who are beaten down tend to seek solace and scapegoats.<br />
<br />
<b>#16. (referring to his childhood) "In our household, the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology."</b><br />
<br />
Obama's mother had a quite balanced view, correctly seeing the Bible and the Koran as two more forms of mythology, different in the details but emanating from the same wellspring as any other mythological system.<br />
<br />
<b>#17. "On Easter or Christmas Day, my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites."</b><br />
<br />
His mother insisted on exposing him to a variety of different systems of belief, even though she was a non-believer. Why is that shocking?<br />
<br />
<b>#18. "We have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own."</b><br />
<br />
We live in a secular society, and we are thus obliged to respect the right of others to believe differently. For him to have said anything <b><i>else</i></b> would have been shocking.<br />
<br />
<b>#19. "All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer."</b><br />
<br />
Shocking indeed, that Obama thinks that peace in Pisralistine would be a good thing. Clearly, the Christian God views harmony with those around you as blasphemy.<br />
<br />
<b>#20. "I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people."</b><br />
<br />
Obama is an ecumenical Christian instead of a doctrinaire hard-liner. Anyone who finds that shocking just hasn't been paying attention for the last 9 years.<br />
<h3>
The Bottom Line</h3>
All those shocking, horrifying quotes proving that Obama is really a secret Muslim … just melt away to nothing at the slightest touch from reality and reason. President Obama is clearly and unambiguously squarely in the mainstream of American Christian belief, and no amount of Tea Party birther apocalyptic chest-pounding bullshit can change that.<br />
<br />
The simple truth is that people have an irrational, visceral hatred of President Obama, and can't admit to themselves that the real reason is that he is a black man, so they make up pretty little lies about how he's somehow shockingly out of touch with American (white male land-owning) values.<br />
<br />
I personally don't believe in Christianity or Islam, for pretty much the same reason: I don't believe in the mythical sky pixies, nor in the mythology of a Bronze Age society trying to survive in an unforgiving desert. The stories of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed are no less mythological than the stories of Thor, Apollo, Jupiter, or Quetzacoatl. I do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, because I do not believe that there ever has been or ever will be a true prophet who has a special direct line into the inner workings of the mind of God. I do not believe that Moses spoke on God's behalf. I do not believe that Abraham (or Ibrahim) was even an admirable figure — he was a lunatic who was prepared to kill his own child because the voices in his schizophrenic mind told him to, and it is from that poisoned seed that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Satanism all sprouted.<br />
<br />
However, I do believe that Barack Obama is 100% sincere in both his personal embrace of Christianity and his respect for Islam.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-6049869575425104832013-04-22T23:59:00.000-07:002013-04-24T16:35:40.460-07:00Transcript: Colbert’s Take on the Bush Presidential Library<i>Stephen Colbert did a segment on Monday’s 2013‑04‑22 </i>Colbert Report<i> about the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Library in Dallas on 2013‑04‑25 and its subsequent opening to the public on 2013‑05‑01.</i><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:colbertnation.com:425693" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href='http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425693/april-22-2013/george-w--bush-presidential-library'>The Colbert Report</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/'>Colbert Report Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.colbertnation.com/video'>Video Archive</a></p></div></div><br />
[clip from CNN, 4:57 PM: the George W. Bush Library will open to the public on Wednesday, May 1st, 2013‑05‑01.]<br />
<br />
That’s right: May 1st, 10 years to the day since George Bush famously landed on the deck of the USS <i>Abraham Lincoln</i> and declared “Mission Accomplished.” Which means the library will be finished in another 8½ years. Nation, I am so pumped! Because this thing is gonna be packed with Bush-nography: [quoting ABC-6 Action News 6abc.com from <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=9061109">WPVI‑TV</a> in Philadelphia] “More than 43,000 artifacts and 200 million e-mails will be on display…” And those 200 million e-mails could have almost <i>eighteen</i> non-redacted words. But that's not even the best part!<br />
<br />
[clip from MSNBC] Would you have invaded Iraq if you were President? Or, would you bail out Wall Street? Former President George W. Bush wants to know what you would’ve done; it’s all part of this new interactive theater that’s featured in the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museums…<br />
<br />
Yes, the library includes interactive role-playing where the President <i>hands over</i> the reins of power to someone else, just like he did when he was President. [photo of Dick Cheney] Like, uh, what’s it like? It’s like a Presidential “choose your own adventure.” [referencing The New York Times, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/politics/hitting-rewind-bush-museum-says-you-decide.html?ref=georgewbushpresidentiallibrary">nytimes.com</a>] I mean, would you deploy federal troops after Hurricane Katrina or rely on local forces? Would you bail out Wall Street or let the banks fail? Would you invade Iraq or leave Saddam Hussein in power? I mean, it really gives you perspective. I mean, let’s see <b><i>you</i></b> sift through mountains of intelligence saying Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction to find the one memo that implies that he might. But, folks, as excited as I am, I must confess that there is one thing that deeply disappoints me about the Bush Library: I am not invited to Thursday’s [2013‑04‑25] dedication.<br />
<br />
[audience:] Awwwwwwww.<br />
<br />
Thank you. And I am hurt, on my inside feeling parts. I mean, at the end of this man’s Presidency, even as my fellow conservatives were abandoning Bush like rats from a sinking ship on a crash course with Cat Island! I remained faithful. And I’m sure he knows that, from the warrantless wiretaps he authorized. But that’s okay, Mr. President, I forgive you. And I will be there on Day One. And so should you, Nation; you can <a href="http://www.georgewbushlibrary.smu.edu/Visit/Plan-Your-Museum-Visit.aspx"><i>buy</i> your tickets online</a> now. Of course, some of them will be for the Bush Presidential Library and some of them will be for the <i>Gore</i> Presidential Library, but the ticket counters will read them all as Bush.<br />
<br />
We’ll be right back.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-77097337482647293082012-11-12T23:59:00.000-08:002012-11-13T18:15:54.176-08:00Transcript: Huckabee on Daily ShowFormer Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, now a host on the Fox News Channel, was Jon Stewart's guest on <i>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,</i> discussing politics, religion, and their intersection. The full transcript appears below the fold, with embedded video.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><center>
<br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;">
<div style="padding: 4px;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:421151" width="512"></iframe><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-12-2012/exclusive---mike-huckabee-extended-interview-pt--1">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Get More: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;">
<div style="padding: 4px;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:421152" width="512"></iframe><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-12-2012/exclusive---mike-huckabee-extended-interview-pt--2">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Get More: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</center>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
Part 1</h2>
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Welcome back. My guest tonight, the former governor of Arkansas, host of Huckabee on the Fox News Channel, also a best-selling author, his new book is called <i>Dear Chandler, Dear Scarlett: A Grandfather's Thoughts on Faith, Family and the Things That Matter Most,</i> please welcome back to the program <i><b>Mike Huckabee!</b></i><br />
<br />
Sir! Come and sit. How are ya?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, I'm doing great, Jon, let's just don't talk about the elections.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Look at this. Look at this book right here.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> <i>That's</i> a good thing to talk about.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>Dear Chandler, Dear Scarlett.</i> You know, I find that there is <i>nothing</i> kids love more than letters from their grandparents.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Uh, yeah, that's why I wrote it, because I knew that even when they're just tots, they'll say, "Please, read those to me again!"<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Hopefully they'll be about how the <i>weather</i> used to be. [laughs]<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> [laughs] It could be!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right. Let me ask you a question.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Okay.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, you said something. I don't know if it was election night or one of those nights. It was about the Republican Party...<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Uh-huh.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> ... and they have to expand their base. Take a look at this, Mike Huckabee talking about reaching out.<br />
<blockquote>
I think Republicans have done a <b><i>pathetic</i></b> job of reaching out to people of color, something we've gotta work on. — <i>Mike Huckabee on Fox News Live, election night Nov. 6th (2012-11-06)</i></blockquote>
<b>Stewart:</b> Uh, <b><i>why</i></b> do they have to work on that? In other words, like, is it work, or is it something you feel like — how do you reach out to people of color without necessarily addressing their concerns?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, let me just — no, that's a fair question. Jon, I got 49% of the African American vote in my state when I ran for governor.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I think it's ridiculous for Republicans to assume, <i>Well, we're not going to get that vote, it's automatic for the Democrats.</i> That's just not true.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I think the fact is, Republicans have done a <i>pathetic</i> job of <i>communicating</i> what conservatism does to empower people and how it helps people to move from one rung of the ladder to the next. And, to be honest —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Mm-hmm.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — some <i>brands</i> of conservatism <i>don't</i> help people make it to the next rung of the ladder.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, that's possibility #1, but here's what I think is actually a larger problem for conservatives in this arena, because I've noticed the pivot among certain, you know, all of a sudden they're saying, like, "Oh, maybe we <i>should</i> talk about immigration, because we need to pick off some <i>Hispanic</i> votes," or "We <i>should</i> talk to black people because —" and there's a certain, uh, patronizing feeling of, like, "Oh, God, now we — all right, so we've got to talk to Latinos and black people now...."<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> And that'll never work.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right!<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> That will never work, because you can't show up in October of an election year and say, "Oh, my, we wanted to come by and say hello and we'd sure like for you to vote for us."<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> It's about <b>appointments</b>. It's about <b>policy</b>. It changes the way people perceive your party, because of the reality that you're actually doing something that helps them. Whether it's education or economic development — and you have to make sure that it's not just some kind of an election-year window dressing, 'cause that doesn't do a doggone thing.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Here's what I think is the largest obstacle you're going to have to overcome: what they <b><i>have</i></b> utilized minorities for in the conservative world in a lot of ways — This is election day. This is a compilation. Election day, this is a story on Fox News that they ran with all day long. This was talked about 21 times on Fox on election day. Watch.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>Steve Ducey:</b> What's goin' on in Philly with the New Black Panther Party?<br />
<br />
<b>Bill O'Reilly:</b> The New Black Panther Party....<br />
<br />
<b>Neil Cavuto:</b> Number of Black Panthers were out in front of polling sites.<br />
<br />
<b>(female, 5:30p ET):</b> That Black Panther is there...<br />
<br />
<b>Lou Dobbs, 6:43p ET:</b> A member of the New Black Panther Party...<br />
<br />
<b>(male, no time stamp):</b> ... standing guard...<br />
<br />
<b>(male, 8:17p ET):</b> ... semi-military pose ...<br />
<br />
<b>William Kristol, 9:28p ET:</b> ... so as to intimidate voters ...<br />
<br />
<b>(male, 5:30p ET):</b> Fox News confirmed he is a <b><i>"designated poll watcher"!</i></b><br />
<br />
<b>(male voice off-screen, 5:50p ET):</b> I mean, if it's <i>not</i> voter intimidation, what is it?<br />
<br />
<b>(female voiceover, 9:26p ET):</b> ... standing guard outside a polling place...<br />
<br />
<b>(male voiceover, 8:17p ET):</b> Some critics say that looks like <i>intimidation.</i><br />
<br />
<b>(Doug Burns, election attorney, 2000 post-election in Florida):</b> Intimidating voters in Philadelphia ... [flash cut] ... Last time, 4 years ago, one of 'em had a billy club...<br />
<br />
<b>(male voiceover, no timestamp):</b> In 2008, in Philadephia ... [flash cut] ... He said, "Cracker, you're about to be ruled by a black man!"<br />
<br />
<i>— Fox News Channel clips from election day, Nov. 6, 2012, except as noted</i></blockquote>
<b>Stewart:</b> So that, basically ... there's a story on Fox that ran 21 times: <i>There's a <b>black guy</b> in Philadelphia!!!</i> <br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, the good thing is, you're watching Fox!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>And by the <b>door</b>!!</i><br />
<br />
But, do you understand what I'm saying? You cannot simultaneously use a group of people as a boogie man — you can't scare — here's the hope, it seemed like, of the Right: "We're gonna <i>scare</i> you enough to vote out this <i>one</i> black guy by showing you these <i>other</i> black guys, but we don't want to scare you <i>so much</i> about these <i>other</i> black guys that you think they might be near where you vote."<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, you know, I think it'd be a little bit of a stretch to say that every conservative has this anxiety.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Not saying that. Not saying that.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — Because that's not true: there are a lot of black conservatives, and here's the problem —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Would you say, though, that they used that to stir up fear about a "Black Panther Man at a polling place"?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, I think it goes back to the election four years ago, when there <i>was</i> apparently some voter intimidation —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> There were <b><i>two</i></b> guys at that polling station.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — with billy clubs in their hands, walkin' around. That kinda — that kinda maybe dissuade <i>me</i> from wanting to vote, if somebody's crackin' a billy club — [pantomimes striking his hand with a billy club]<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>If</i> that's what they were doin'.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, that's what the photographs show, Jon.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Mmm-hmm?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> But here's what I <i>do</i> think has to happen: Let me ask you this:<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But do you get what I'm saying, governor? You can't reach out to people and use them as a way to stir up fear amongst a base that can easily fall prey to that, and do you at least admit that that was an attempt to use that as a boogie man for the white base, to stir them up.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Oh, I don't think that there was — you know, I don't know, because I wasn't there. I didn't make any editorial decisions about why that picture was used or why that whole scenario was done, but here is also what I would say, to be fair, when there are true African Americans who are conservatives — philosophical conservatives —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Sure.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — they're often dismissed by people on the left —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Mm-hmm.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — as being pawns and used —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Sure, no question.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — even though it's not fair —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No question.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — to somehow act as if they automatically have to be liberal.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No question.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Why does anybody have to be automatically anything other than what they truly believe?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I don't think anybody's arguing that. I mean, that is — I think that's an argument — I guess my point is, and I watch an awful lot of this particular media arm, let's call it Fox —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Yes, you do. Thank you. That's why they're getting so many great ratings, because you keep watching.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> [overlapping the above] Since the election — Oh, I'm in hell, brother! — Since the election — you know, single women voted very heavily toward the Democrats. Since the election, there's been a lot of talk on Fox of, "What's wrong with single women??" It seems like that if you don't vote with the Republicans, it is because of your own lack of virtue.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Oh, no, no, I don't think that, Jon.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Really?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Bill O'Reilly said 50% of the people voted for Obama because 50% of the country wants stuff.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> You know, but I don't think that's true, and let me tell you something —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, I don't think that's true, I'm telling you what they're saying!<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> You know, I was governor 10½ years, and I'm telling you, people who are in poverty and who get government assistance, wish they didn't.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Of course!!! And it ain't 50%.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> That is nonsense.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Of course!!!<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Here's my point, Jon! Not all conservatives think that people are on Welfare because they want to be.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No one's saying all do, but here's what we <i>are</i> saying: there is a very powerful media arm that is creating a narrative that that is the case, and reinforcing it, day after day, time after time, minute after minute —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Jon...<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — and blaming other people. It's true. Go ahead.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Let's be fair, because if you say, well, it's as if Fox is doing it, well, I'm on Fox, I don't think that and I don't do that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We'll be right back with Mike Huckabee, and we will <i>challenge</i> that assumption.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<h2 align="center">
Part 2</h2>
<b>Stewart:</b> We're talking with Governor Mike Huckabee about, I think it's an important issue, that, when you keep demonizing these groups, whether it be single women, black people, illegal immigrants — it makes it impossible to work with them as a collaboration. Why would you collaborate with evil people, and when you convince them that they're evil, why work with them.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I'm not gonna defend that, and I hope you wouldn't defend that every time Christians are depicted on many of the talk shows, they're depicted as homophobic, racist, uh, you know —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, but don't confuse —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — unscientific.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, don't confuse that, though, when people are not being scientific, or when they're against gay marriage. You can argue with someone about gay marriage and not call them homophobic. You can challenge someone on climate change when they pretend it doesn't exist and say, "That's unscientific," because that is unscientific — that's a <b><i>fact</i></b>.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> One of the most fundamental conservative views is to be pro-life, to believe that every life has value and worth. That's scientific, because you know that biologically life begins at conception; that's irrefutable, from the biological standpoint. You can argue the theology of it, you can argue the philosophy of it, you can't argue the biology of the beginning of life.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> [talking over the above] You can't argue that something isn't happening, but I don't know that — I mean, that's such a loaded — well, here's why I asked you, because I never know who you are any more. I don't know if you're the nice grandfather who sits and writes letters to them —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I'm a wonderful grandfather!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — and talks to me very respectfully. There was something, there was a commercial that you made during the election that troubled me to some extent.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Oh, I hope it's the one I'm thinking of.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I want to show you. Show it.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>Mike Huckabee, voiceover:</b> This November, Christians across the nation will be put to the test. Some issues are not negotiable: the right to life from conception to natural death. Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined. It is an egregious violation of our cherished principle of religious liberty. Your vote will affect the future, and be recorded in eternity. This is Mike Huckabee, asking you to join me November 6th, and vote based on values that will stand the test of fire. — <i>TV ad</i></blockquote>
<b>Stewart:</b> Okay.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No, I'm glad you — I'm glad you brought that one up.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But here's what I look at that, and I go, like, Are you saying that if you vote for the Democrat, you're going to hell??<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No!! Jon!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It sure looked like it.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I don't expect you —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I mean, I'm goin' to hell, anyway. I'm a Jew.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, you know —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I'm a Jew; I already know where I'm goin'. The point is —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No, no, no —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Can you understand how somebody could watch and go, So, wait, if I disagree with you about gay marriage, I'm going to hell??<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> If they're biblically illiterate they would, but if they knew I Corinthians 10, the whole metaphor of the Christian gospel — listen to me, listen to me —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> [to audience] Settle down, guys. This is not — we're talkin' <br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No, seriously. That whole metaphor is about that your works are tested by fire, and that biblical passage is one that every believer, every New Testament believer, is gonna understand what that means, and I heard people on television say, "Oh, Mike Huckabee is saying if you don't vote for Mitt Romney you're going to hell." Never said that, never said "Romney," never said "hell."<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It's a pretty good connection between that and hell.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No, there's not! I Corinthians chapter 10, read it, Jon. It talks about that our works are put to the test of fire, just like you would put metal in the forge, and that is the imagery that you see.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But you narrowed "your works" to two things: pro-life or anti-gay-marriage.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Not "anti-gay-marriage." There's a difference between "anti" something and if you're <i>for</i> something.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What are you <i>for</i>?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I'm for the idea that marriage is that which is a biblical model.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> "The biblical model" is polygamy.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> [condescendingly] No, Jon. The Biblical model, Adam and Eve. Polygamy came much later than that, and later was repudiated —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So the people in the Bible redefined —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — because Jesus said, "A man shall leave his mother and father, and a woman shall leave her home, and the two shall become one flesh." <i>That</i> is the biblical model.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Would you agree that it is the height of Man's arrogance to presume what Jesus would vote for, down the line, for whatever it was, as a value? Now, this is my point: we can come on and have a conversation, but when I see that and I go, Mike Huckabee doesn't just disagree with me, he believes that my position that gay people are members of the species and whoever they love, marriage strengthens traditional families because gay families are wonderful families rraising wonderful kids, and that the <i>value</i> of them is not gayness. It's not their gayness, it's — marriage is about honest, trustworthy people working in a loving household, having nothing to do with what their sexuality is. How can you say that me believing that is registered in the Book of Fire??<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No, no, it's not the "Book of Fire."<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Or the anvil of fire, with the fire guy. Do you know what I'm saying?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I'm gonna have to teach you how to go to a blacksmith shop, and how you create —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You're saying, all you are saying is this is gonna be in a "metal book"??<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Jon, the point of all of this is, it is a message to Christian believers, saying to them that your vote can't be separated from your faith, and <i>all</i> of our works are gonna be tested as if by fire.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, let me ask you this: what if they voted for someone who they felt wasn't good for poverty, wasn't good for the poor? Is <i>that</i> going to be reported in the same way as the gay marriage vote?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> We all — every vote is going to be —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, where is <i>that</i> commercial??<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, we only had 60 seconds.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It's — it's — Here's why it's upsetting to me:<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> You pick and choose what you want. You pick and choose what you want. Okay.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> When I speak with you —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Yeah.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — I always enjoy it, I always find it very respectful. I always learn an awful lot about points of view that I don't share.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Most of them, I think.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But when I see something like that, I think to myself, Well, that guy then leaves me and turns around and goes, "I don't care what <i>he</i> thinks; he's going to hell anyway."<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, if you had listened, and if you had asked me, I'll give you my number.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Seriously?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I would've said, Jon, this isn't about hell. This <i>isn't</i> about hell. It's about our works are tested, and they're tried, and the way that you create something of value is that you get rid of all that dross, the things that are impure, and you end up with something that has value, and that was the message, coming directly from I Corinthians 10.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I would say it is not an unreasonable interpretation of that commercial that if you vote for gay marriage, or for a pro-choice candidate, God is writing it down, and He's gonna git ya.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Now, I think what you have to understand is, if you are a believer, and you have a biblical model and a biblical standard, then that biblical standard is what you wanna apply. It may not be your standard, it may not be the standard that we ultimately end up with in this country, because people are gonna vote.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, no, no. It's <i>not</i> the standard we have in this country. The <i>Constitution</i> is the standard we have in this country.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> It is, but the Constitution is still based on what the people decide —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It is not based, it is not a literal translation of the Bible for the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't even mention God. It mentions welfare and unions, but it doesn't mention God.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Jon, still the point comes that as we as a society create laws, it is in essence the consent of the governed —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes!!<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — and if the governed ever decide that things are gonna change, they're gonna change.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes!!<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> But shouldn't we have the opportunity to speak to people and give them our values, so that if they reject them, they reject them.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I think we have to have an honest and open conversation and not one on one channel and one on another. I think you have to open that conversation up and say, in the same way that when someone says they're pro-life from conception, I think people need to know that means the law would be that if you're raped, you have to keep that baby, but you don't get an IVF baby because that's against the law. I think those kinds of things have to be discussed openly and honestly.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I would love to have that discussion. You and I have had that discussion before —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We have.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — and I always welcome it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> In many ways, we love each other. Stop it! But do you know what I mean? We'll go, but do you get at some level where my dissatisfaction is coming from?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No, I never will understand your dissatisfaction, Jon. I don't understand it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>Dear Chandler and Dear Scarlett,</i> it's on the bookshelves now, buy the book. Mike Huckabee!<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-86451915487251950722012-05-30T23:20:00.000-07:002012-05-31T11:35:16.706-07:00Transcript: Dan Rather on The Daily ShowTV news icon Dan Rather — <a href="http://BillMadison.blogspot.com/">my brother's</a> former boss — was the guest on <i>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,</i> talking about “liberal media bias” and the politicization of TV news. The embedded video clip and full transcript follow below the fold.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;">
<div style="padding: 4px;">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:414611" width="512"></iframe><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;">
<b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-30-2012/dan-rather">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br />
Get More: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> My guest tonight, a legendary newsman, you can see him every week on HDNet’s <i>Dan Rather Reports,</i> his new book is called <i>Rather Outspoken,</i> please welcome back to the program <b>Dan Rather</b>!<br />
<br />
Hello, sir!<br />
<br />
<b>Dan Rather:</b> How are you, Jon?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Have a seat. Come and sit! <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666;">[applause]</span></i> How are ya? Nice to see you!<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> Nice to see you — I didn’t realize you’d become the Donald Trump re-election headquarters.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I — can I tell you something? — what a joy. What a gift that would be — imagine what he would do, just decorating-wise, to the White House, just “Trump White House and Casino”; think about it! <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666;"><i>[laughter]</i></span> The book is called <i>Rather Outspoken.</i> This — you know, it covers your whole — I did not realize — you know, there’s beautiful pictures in here of you. You sort of grew up in the Old West; I did not realize that that was your background.<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> Well, I grew up on the Texas coast. When I grew up there, it was pretty much the Old West, that’s true.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Great pictures of you and your mom, standing in front of, you know, old 1930’s automobile on the Plains, pictures of you in 2nd grade and 3rd grade. Do you recall that life like <i>Little House on the Prairie,</i> or was it like — when you were a kid, was it a drag? Like, what —<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> No, no, I had a terrific childhood, and I know that can be boring. I had <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0004388/">rheumatic fever</a> when I was between 10 and 11 for about 3 years, so I was bedridden. That I remember most vividly because I was bedridden and had to stay still in bed — it was an incurable disease at the time — but, you know, before that and after that, I had what I consider a wonderful childhood. Both my parents worked with their back and their hands, very hard-working people.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> And we were all willing, my brother and sisters and I, we started working very early, and that was a real blessing.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> How do you bounce back from rheumatic fever to — what, six years later? — being in the Marines? That’s — I mean, that’s a pretty quick recovery, no?<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> Well, I wouldn’t say “quick recovery.” I did recover — this is not unusual — when I got to be about 14, my father was smart enough to send me to work in brush-cutting crews, pipeline, and oilfield rigs, and I got my body back, and I was 4F for the Service because rheumatic fever was an eliminating disease —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> — but I’m not proud about it, I lied about it and joined the Marines, but I had one of the shortest and least distinguished careers in the whole history of the Marine Corps.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You and I — it’s so weird — because I got my body also through brush cutting and through drilling....<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> Your nose is growing.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes, I know, it is growing. You’ve worked as a TV newsman for a long time, so this may seem like a strange question: Has television been a <b><i>boon</i></b> to people’s knowledge and information about politics, or has it not? Because, we were talking earlier about how television changed the game; at a certain point it seemed like television outsmarted the politicians — has that reversed now?<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> I think it has. I think that the politicians have now outsmarted television. Overall, in the main, I think television has added to everybody’s knowledge about almost everything, but — like the Internet, which is now dominant in the news or soon to be — it has its pluses and minuses, but each successive Presidency, for example, has gotten smarter and smarter about how to manipulate the media, manipulate the press, and use television to its advantage. Also, the trivialization of the news — and what I call the politicalization of news — now results in <i>some</i> news networks just being partisan political propaganda outlets.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Really?? Now, I had not noticed that. I don’t particularly follow the 24-hour news networks, but I <i>understand</i> that they’re all above board.... Does it — for you — this idea of <b><i>“liberal bias”</i></b> and the idea, you know — in your experience, haven’t most journalists, haven’t their politics been <i>somewhat</i> more liberal?<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> No, it hasn’t been my experience.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, it <i>hasn’t</i> been your experience.<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> No, it has <b><i>not</i></b> been my experience.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> Most journalists I grew up with, most journalists I have worked with and practiced with, were trying to be honest brokers of information.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> Now, what will sometimes get you a reputation as a liberal, journalists generally formed an apprenticeship covering the police beat at midnight, after midnight on a Saturday night, the charity hospital. Journalists, the best of them, do see a Dickensian side of society that most people don’t see, so when they try to call attention to that, people who don’t like it say, “Oh, you’re a liberal!” but it has <i>not</i> been my experience. I know what is widely believed, that CBS, NBC, ABC — chock full of liberals: not true. What it’s chock full of is people wanting to give honest news, straightforward news, and voted both ways in many elections. I’m not saying that <i>nobody</i> in the newsroom was liberal, any more than I’m saying anybody conservative. Frequently what happened, people who describe themselves as conservatives want to say, “I worked at CBS News and you know, almost everybody there was liberal.” What they really mean is, not everybody there agreed with them all the time. This is a sham, it’s a camouflage for —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It seems to have been very effective — that “working the refs” — that’s what I would say: it’s really worked —<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> It <i>has</i> worked.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — and people are now very afraid to <b><i>appear</i></b> in any way as though they’re taking a position on anything.<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> Well, that’s true, and that’s why I say that journalism — American journalism — in some ways has lost its guts, or it needs a spine transplant. I do not except myself from this group; I made my mistakes along this line, but there is a price to pay — and I’m not excusing, but if you stand up and ask a really tough question now, challenge, say, a President or a Vice President, you know there’s going to be a price to be paid for that, and so often, it is, “You know what, I’ll just get in the middle, move with the mass, I’ve got house payments....”<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But, back in the day, Jack Anderson — Nixon tried to poison him, or at least had a <i>plan</i> to poison him.<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> Well, the more recent book indicates that the President actually had a plan to kill Jack Anderson at one time; things got that bad. Not made up, these are facts — about which a lot of people want to have amnesia, but, you know, covering the Civil Rights campaign, covering Watergate, covering the Vietnam War, frequently what happens is those in power, whether they be Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, want to say, “Everything is beautiful!”<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> Things down south are not that bad, they were saying in 1961 and ’62, but we learn now, things were every bit as bad as they were conveyed on television, and that’s now the accepted wisdom. This happens time after time because we have amnesia about the things that are unpleasant.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It’s as though power corrupts.<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> Oh, <b><i>there’s</i></b> a bulletin!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, here’s why you gotta get this book, for no reason than it has the best Dan Rather-ism in it that I’ve ever read. I’m reading through this thing, and you describe something as “a nit on a gnat’s nut.” And when I read that, I was like, “I gotta buy <i>two</i> of these!” <i>Rather Outspoken</i> is on the bookshelves now. Thank you so much for being here.<br />
<br />
<b>Rather:</b> Thank you, Jon.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Really appreciate it.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-86024895600183190712012-05-23T14:02:00.001-07:002012-05-29T16:02:56.197-07:00Errata<h3>
Errata • <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 24px; font-weight: normal;">أخطاء مطبعية</span></h3>
The LincMad.com telephone area code website, on the
<a href="http://www.LincMad.com/africa.html#MA">Africa</a>
page, lists +212 52 as a telephone prefix for several
places in southern Morocco.
It previously included an incorrect listing for
<span lang="tzm">ⴰⵝⴰⴷⵉⵔ, ⵓⵎⵔⵔⵓⴽ</span>.
That listing should have indicated
<span lang="tzm">ⴰⴳⴰⴷⵉⵔ, ⵍⵎⴻⵖⵔⵉⴱ (ⴰⵎⴻⵔⵔⵓⴽ).</span>
LincMad.com regrets the error, and apologizes to anyone
who may have been seeking telephone information about
<span lang="tzm">ⵍⵎⴻⵖⵔⵉⴱ</span>
in
<span lang="tzm">ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ,</span>
<span lang="shi">ⵜⴰⵙⴻⵍⵃⵉⵜ,</span>
<span lang="rif">ⵜⴰⵔⵉⴼⵉⵜ,</span>
<span lang="kab">ⵜⴰⵇⴱⴰⵢⵍⵉⵜ,</span> or
<span lang="ber">ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ.</span>
The errors have now been corrected.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, LincMad.com was the only place
on the Internet that the misspelling “<span lang="ber">ⴰⵝⴰⴷⵉⵔ</span>”
appeared, at least as far as Google could tell.
Note also that
<span lang="tzm">ⴰⵎⴻⵔⵔⵓⴽ</span>
(<span lang="tzm"><bdo dir="rtl">امهرروک</bdo></span>)
should not be confused with
<bdo dir="ltr"><span lang="ar"><bdo dir="rtl">أمريكا</bdo></span>.</bdo>
<br />
<hr />
<h3 style="font-style: italic;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;">Annotated version:</span></h3>
The LincMad.com telephone area code website, on the
<a href="http://www.LincMad.com/africa.html#MA">Africa</a>
page, lists +212 52 as a telephone prefix for several
places in southern Morocco.
It previously included an incorrect listing for
<span lang="tzm">ⴰⵝⴰⴷⵉⵔ, ⵓⵎⵔⵔⵓⴽ</span>
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;">[Athadir, Morocco, written in North African Berber Tifinagh alphabet, with the country name spelled in Algerian dialect]</span></i>.
That listing should have indicated
<span lang="tzm">ⴰⴳⴰⴷⵉⵔ, ⵍⵎⴻⵖⵔⵉⴱ (ⴰⵎⴻⵔⵔⵓⴽ)</span>
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;">[Agadir, Elmeɣrib (Elmeghrib) (Amerruk) — Morocco as spelled in Moroccan Berber]</span></i>.
LincMad.com regrets the error, and apologizes to anyone
who may have been seeking telephone information about
<span lang="tzm">ⵍⵎⴻⵖⵔⵉⴱ</span> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;"><i>[Elmeghrib, or Morocco]</i></span> in ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;"><i>[Tamazight, or Central Atlas Berber]</i></span>,
<span lang="shi">ⵜⴰⵙⴻⵍⵃⵉⵜ</span> <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;">[Tashelhiyt, or Shilha Berber]</span></i>,
<span lang="rif">ⵜⴰⵔⵉⴼⵉⵜ</span> <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;">[Tarifit, or Rifian Berber]</span></i>,
<span lang="kab">ⵜⴰⵇⴱⴰⵢⵍⵉⵜ</span> <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;">[Taqbaylit, or Kabyle Berber (Algeria)]</span></i>, or
<span lang="ber">ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ</span> <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;">[Tifinagh, the Berber name for the Berber alphabet]</span></i>.
The errors have now been corrected.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, LincMad.com was the only place
on the Internet that the misspelling “<span lang="ber">ⴰⵝⴰⴷⵉⵔ</span>” <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;">[“Athadir”]</span></i>
appeared, at least as far as Google could tell.
Note also that
<span lang="tzm">ⴰⵎⴻⵔⵔⵓⴽ</span> <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;">[Amerruk, western Berber spelling of Morocco]</span></i>
(<span lang="tzm"><bdo dir="rtl">امهرروک</bdo></span>) <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;">[Amerruk, written in Arabic script]</span></i>
should not be confused with
<span lang="ar"><bdo dir="rtl">أمريكا</bdo></span> <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;">[Amrika, Arabic for America]</span></i>.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;"><i>…and just in case you see a bunch of boxes above instead of funky Berber words, here’s what it should look like:</i></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG7d-U_bZGAJUyC5fbMVjlnv8jrCjqnGvkLtzzNFTyW-KeCe0VRhFn2JfJC4_R2m43dNqADk0pu6pQghMASMpHihO8Ve9COy4qbuyoL-DqsaBZnsDtP1T1bunXGjNitYNyO9ebYg/s1600/Errata-Agadir.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="1" height="465" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG7d-U_bZGAJUyC5fbMVjlnv8jrCjqnGvkLtzzNFTyW-KeCe0VRhFn2JfJC4_R2m43dNqADk0pu6pQghMASMpHihO8Ve9COy4qbuyoL-DqsaBZnsDtP1T1bunXGjNitYNyO9ebYg/s640/Errata-Agadir.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #990000;"><i><br /></i></span><div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-68634808006714129022012-01-30T23:29:00.000-08:002012-01-31T05:22:27.189-08:00Transcript: Lou Dobbs on The Daily ShowJon Stewart’s guest on tonight’s <i>Daily Show</i> was the Fox Business Channel’s own Lou Dobbs. They talked about capitalism, democracy, Occupy Wall Street, and Republican primaries. Embedded video and a complete transcript of the extended interview follow, after the fold.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:407241" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-30-2012/exclusive---lou-dobbs-extended-interview-pt--1">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br />
Get More: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div></div></div><br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:407242" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-30-2012/exclusive---lou-dobbs-extended-interview-pt--2">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br />
Get More: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div></div></div><br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> He is the host of the Fox Business Channel’s <i>Lou Dobbs Tonight</i> — please welcome back to the show Lou Dobbs!<br />
<br />
What’s up, man? How are you, sir? Nice to see you! Come and sit.<br />
<br />
<b>Lou Dobbs:</b> <i>[inaudible]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> How’s things goin’, business-wise? What’s the word?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Going great! Goin’ absolutely great at Fox Business.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, okay. But not the economy, you’re talking about Fox Business.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Well, no — well, I start there and then I work my way out.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right, fair enough.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> The rest of the country, I think, is starting to do better.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It <i>is</i> starting to do better.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> I absolutely believe we reached a turning point last October, and I think we’re seeing things improve — slowly, gradually, not as much as we’d like, but —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> How will Fox Business News <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[sic]</span></i> blame that on Obama? <i>[audience cheers]</i> Will it be difficult?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Now wait a minute! Jon, let me help just a little bit here in this.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right, fair enough.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> The fact is that President Obama has all of his causal relationships already established; we just report the facts.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh! Now, when did <i>that</i> start??<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> All I can speak for is what I do.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, I understand; it’s excellent work. How are you enjoying the Republican primary? It seems to have taken a terribly nasty turn over these past couple of debates.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Horrible turn, nasty. <i>[pause, chuckles to himself]</i> We love it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And you’re — you guys!! That’s terrible!<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Come on, are you kidding me? A year ago, you tell me anybody who would’ve predicted that the Republican primary would be interesting, galvanizing, compelling, entertaining. Come on — I mean, this is really good stuff.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But in the way that <i>Fear Factor</i> is. It’s not — there’s nobody emerging that feels statesmanlike. It’s more like, “Oh my god! He just ate a bull testicle!!” Like, it’s just not — it doesn’t <i>feel</i> — <br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> I know that you would like — I know that you’d like to <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repair?show=0&t=1328015384">repair</a> to something more PBS-like —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes!!<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> — in our politics, but it’s not going to happen. And what <i>I</i> love, and I think most Americans really do, Jon — and I think in a candid moment here, you might —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You’re about to call me an American!!<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> I <i>absolutely</i> call you an American.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Thank you!<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> I think that the great — <i>[turns to audience]</i> a <i>great</i> American! <i>[audience cheers]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>[waves to the cheering crowd]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> I truly believe those who don’t enjoy the rough-and-tumble — and it isn’t always pretty, and sometimes it is nasty — but our democracy works in the public arena, in which we can test ideas, principles, and values, and we come to a decision every 4 years for President. I think that’s a <i>great</i> thing.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Here’s what I’m liking about the debates: they seem to be the only manner in which we can offset some of the big money that pours into these campaigns now —<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> I agree with you.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — because the debates are somewhat democratizing, you know. Clearly, Romney has an enormous edge in spending, in Florida and everywhere else, whether it’s his money or friends of his money that they got —<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> — over whom he has no influence —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — over whom he has no control. But the debates are in some way a democratizing element to that money, it would seem.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> I agree with you 100%, and the fact — the facts kind of mitigate that a little, like when we look at President Obama, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich, sometimes it <i>eludes</i> us that they’re all millionaires, so it gets to be a little, you know —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Hasn’t it been interesting, though, to watch the millionaires going after the multi-multi-millionaires?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Yes. It’s a little like the way Obama goes after “billionaires and millionaires” when he wants to tax them, <b>not understanding</b> the order of magnitude difference between a millionaire and a billionaire.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right. Wait — what??<br />
<br />
<hr /><div style="text-align: center;"><i><b>part 2</b></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><b>Stewart:</b> Don’t you — isn’t it interesting that the rhetoric about capitalism —<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — that they used very much on the 99% movement — the Occupy Wall Street movement — <br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Oh, yes.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — when they —<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Has that become a movement now?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, I think it’s a movement.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Because I haven’t been able to get a very good count, because the best I’ve seen is arrests running into about 3 to 4,000, but I haven’t been able to hear a real good count of what the <i>movement</i> is —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I think it’s about, there’s probably around 320 million of ‘em.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> 320?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yeah, in the 99%. <i>[audience cheers]</i> Here’s the thing: here’s what I believe it is. It’s funny: when you criticize multi-millionaires — and I’m one of ‘em, and God bless me — but when you criticize that, they say that that is somehow “anti-capitalist,” and I think what you’re [...] criticizing is [not] capitalism, what you’re criticizing is the idea that there’s almost like a <b>wealth incumbency</b> in this country. Let’s look at it in the way that incumbents get to Washington and then change the rules around to make it so that they get to <i>stay</i> in Washington as Congresspeople and Senators. I think the idea in the country is, very wealthy people have gerrymandered certain districts to create a wealth incumbency. Is that attacking capitalism, or is that attacking a <i>perversion</i> of capitalism?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> No, actually, I think what you’re doing, you’re attacking federal judges in San Antonio, Texas, who went along with a redistricting plan for the entire state of Texas that the <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-713.pdf">U.S. Supreme Court just had to overturn</a> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[PDF]</span> because they were trying to create —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You know I was creating a metaphor?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> I know you were.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But listen closely —<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> — and I was resorting to facts.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, no, no, no, no. But all they did was they said that a federal judge shouldn’t draw the districts himself.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Yeah, they really should. And they shouldn’t —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> They <i>did</i> say what the Republicans had done was unfair.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> No, what the — no, no, no. What they said was that Democratic — that federal judges —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you — in your heart, you believe that political parties change districts in a fair and measured way to help democracy and in no way do it to give one side an advantage?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> No, not at all. What I do believe is, elections — as our President continues to remind us — have consequences, and that state legislatures, which are either Republican or Democrat, have that power and ability to redistrict and have done so.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But don’t we have a responsibility when we see those consequences being used perversely to say, “Hey, man, that seems illegal”?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> I think that’s what the Supreme Court just did with those judges who tried to apportion all of those districts in the state of Texas, not the 4 that were in question.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Are they letting ’em keep, then, that districting map?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> No, they’re not.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Ahh! Because why? Why aren’t they letting them keep it?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Because the federal judges became <i>activists</i> and —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, no, no, why isn’t the Supreme Court letting ’em keep it? The Supreme Court is saying, “You’re right, but <b><i>they</i></b> have to redo the map, not you.”<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> No, what they said was, “You can only redraw 4 of the districts, and you have to use the legislature’s work product, and you can’t go to a full —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> How can you condescend to me when they said —<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> I’m not condesce—<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — there’s 4 districts they’re redoing?!?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Because they —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> There’s 4 they’re redoing!!!<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Because <b><i>they</i></b> redistricted all of Texas!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I know, and they redistricted all of it, and then they said, “Oh, and four of them are <b><i>cheating</i></b>”!<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Well, four — well —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> “Well, it’s just four. It’s just <b><i>four</i></b>!”<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> What I think —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That’s like saying, “I don’t mind capitalism, but I don’t like the idea that you get to take ‘carried interest’ at capital gains rates instead of 35%,” and you go, “Well, no, but <i>most</i> of the rules of capitalism are fair,” and going, “Yeah, <b>but that one’s <i>NOT</i>!!</b>”<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> No, but I’ve got a question. <i>[audience cheers, Jon Stewart does a victory dance]</i> Jon, forgive me for not being clear.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>[pointing to audience]</i> This is not fair.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> No, it is not fair, and I’m going to blunder ahead, no matter what.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> A <i>judge</i> should step in.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> That’s right. And let me be the referee. The point being that those judges attempted to redraw <i>all</i> of the districts of the state of Texas —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right, when they should’ve only done four.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Four. Four. That was my point.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Good case!<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> How do I end up defending 4 poorly drawn districts when my point was that they had no right to go beyond those 4?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, because your original point seemed to be that the federal judges were being “activist” in even getting involved —<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> They were! You may not —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — I mean, in even getting involved.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> You may not consider —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> In even <i>getting involved</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> No, not in getting involved —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, there you go.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> — but —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So we agree?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> — abusing their power.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But it’s checks and balances, and then the Supreme Court went, “Actually, that’s too far” —<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> It’s checks and balances if they restrain themselves to the four districts in question; it’s <i>abuse</i> of power if they go beyond it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, it’s checks and balances when another group steps in and goes, “Yeah, that was —”<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> The Supreme Court. Is that what you’re looking for?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But that’s like saying, “Uh, yeah, this vaccine caused a problem,” then the FDA stepped in and said it’s a problem, and you’re, like, “See?” You’re like, “Yeah! That’s kinda how it’s supposed to go.” Isn’t it??<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> It’s —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> “They found a rat in a Subway and the health inspector shut it down,” and you’re, like, “Yeah, that’s his job.” Isn’t that —<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> As you said to begin this —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yeah.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> — it must be a metaphor, that alludes me.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I don’t know what the hell just happened here, Dobbs, but let me tell you something. <i>[gestures with his index finger]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Are you doing a <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">[Arizona Governor Jan]</span> Brewer?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Say again? I <i>am</i> doing a Brewer.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> You were, you were.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Here’s the thing: don’t we have fun together?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> We do, absolutely.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Can I tell you what would be a hilarious movie?<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> I’m ready.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You and me road trip to Mexico.<br />
<br />
<b>Dobbs:</b> Yee-ha! You’re on.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>Lou Dobbs Tonight</i> airs at Fox Business weeknights at 7:00; Lou Dobbs!<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-53796322777608054782011-11-17T15:57:00.000-08:002011-11-17T15:57:00.127-08:00Analysis of Ranked-Choice Voting: SF D.A. 2011The bulk of the media attention to last week's local election in San Francisco has been directed at the mayoral race — the first competitive contest under both public financing and ranked-choice voting (RCV). However, digging a bit beneath the surface of the election of the District Attorney sheds some light on how RCV played out. I was able to download the entirety of the ballots from a public website. To be clear, I cannot tell how a specific person voted; however, I can tell you exactly how many people voted for Bill Fazio in 1st place, George Gascón in 2nd place, and David Onek in 3rd place: 1,055. I can also tell you that the progressives who supported the ticket of Onek–Bock–Fazio (recommended by the <a href="http://www.sfbg.com/2011/11/01/guardian-clean-slate-2011">San Francisco Bay Guardian</a>/sfbg.com and others) had the unintended effect of helping George Gascón to an easy win. Although she was the second choice of the "anybody but Gascón" crowd, Sharmin Bock's core supporters clearly were not fully on board with the concept.<br />
<br />
An important caveat is that the data I downloaded were preliminary results, and do not include the last 2,603 ballots (1.39%) to be processed.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Before I get into the heart of the discussion, there are some interesting factoids buried in the data. The most popular ballot cast — and indeed the only one more popular than completely blank — was for George Gascón only, with no backup choice. A total of 24,045 people, or 13.92% of voters who expressed any preference at all, voted only for George Gascón, including the 102 who voted for him only as their 2nd choice and the 45 who voted for him as both 1st and 3rd choice but nobody for 2nd choice. Far more relevant is that Gascón was marked somewhere on the ballots of 107,731 voters (62.36%), compared with 106,391 voters (61.58%) who supported Sharmin Bock. David Onek was in a distant third, with only 78,713 voters (45.56%) giving him the nod at any level, barely ahead of exactly 72,000 (41.68%) who supported Bill Fazio. <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">(The percentages add to more than 100% because I am combining 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice votes in the totals.)</span></i><br />
<br />
<center><table border="0"><tbody>
<tr> <td align="left"><br />
<table><caption><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><b>Bock eliminated</b></span></caption> <tbody>
<tr> <th></th> <th>Round 2</th> <th>pickup<br />
from Bock</th> <th>total votes</th> </tr>
<tr> <th align="left">Gascón</th> <td align="right">80,538</td> <td align="right">+15,786</td> <td align="right">96,324</td> </tr>
<tr> <th align="left">Onek</th> <td align="right">44,606</td> <td align="right">+12,528</td> <td align="right">57,134</td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="right" colspan="3"><i>Gascón's margin of victory:</i></td> <td align="right"><i>39,190</i></td> </tr>
</tbody></table></td> <td align="center" width="15%"></td><td align="right"><br />
<table><caption><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><b>Onek eliminated</b></span></caption> <tbody>
<tr> <th></th> <th>Round 2</th> <th>pickup<br />
from Onek</th> <th>total votes</th> </tr>
<tr> <th align="left">Gascón</th> <td align="right">80,538</td> <td align="right">+6,805</td> <td align="right">87,343</td> </tr>
<tr> <th align="left">Bock</th> <td align="right">42,391</td> <td align="right">+27,940</td> <td align="right">70,331</td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="right" colspan="3"><i>Gascón's margin of victory:</i></td> <td align="right"><i>17,012</i></td> </tr>
</tbody></table></td> </tr>
</tbody></table></center><br />
<br />
In the first round of the RCV process, Gascón led with 72,453 votes, with Onek at 40,066 and Bock at 35,920. Because it was mathematically impossible for Bill Fazio (18,114 first-place votes, and only 72,000 total votes) or Vu Vuong Trinh (6,210 first-place, 24,963 total) to overcome Gascón's lead, they were both eliminated in the first round, with their votes transferred to their 2nd or 3rd choice selections. That left Gascón still with a sizable lead but less than 50%, with Onek and Bock neck-and-neck for runner-up, but Onek's first-choice advantage enabled him to squeak past Bock into the final round, even though Bock picked up half again as many votes from Fazio and Trinh as Onek did. Thus, Sharmin Bock was eliminated and her votes redistributed to Gascón and Onek. Those Bock voters, though, supported Gascón by a margin of 15,786 to 12,538 for Onek, allowing Gascón to coast to an easy victory.<br />
<br />
<b>If Sharmin Bock had been able to pull ahead of David Onek,</b> his supporters' next-choice votes would have favored her by more than 4-to-1 over George Gascón, 27,940 to 6,805. The final outcome would have been the same — Gascón's lead was simply insurmountable — but it would have cut his margin of victory by more than half. If the overall race had been closer, Gascón's fate could easily have ridden on who came in second.<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><table cellpadding="3"><caption><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Total votes by rank</span></b></caption> <tbody>
<tr> <th></th> <th>1st</th> <th>2nd</th> <th>3rd</th> <th>total</th> </tr>
<tr> <th align="left">Sharmin Bock</th> <td align="right">35,920</td> <td align="right">51,660</td> <td align="right">18,811</td> <td align="right">106,391</td> </tr>
<tr> <th align="left">George Gascón</th> <td align="right">72,453</td> <td align="right">22,012</td> <td align="right">13,266</td> <td align="right">107,731</td> </tr>
<tr> <th align="left">David Onek</th> <td align="right">40,066</td> <td align="right">20,333</td> <td align="right">18,314</td> <td align="right">78,713</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></center><br />
<br />
<b>A few more factoids:</b> Sharmin Bock received more 2nd-choice votes than George Gascón and David Onek <i>combined,</i> and also led in 3rd-choice votes. She was the favored 2nd-choice not only of the Onek–Bock–Fazio "anybody but Gascón" ticket, but also of Gascón's supporters and Trinh's supporters, but Bill Fazio's supporters backed Gascón. Bock also came in 2nd among voters who chose only one candidate, with 8,678 votes to Gascón's 24,045, Onek's 6,187, and Fazio's 5,317. The Bay Guardian's "clean slate" (O-B-F) received 10,721 votes, making it the third most popular ballot, after "Gascón only" and "no vote." Out of 184,808 total ballots, including 12,045 undervotes, only 90,072 voters selected three different candidates as their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices. A total of 45,800 voters chose only one candidate; of those voters, 37,768 marked their candidate only as a 1st choice, 301 only as a 2nd choice, and 157 only as a 3rd choice.<br />
<br />
There has also been a great deal of discussion about <b>voter confusion</b> regarding the process of ranked-choice voting. Some of the odd ballot markings do indeed demonstrate that some voters were unclear on the concept. For example, 157 voters chose no one for 1st or 2nd, but selected one of the candidates as their 3rd choice. (Those ballots were promoted to 1st-choice, so they did count.) While it is tempting to picture a voter making a stand for "None of the Above" as their first choice, defiantly digging in on the second, with a reluctant concession to reality in the third-choice slot, it's rather more likely they simply didn't know what they were doing. Even more confused were voters who chose the same candidate for 1st and 3rd, but a different one for 2nd. A total of 1,312 voters made that nonsensical mistake, led by the 240 who voted for Gascón–Fazio–Gascón. There were 9,277 voters who marked the same candidate in two or three consecutive slots; the extra ranking was simply disregarded. Still, with 172,763 marked ballots, the overwhelming majority cast clear and unambiguous ballots, suggesting that the "voter confusion" angle is little more than media hype.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-36163649450329091512011-11-08T23:59:00.000-08:002011-11-09T17:38:33.014-08:00Transcript: Bill Clinton on The Daily ShowBill Clinton was the featured guest on tonight's <i>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</i> on Comedy Central. The extended interview is in 3 segments, embedded video below, with the transcript of part 1 after the jump. Parts 2 and 3 of the transcript will be added tomorrow. <b><i>Update:</i></b> transcript of all 3 segments completed.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-size: xx-small;">Copyright ©2011 Comedy Central, all rights reserved. Transcript presented under "fair use" in the furtherance of political discourse.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="340" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal arial; width: 512px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-8-2011/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--1" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Exclusive - Bill Clinton Extended Interview Pt. 1</a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; width: 512px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:401781" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="340" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal arial; width: 512px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-8-2011/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--2" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Exclusive - Bill Clinton Extended Interview Pt. 2</a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; width: 512px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:401782" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="340" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal arial; width: 512px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-8-2011/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--3" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Exclusive - Bill Clinton Extended Interview Pt. 3</a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; width: 512px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:401783" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Welcome back! My guest tonight: the 42nd President of these United States. His new book is called <i>Back to Work: Why we need smart government for a strong economy.</i> Please welcome back to the program <b>President Bill Clinton</b>!<br />
<br />
Nice to see ya!<br />
<br />
<b>Bill Clinton:</b> Thank you. Thank you.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Hope all is well. How are ya?<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> Good.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You look good.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> At my age, you know, it's a minute-by-minute thing, but I think —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, I gotta tell ya: you look younger than me; I don't like it. [audience laughs] <i>Back to Work: Why we need smart government for a strong economy</i> — this is — there are very specific prescriptions for how to run this country. Have you signed a copy of this to President Obama? Because <b>he</b>, I think, would be very interested in flipping through it.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> First of all, you know, the second half of the book are the specific things I think should be done. Several of them have already been advocated by the President, and in each case I say, this is something they're doing now. The first half of the book explains how we got in this mess, and basically the economic and social history of the last thirty years. So I did it because I wanted Americans to know that how we're doin' now, compared to our history and our competitors, and the answer is, we're still doin' pretty well, but thigns are not going in the right direction. They're going in the wrong direction, and now, what will we need to do to turn it around? I don't know if you saw the headline today, 49 million Americans living below the poverty line —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh! I thought you were going to say 49 million Americans accused Herman Cain! Okay, so you got 49 million Americans living below the poverty line. I didn't know where you were going. But what you said was more salient, so let's stick with that.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> Maybe not as good of a press coverage, but more salient.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> So, anyway, what I tried to do is to say, first, if you look at this economic problem we've got, it's very important — and I think maybe nobody, including me, maybe we haven't been clear enough to the American people. If you go back 500 years, whenever there's a financial meltdown, that, as compared with a traditional recession, takes between 5 and 10 years to get over. If, going back to the time of — over 100 years or so of widespread home ownership, if you have a mortgage collapse at the same time, it takes a little longer. So, what our goal should be in America is to beat those odds, and to do it in a way that <b>restores</b> our competitive position in the world, and the fundamental problem we've got in America today — and this is my beef with the Tea Party, and with the "no compromise ever on taxes, never, never, never" crowd in Congress — is that what works in real life is people getting together with different perspectives and figuring out how to solve problems. Cooperatino works. What works in politics is conflict. And so — but the American people somehow know that, so these Tea Party guys must be totally bewildered that approval of Congress is 8% or something, and they say, all we're doing is what we told you we were gonna do if you voted for us, you voted for us, now we're doing what we told you we were gonna do. They don't understand is that what people really voted for was a kind of amorphous sense that things weren't getting better and maybe there was too much governmnet, maybe they'd balance it out. So I try to be very specific in this book about things we could do.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But that's been a very successful tack, is to say, get government out of our lives. Have the Democrats made the case that government should actually <b>be</b> in our lives, and then made the case that it <b><i>is</i></b> effective and accountable in the 21st century, because it hasn't shown itself to be very agile or effective in combattng these crises?<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> Well, actually, I think, people judge it in a pretty straightforward way. Trust in government was at an all-time high because the economy was working and government was working. Trust in government goes down when the economy is in the tank, but I personally believe that the President had to act — first President Bush, then President Obama — to save the financial system. I think they had to do something, or should have, to do what President Obama did to restructure the automobile industry. It <i>wasn't</i> a bailout, it was a restructuring. We're gonna get our money back, and there are 80,000 more people working. And if they hadn't done it, there would be 2 million fewer people working. But you've got to put this into some context. You've got to say the stimulus did almost exactly what it was supposed to do, except it was too small. The economy shrunk 7.5%. We lost 7.5% of GDP at the bottom of that recession. Trillions of dollars in wealth — 75% of Americans' wealth is in their homes — they lost so much of it. You can't fill a multi-trillion-dollar hole with $800 billion — at least, I can't. I can't figure out how to make the math work.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I would like to <i>try</i> that.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> But it put a <i>floor</i> under the recession and kept it from being a depression, but it couldn't lift us all the way out. So, what we have to do now is, all of us ask ourselves, what is the best way to crawl our way out of this, and <b><i>when</i></b> should we deal with the long-term debt problem — not <i>if</i> but when. And the argument I make in the book is, the reason all these people ought to be working together instead of fighting is that you cannot, for example, deal with the debt problem, as the British are now finding —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — with austerity.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> — with austerity unless you have growth. If you have growth, then when you cut the deficit, for example, you get lower interest rates, you save money for homeowners, you save money for businesses, you get more money invested. But if interest rates are already virtually 0%, there's no activity, if you have huge cutbacks now, probably what will happen is that tax revenues will go down even more than spending will be cut, and the deficit will get worse. We've got to grow the economy and put people back to work.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Here's what we're gonna do: we're gonna take a break. When we come back, we're gonna talk about growth. You and me, together, we're gonna form some sort of a "club" for growth. We'll be right back with more, President Bill Clinton.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Part 2</span></b></div><br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We're back here, we're talkin' to President Bill Clinton about <b>growth</b>. Now, the Republican argument for growth is always the same, in almost any condition, which is: deregulate and cut taxes. I'm surprised to see in the book, there is — you do say, corporate tax should come down. When you were President, you lowered capital gains [tax]. Is that saying — why is that? Because it seems to <i>increase</i> income inequality rather than help it.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> Well, let's talk about now, but briefly: keep in mind, when I was President, first I <i>raised</i> taxes —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> — on individuals <b><i>and</i></b> corporations — on the wealthiest 1.2% of us and on the corporations, and I cut the <i>deduction</i> corporations could take for executive compensation and <i>eliminated</i> the deduction for lobbying expenses. So then, when the Republicans won the Congress, I basically believed that the citizens geared for compromise, and I thought, number one, we were trying to balance the budget — we were 90% of hte way home before the Balanced Budget Act even passed — and if I agreed to cut the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, in return for that, what I got was the higher-education tax credits (the Hope Scholarships, we called them) and a million people in work-study — the biggest increase in higher-education aid since the G.I. Bill — <b><i>and</i></b> the Children's Health Insurance Program, which now insures about 10 million kids, and, if you read the poverty report today, is single-handedly responsible for <i>millions</i> of kids moving out of poverty, so I thought it was a good compromise, and I didn't think it would hurt the economy. I didn't understand why we went to 15% — I personally thought that was way too low, because the average person pays, with all the deductions and everything, about 20% – 20½% in taxes, and I don't think you want capital gains to get too much below that. That's not good policy. But I thought it was an honorable compromise. Now, where are we now? When I raised the corporate tax rate from 33% to 35% for corporations with incomes over $10 million a year, that put us smack-dab in the middle of all the rich countries. Since then, everybody's done two things: they've lowered their corporate tax rate and they have stopped taxing the income that corporations earn in other countries when it comes home.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So there's amnesty on any of that money. They can bring that home and it's not —<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> We're the only — yeah, in other countries.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> We still do it. We say, you get a <i>deduction</i> for what you pay in other countries, but you still owe the 35% minus the deduction.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But the <i>real</i> rate — corporate tax rate — is much lower than that in the United States.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> Yeah. So, the reason I think it should change is, first, most people aren't paying it. The corporate tax take — the actual amount paid — is 23%, which is 1% <b><i>below</i></b> the average of other wealthy countries — so, what I recommend is that we broaden the base (that is, eliminate some of the credits and deductions, or at least smooth them out, have a de facto alternative minimum for corporate income) and get pretty close to that 23%, but we should leave it maybe at 24% or 25%, whatever it takes to fund a very generous research and development tax credit, because I want to bring manufacturing jobs — high-end manufacturing jobs — back to America, and increasingly manufacturers all over the world want their research and development to be close to their manufacturing. We've got a <i>huge</i> chance to do that now, and so I would leave the R&D tax credit. I would eliminate the others. One real problem is, there is no correlation between the amount of corporate tax that companies pay and whether they're creating jobs in America, so if you flatten it out, you'll be rewarding the job generators in America.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Part 3</span></b></div><br />
<b>Stewart:</b> This is the point that I was — drives me crazy: you know, they say corporations are people, they have the rights, but they're not Americans. So, the idea that we could <i>drop</i> —<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> I don't think they <i>are</i> people; I hate that <i>Citizens United</i> decision.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So do I! Drives me crazy, because if they're people, they're sociopaths. They have no morality.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> Here's the deal.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> They just have a profit motive for shareholders; that's not a <i>moral</i> individual.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> Well, when <i>I</i> went to law school, I was probably in the Dark Ages, in the 70's —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's when I went.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> I was — yeah, were you <i>born</i> then? — anyway, I was part, virtually, of the last generation of American law students and business students taught that corporations had a responsibility — because they had special privileges under the law, like limited liability — to their stakeholders: to their shareholders, their employees, their customers, and the communities of which they were a part. But starting in the late 70's, that practice changed, and all of a sudden, the stakeholders were way up — the shareholders were way up here, and all the stakeholders were down here. It had the ironic consequence of giving the most influence over corporate decisions to the stakeholders with the least concern about the long-term profitability of the corporation and the greatest concern about the short-term profitability, which accelerated a lot of these trends.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> [inaudible]<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> So we need to be competitive because we want them to — they've got $2 trillion they could bring back here and invest — but we also need to try to create an ethic in America where the employees and the customers and the communities count, too, and we need to make it easier for those corporations to act that way again. We can help and support that. We need — but that's the point I try to make in the book. What works everywhere — the countries that are doing great, that have a higher percentage of college graduates than we do, higher growth rates, lower income inequality — are countries where there's a partnership, a working relationship with government and business. The communities in America that are doing great — Orlando — I was in Orlando last night. They have <i>one hundred</i> computer simulation companies.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It's the happiest place on earth.<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> Yeah. Well, they got Disney and Universal and Global Entertainment Arts videogame division — they all need simulators, right? They also get $5 billion a year from the Defense Department and NASA, the space agency, because they need simulators. And they've got a university, the University of Central Florida, with 53,000 students, that will change the curriculum every single semester to train people to do the jobs.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, who is doing the manufacturing policy? Who is planning this at a central level? That's the thing that makes me crazy. It doesn't seem like we have one. China's got a factory with 400,000 people in it; they work in conditions that no American should <b><i>ever</i></b> have to experience. Cutting Apple's corporate tax rate isn't gonna bring that —<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> We don't have to do that. We don't have to do that. What we have to do — that shouldn't be the government's role. We should figure out is, where do we have a competitive advantage? For example, in solar energy and wind energy — both of which would already be competitive with coal if you had to pay the extraneous costs of coal, the healthcare costs and other things — and which will be — wind within 2 years, solar within 5, will be competitive in price with coal; they're both cheaper than nuclear right now. And I think — what we need to do is to make sure that we meet the competition in terms of the tax incentives and other things to bring these manufacturing jobs here. If we do, we're gonna do fine. We've got a great venture capital network, we have massive capacity in all these clean-tech areas. Just think about it: we were bypassed in the last decade by Germany in the production and deployment of solar cells. The sun shines, on average, in Germany as much as it does in <i>London.</i> But Deutsche Bank — not Greenpeace, Deutsche Bank — [Jon Stewart laughs] — did a study saying that even if you account for the subsidies the German government and German people paid to get that solar, they still netted 300,000 jobs. So, we're four times as big and twice as capable, so you do the math: it's 2½ million jobs if we do what they did. We have <b><i>got</i></b> to be competitive in these areas, and I don't mind giving people tax credits, but it ought to be to generate jobs and opportunity in America.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You're saying there's gotta be caveats associated with it; I agree. <i>Back to Work</i> — you should read this; it's on the bookshelves now. President Bill Clinton. Thank you.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-8090355662585098102011-09-28T23:29:00.000-07:002011-09-29T23:06:55.671-07:00Transcript: Billo on Daily Show 9/28/2011Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly was the guest on tonight's <i>Daily Show with Jon Stewart.</i> The embedded video and transcript appear after the fold. (<b><i>Update:</i></b> complete transcript of Part 1 [as aired on Comedy Central] and Part 2 [web extra from TheDailyShow.com])<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="340" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal arial; width: 512px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-28-2011/exclusive---bill-o-reilly-extended-interview-pt--1" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Exclusive - Bill O'Reilly Extended Interview Pt. 1</a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; width: 512px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:398338" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="340" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal arial; width: 512px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-28-2011/exclusive---bill-o-reilly-extended-interview-pt--2" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Exclusive - Bill O'Reilly Extended Interview Pt. 2</a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; width: 512px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:398339" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Transcript, Part 1</b></div>
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Welcome back! My guest tonight, he is the <i>host</i> of the Fox News show <i>The O'Reilly Factor</i>; his new book is called <i>Killing Lincoln: the shocking assassination that changed America forever.</i> Please welcome back to the show Mr. Bill O'Reilly!<br />
<br />
[to O'Reilly] Sir! Come and sit! A pleasure, sir, a pleasure.<br />
<br />
<b>Bill O'Reilly:</b> [to audience] Thank you.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Thank you so much for being here. The book is — and, again, I don't want to criticize your cover designer — <i>Bill O'Reilly Killing Lincoln</i>.... [audience cheers] By the way, it is an excellent book and a nice read and, uh ...<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Somebody read it to you?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Damn you, O'Reilly! Always quick on the draw! Uh, excellent book; you're going to sell, I think, millions and millions of copies.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Thank you.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We're not going to talk about it.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Okay.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Here's what I want to ask you: You were on your show the other night — I watch it frequently — you say, if Obama raises your taxes to 50%, which you believe is possible, that you may not do your show any more?<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Right. I'll take Colbert's place.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yeah! You know he's faking it?<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Somebody has to.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What percentage of that threat is empty?<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Uh, all of it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You're not goin' anywhere!<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> No, no. There comes a point where, if you're gonna be taxed by the federal government at <i>fifty</i>, and then you gotta pay your property taxes, your sales taxes, your tolls to get into the city. They're <i>charging admission</i> to get into New York City, $14.50 to get in.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And yet free to go to New Jersey. [audience laughs] What are you gonna do?<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Well, it comes a point where you say, you know, Is this worth it?<br />
<br />
You and I both work hard — well, <b><i>I</i></b> do — [audience groans] Hey! He's got 18 writers back there!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>Somebody's</i> gotta peel the carrots!<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> True, and that's a good point: you and I employ a lot of people —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's right.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> — and a lot of people depend on us.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We're job creators.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> We are! The entrepreneurial class.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But, but, this whole idea that somehow the tax burden would become so onerous on us, that we would just rather not take home $3 million if we can't get that $<b><i>3.5</i></b> million — fuck it! Do you know what I mean? That's <i>crazy</i> talk and you know it!<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> You're not makin' that much money!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Here's all I'm sayin': What is this whole business with the "poor, poor" rich and wealthy in this country? So <b><i>unfair</i></b> to them!!<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Are you <b><i>ever</i></b> gonna wise up? Ever?? I mean, we've been doin' this dance....<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Teach me, professor.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Okay.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Teach me.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> I don't mind payin' 40%, but first they're gonna have to stop wasting the money. One word: Solyndra. Do you know what that is, Solyndra?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes, I do.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> How much money was wasted there? Do you know?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> $500 million.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> $<b><i>528</i></b> million.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Okay.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Okay, $528 million. So, if you clean it up, if you stop <b><i>wasting</i></b> it, <i>then</i> you come to the "job creators" [gestures to himself and Jon Stewart], and we'll help you out.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Let me just, very quickly: Solyndra was an investment the government made — the Department of Energy, I think, of $10 billion or $20 billion — in new energy technologies, Solyndra being one of them —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Solar panels.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, that was one of them. There was also wind and nuclear. That was about 0.5% of the money that the Department of Energy spent. Are you saying that the government should no longer, in any way, subsidize new industries? Because without that, no Internet, no roads to Long Island [audience laughs] —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> There'll <i>always</i> be roads to Long Island. Now, listen —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But that's my point! That's a very —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> You've <i>got</i> to downsize the government so they can <i>watch</i> what's happening and make intelligent decisions. It's insane! Right now — look, "the $16 muffin." Do we all know what the $16 muffin is, all right?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What??<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> [shouting] See, you don't even <i>know</i> what the $16 muffin is!!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What neighborhood do you live in?? Who makes a $16 muffin??<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> This is great! I'm glad! Look —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> $16 muffin, broke the story last week on the Factor — <b><i>you</i></b> were otherwise occupied, making your little "wise remarks." Not reading what's happening. They had a bunch of conferences for pinheads, federal government, and they ordered 250 muffins at $16 each.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's a lot for a muffin.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Yeah!! And you know what? I paid for the muffin!!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I understand that.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> And so did <b><i>you!!</i></b> [vigorously jabs his right index finger at Jon Stewart]<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I can understand that. Let me — are you familiar with "Wall Street"?<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> No.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Because there's this idea —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Is that run by the federal government?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, it's not.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Not yet!! [repeats finger jab]<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, it's not, but interestingly enough, <i>they</i> had a little problem that added up to a little more than — what's $16 times 250 muffins? — so, Capitalism also finds itself going astray sometimes and wrecking our economy. If you believe we should go back to the good "bubble and bust" days of the 1890's —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> I don't like the "bubble and bust" days.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Exactly!<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> I want efficiency and honesty <i>in all areas.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So you and I are agreeing here —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Sympatico.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You and I are both — you know, when you speak a foreign language [audience laughs], it is ... oddly arousing. You know — but here is my [O'Reilly leans away from Stewart] — come back, come back! — Wait, here's what I'm going to do: when he [O'Reilly] gets over his nervous feelings — here's what I'm going to say: <i>Killing Lincoln</i> is on the bookshelves now. Go buy this book, because this man may not do it any longer if he can't — go buy this book right now, help him feed his family. We're gonna come back with more; it'll be up on the Interwebs. Mr. Bill O'Reilly. We're comin' right back.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Transcript, Part 2</b></div>
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We don't edit anything.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I just wanted to say, now, this next segment will go right to the web. Hundreds and thousands of people will see it. It's is a big break for you. A lot of people are gonna see you. [to audience] We're back with Bill O'Reilly. Here's what I want to know — because I think you and I are agreeing on principle but maybe not degrees of which. Do you think this past decade, these past 20 years, has been a good 20 years for the wealthy?<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Yeah, I would say a good 20 years for the wealthy, with the technological developments and things like that. Look, I don't have any sympathy for the pinheads who were stealing money and doing all the derivative selling and doing all the day trading. I don't like these people, all right? And I think there should be government watchdogs and set up rules where they can do this and can't do that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, you're a Democrat?<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> On that I am. I'm a Democrat on that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's good!<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> But my tax dollars <i>mean</i> something to me. I work hard for my money. All right? We've got a $14.5 trillion debt in this country. These people don't watch the money. They just bid it out because they know guys like you and me will keep payin' it, and it's got to stop. It's got to be downsized and it's got to run efficiently.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But revenues — the big argument in this country right now, with between [sic] the Democrats and the Republicans, appears to be: the Democrats are saying we need to cut spending, but we also need to raise revenues.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Raising revenue is fine, and I'm for that, but you do it in an efficient way: flat taxes, small consumption tax. We've a trillion dollars in the un—<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Small consumption — well, here's what the rest —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Wait, wait. We've a trillion dollars in the underground economy, people not paying any taxes at all. Your cocaine dealers, okay, these people. All right, they're not filing.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, you want to legalize cocaine?<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> I want a consumption tax, so when they buy their Bentleys they pay 2% or 3%, so we get something from everybody. It's $1 trillion. You put that in, you bring all the income tax rates down.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, the debt crisis in America is caused by renegade cocaine dealers who are avoiding their social responsibilities. Bill, here is my point to you: every Republican candidate for President, the people that want to be the tentpost for that party, were offered a choice on the debate stage: $10 for $1 of revenue increase in the form of taxes. Every single one of them said no. Say right now that that is <i>incredibly</i> irresponsible and you could <i>never</i> support someone who's that — if I may borrow the term — pinheaded.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Okay, look. I'm not going to generalize about anything. Herman Cain —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's not general! That's not general! That's specific!<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> That's a <i>total</i> distortion.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I'm telling you specifically what they said!<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Herman Cain wants to put a 9% national sales tax —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> — and bring everybody's down. They all have their little things they want to do. I want to raise revenue because the government <i>needs</i> revenue to protect you from me, okay?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Wait — what??<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> <i>Has</i> to have that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You mean, like, Jews getting in your club?? What are you saying? What are you talking about?? Protect me from you??<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> I'm not gonna give you — I'm paying through the roof in taxes.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You're paying less than you paid in the 90's!<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> That's not true.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes it is!!<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Property taxes are up —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, stop.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> — if you had a home, you'd know that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Stop. The figures: 39 —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Sales taxes are up —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> The marginal tax rate was 39.6% under —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> And now it's 36%!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, it's 35% — [aside] what is it?<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> 35½, you round it up.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> 35½%, so it's 4% less.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Every other tax in the country's gone up! What's the <i>matter</i> with you?? Every other tax!! The sales tax, state tax —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You aren't living in reality.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Oh! Unbelievable!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Here's the reality: the top 1% take in nearly 25% of income today —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> And pay how much of the tax?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But 25 years ago —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Thirty percent of it!!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — top 1% control 40% of the wealth; 25 years ago, it was 33%. Top 1% have had incomes rise 18% over the last decade.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> So we should shoot them.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I'm not saying we should <i>shoot</i> them, but we shouldn't act like returning to the tax rate of the 90s is class warfare on par with Lenin and Marx! That's what I'm sayin'. [audience cheers, Jon does victory dance] You know what it is, <b><i>I'm</i></b> lookin' out for the folks.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> You want me to reply to something or what?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes!! Reply.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Okay, I mean, you've bused these people in from Cuba.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I want you to reply and then do <i>your</i> victory dance. All right, so what is your —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> I'll pay the higher tax bracket if they start to cut and watch the dough; that's fair.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But isn't that the plan that was offered?<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> By whom???<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I thought the President offered a plan —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Mr. Solyndra??? <b><i>That's</i></b> who you're talkin' about???<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I'm talkin' about Mr. Solyndra.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> The guy who was told by his Larry Summers, "I don't think that's good, Mr. President." "Give them the $500 million!" C'mon, Stewart, wise up, man!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, my point is: you are on record now as saying you will go back to the Clinton-era tax rate —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> That's right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — if you get, uh, some cuts in spending —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> <i>Big</i> cuts.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — you have a specific —<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> 10% across the board.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What kind of <i>idiot</i>?? 10% across the board?? You're not even gonna <b><i>look</i></b>?? You're just like, it's a piñata. You know what, I need to lose 10% of my weight; you know what, I'll just cut off a leg — why not?<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> That's ridiculous!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Because you have to look specifically at what we need and what we don't. You can't just cut 10%.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Sure you can!!!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, for God's sake!<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> It's bloated all over the place! Knock out the muffins, first of all.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You have the freakiest breakfast fixation I have ever .... All right, well, I, okay, we've come to a conclusion. So you're going to tell the knuckleheads over where you work to knock off the whole "Job creators are being punished, and why punish the successful?" You're going to tell them to knock that off, because that's ridiculous, because they <i>should</i> pay the fair share, they've had a <b><i>great</i></b> decade, they've had a great ride, now it's time, we're a <b><i>society</i></b>, let's all come together, shared sacrifice, and get this done.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> Everybody has to sacrifice, I'll agree with that. Everybody has to make some concessions.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right, you're a good man, then.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> All right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> The book — what's the book called? The book is called <i>Killing Lincoln</i> — I'm not gonna give away the ending [audience laughs], but it will shock you. You need to get it. Bill O'Reilly, thanks for coming by.<br />
<br />
<b>O'Reilly:</b> All right, Jon, always good to see you.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-46474773341590673782011-05-19T23:25:00.000-07:002011-05-19T23:41:24.784-07:00Transcript: Jon Stewart's rap about Fox NewsI only just saw last Wednesday's Daily Show, with Jon Stewart's slam of the Fox News coverage of the invitation for the rapper Common to perform at the White House. Since I didn't find this gem transcribed, here's the conclusion:<br />
<a name='more'></a>Yeah, yeah, this goes out to <a href="http://www.outfoxed.org/">Fox News</a> and all the pundits I address on <a href="http://www.TheDailyShow.com/">tonight's show</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Yo, Fox, you create shocks, with no awe,<br />
You dress like <a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/">eagles</a>, <br />
But squawk like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)">chickenhawks</a>.<br />
You're pigeons, on a statue,<br />
Leaving <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/">little puddles of lie</a> behind you.<br />
<br />
Goin' after <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/19/moment-opportunity-president-obama-middle-east-north-africa">Obama</a>,<br />
A week after killin' <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/05/01/president-obama-death-osama-bin-laden">Osama</a>,<br />
Creatin' drama,<br />
Let me put in a comma,<br />
A pause, because —<br />
... I ... need ... a minute ... to think of<br />
what to say, next, that would rhyme ...<br />
<br />
You push bullshit!<br />
The kind you find<br />
Fall from a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnauzer">schnauzer's</a> behind —<br />
Have you lost your damned mind?<br />
You got lazy, it's crazy,<br />
Even <a href="http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/glenn_beck">Glenn Beck's</a> leavin',<br />
Cuz he thinks you're fergazy.<br />
<br />
You still got <a href="http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/gretchen_carlson">Gretchen</a> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999;">[Carlson]</span></span> — she's fetchin',<br />
But the <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/">truth</a> that you're stretchin'<br />
Leaves me retchin',<br />
I'm not kvetchin' —<br />
<i>(Am I <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kvetch">kvetching</a>??)</i> —<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">[Sean]</span></span> Hannity, Hannity, yo, Hannity:<br />
Straight-up insanity,<br />
Hey, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homie">Homes</a>, let me take a <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moment">momes</a>,<br />
To pour one out, <br />
For <a href="http://alan.com/">Alan</a> mother-fuckin' <a href="http://alan.com/">Colmes</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/bill_o_reilly">O'Reilly</a>? <a href="http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/">Oh, really</a>??<br />
I know that you feel me,<br />
Cuz I jokes to the folks<br />
While you choke on that smoke.<br />
<br />
Are you toke–ing — on <a href="http://www.norml.org/">weed</a>??<br />
That you got from <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999;">[Brian]</span></span> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/brian_kilmeade">Kilmeade</a>?<br />
To push screed that misleads,<br />
To plant seeds of mistrust,<br />
That Miss <a href="http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/greta_van_susteren">Greta van Sust</a>—<br />
... —ternenenenan just ran<br />
On her show?? A night ago??<br />
Cuz <a href="http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/megyn_kelly">Megyn Kelly</a> said so?<br />
<br />
And you know I'm about to go,<br />
So I'm <i>tellin'</i> yo' ass, yo:<br />
<b>Y'all <i>blow</i>!</b><br />
— <a href="http://www.hormelfoods.com/brands/DintyMoore/">Stew Beef</a> out!!</blockquote>Video links:<br />
<ul><li>Daily Show, 2011-05-11, <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-11-2011/tone-def-poetry-jam">part 1</a></li>
<li>Daily Show, 2011-05-11, <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-11-2011/tone-def-poetry-jam---lyrics-controversy">part 2</a> (including the rap)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/2011/05/17/jon-stewart-and-bill-oreilly-talk-it-out/">Jon Stewart on <i>The O'Reilly Factor</i></a></li>
</ul><div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-81526541815659327492011-05-06T23:12:00.000-07:002011-05-07T17:00:16.812-07:00David Barton on The Daily Show: full transcript and videosJon Stewart on Wednesday (2011-05-04) had one of his most controversial guests ever, David Barton, a fundamentalist Christian who is trying to reclaim some of the "forgotten" history of the United States, and pass along that message to children through their textbooks and curricula. Barton is the darling of the Fox News crowd, and highly praised by the likes of Mike Huckabee and Michele Bachmann, but much less highly regarded by history scholars — people with actual advanced degrees in history — and many educators. The interview as aired on Wednesday's program is about 8 minutes, but the entire interview is available through TheDailyShow.com; the embedded video clips and the full transcript, followed by some commentary and links to sites debunking Barton's historical narrative, appear below the fold. The full interview is broken into five segments, and totals about 40 minutes.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cccccc; font-size: xx-small;">Comedy Central/Comedy Partners owns the copyright to this material, which is presented here under "Fair Use" in the interest of furthering political discourse.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><br />
<embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:383666" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt--1">The Daily Show - David Barton Pt. 1</a></b><br />
Tags: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div></div></div><br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:383667" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt--2">The Daily Show - David Barton Pt. 2</a></b><br />
Tags: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div></div></div><br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:383672" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--1">The Daily Show - Exclusive - David Barton Extended Interview Pt. 1</a></b><br />
Tags: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div></div></div><br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:383673" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--2">The Daily Show - Exclusive - David Barton Extended Interview Pt. 2</a></b><br />
Tags: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div></div></div><br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:383674" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--3">The Daily Show - Exclusive - David Barton Extended Interview Pt. 3</a></b><br />
Tags: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div></div></div><br />
<hr /><br />
<br />
<center><i>[video segment "David Barton Pt. 1"]</i></center><br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> My guest tonight, an American historian and the founder and president of <a href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/">Wallbuilders</a>, please welcome to the program David Barton.<br />
<br />
Sir! Thank you for joining us. I appreciate it. Sit. Thank you for being here.<br />
<br />
<b>David Barton:</b> My pleasure, bro.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, here's what happened. So we have <a href="http://lincmad.blogspot.com/2011/04/huckabee-on-daily-show-transcript-and.html">Mike Huckabee on the show</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Right. Good Guy.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Very nice guy, good friend of the show; we always have really interesting conversations. So, I'm watching him praise you — he was at a conference and he said David Barton is the greatest historian in America and all children should <i>have to</i> learn from him in their curriculum. (I'm paraphrasing.) And I thought to myself, well, Jeez, I'd like to meet the greatest historian in America who all children should have to learn from, and then I started looking up your stuff and I thought, well, okay, now —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Dangerous thing to do.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — now, this seems odd. This seems odd. And so I asked Mike Huckabee about some of the things that you've said, and he said, "Why don't you ask David Barton himself?" and I said, "Uh, okay."<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> And here I am.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And so here you are. So, let me ask you — just for our audience that is not familiar with what you do — how would you describe what it is you do?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> I'd say <i>historical reclamation.</i> We, in our company, have about 100,000 documents from before 1812, so documents out of black history, out of religious history, out of constitutional history; you name it. We've got 100,000 originals, so that's what we take a lot of history back to is those original things that happened.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And — but it always seems that the history that you take comes back to the idea that we are a more Christian nation than we are living. Is that the —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, I would say that's not accurate.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Okay.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Now, there's people who point that out, but again, let me give you a good example. I was appointed in Texas as one of the experts to do the history and government standards there —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, you are a curriculum authority?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> For about 20 years, California, Texas, all these states, I do their history and social studies standards, and so I'm asked by the state, by the governor or by the state board of education to do that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But you are — and this may be a misconception — but you are not a historian like in terms of <i>academic</i> historian. You don't have a doctorate in that.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, don't have a doctorate in that, no. I've got all the documents, and that's what's been a lot of fun, because I went through history and school and a lot of what I got taught and what I see in the actual documents aren't the same thing, and that's what got me started. I came to some really old documents, and they contradicted what my schoolbooks said, and so what we do now is we say, "All right, publishers: here's what the actual documents are. Print the documents, go back to the originals." And on the issue of religion, being one of the guys appointed in Texas, all my reviews are online [<a href="http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=6172">here</a> and <a href="http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=6381">here</a> (PDFs)], so there's 43,000 words online of my reviews of the last set of standards — only two subjects do I ever mention Christianity, two issues. One was the teachers recommended taking the study of Christmas out as a holiday. So —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You're saying that you are <i>not</i> interested in this —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Oh, I am. I am. As an emphasis, no, no, no.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That is your almost <i>total</i> emphasis.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, it's not.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> See, a good example is — see, I know the kind of people who go after me, and when I was on the Texas board, there was a group that did a press release, and all of a sudden MSNBC and the Times and all these other, "Barton's crammin' Christianity down their throats in Texas!" — no, there's 43,000 words, there's two references to Christianity in 43,000 words; that's not a super-big emphasis. Now, not that that's not important to me, but what I teach —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, I would say, I mean, in Leviticus, you know, being gay is mentioned twice, but people on the Right kind of make a big emphasis out of that, so —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Well, that's not a history issue. That's not a history issue.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, no, but I'm just saying that I don't know that two mentions —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Let me give you another way of looking at it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Please.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> In having done history standards before, publishers come to me and say, "All right, you helped to write the standards, help us do the textbooks." And I understand what my name evokes, so I told the publishers, "Okay, I'll be the editor, but just don't put my name on the textbook. Just leave it off." That textbook that I edited is now the best-selling public-school textbook in America, so historians across the board think it's a great book, they just don't know that I did it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, not historians, but I mean —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Teachers —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — when Texas makes a curriculum book, it goes out — I don't think it's a free market thing, I think it just goes out to schools.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, it was a free market thing, because I worked with the publishers, not the standards in Texas. So, I went to the publishers — or the publishers went to me — and so —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, if more people are buying it, then it's clearly better.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> And see, that's what they're doing. Well, yes, exactly. Exactly, but —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I think the makers of crack might have something to say about that.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
<center><i>[video segment "David Barton Pt. 2"]</i></center><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Let's get to — because I do, you know — you <i>are</i> an important figure. You go in, you argue in front of the Supreme Court, you go in and you work with our Congress, you work with Congresspeople, you go in and you write curriculum, and I can't help but think that — and in your writings you talk about "<b><i>reclaiming</i></b> our <i>forgotten</i> history" —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — when it seems to me, someone who probably has a very different perspective on this nation's history, that you are <b><i>rewriting</i></b> more than reclaiming —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Let me give a shot. Let me give a shot at that. One of the things I'm really proud about that we got done in Texas is we took the number of minorities who are covered in the standards from 9% to 25%. The way I did it: I said, "Hey, we're not covering any of the Jewish Founding Fathers. We're also not covering the black Founding Fathers — those elected to office, those who were military heroes. We're also not covering the women of the Revolution. We're also not covering Hispanics in the Revolution." That's forgotten history. I'll bet you most Jewish people can't name the Jewish Founding Fathers, most black people can't name the black Founding Fathers —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, I can: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Koufax">Sandy Koufax</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Yeah, exactly. Exactly.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yeah, you're right: Sandy Koufax; that's all I got.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Exactly.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, would you say — so, I am <b><i>incorrect</i></b> in saying that you would — because I've seen tapes of you speaking, where you make policy recommendations based on the Bible. Things like "I would like to see the capital gains tax and the estate tax gone because the Bible says so."<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> That's right, but those are also speeches given to groups of <i>ministers,</i> and I'm speaking to ministers. That's not a textbook setting; that's a whole different setting. What I'll — see, for example —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, you're saying there is a "wall of separation" —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Well, there is, but see, you gotta understand where <i>that</i> came from, too. No problem with that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, a "wall of separation" <i>within you</i> of church and state.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Uh, no, no. Any more than the Founders wanted. Now, what they wanted was separation of the <i>institutions,</i> never separation of the influence. I mean, they never at any point said, "Hey, God" [gestures, sweeping God to the side] —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, now we're sort of where the rubber meets the road, here, because that is kind of what I'm getting to, as much as you might protest that your main thrust is not to get us back to this idea that the Founders didn't want religion separated from the State, the documents that you pull — going off the Constitution, it doesn't <i>mention</i> the Creator, it doesn't mention Jesus, it doesn't mention praying in any way, so, wouldn't they be <i>explicit</i> in the mention of religion, if they had wanted it so? Because they were not coy people, for the most part.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, they were not coy, and they were very blunt, and because they were, when you read the Federalist Papers, it said religion belongs to the states. Now, you read the state constitutions, they're extremely graphic on religion, but there are seven references in the Constitution to religion, whether it be Article VII — and by the way, the Declaration is incorporated into the Constitution in Article VII, so that's <i>four</i> references to God, just in Article VII.<br />
<br />
<i>[editor's note: It appears that Barton was referring to <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi">Article VI</a>, not Article VII, although neither article incorporates the Declaration of Independence.]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> References to God are very different than explicit — like, I mean, they were <i>so</i> explicit in their usage: if you wanted to hold this office, you had to be this age; black people counted for <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">three-fifths</a> — I mean, they used <i>fractions</i>!<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Federal office, that's — but that's holding federal office, that's not —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But they didn't even say — I mean, there is the <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii">oath of office for the President</a> is transcribed word-for-word in the Constitution —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> That's right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — but they don't say you have to do it on a Bible and they don't mention —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> That's right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — they don't mention God.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But the state laws in all 13 states required every oath to be done on a Bible and mention God.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But only three of them actually were still there. That litmus test was only there — when the Bill of Rights came into effect, <b><i>only three states</i></b> still had those laws, and the Founders had been trying to phase that out.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Let's take the religion side for a minute, because when you take the First Amendment, it says, "<b><i>Congress</i></b> shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Now, one of the cases we did at the U.S. Supreme Court —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> — was Rabbi Leslie Gutterman <i>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman">Lee v. Weisman</a>, <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/505/577/case.html">505 U.S. 577</a> (1992)]</i>, who was asked in Providence, Rhode Island, to give a prayer at a graduation, and he wasn't allowed to. Now, tell me how "Congress shall make no law" means that a rabbi can't say the word <i>God</i> at a prayer. That's a pretty strange parsing of the Constitution, and that's what I argue, is "Congress shall make no law" is a restriction on Congress. It's not a restriction on the rights of people to say the word <i>God</i> in public.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, there have been, I think, though, a lot of instances — [aside] Do we have to go, on the thing? Dammit! Can we go and then come back — [to Barton] do you mind sticking around for a little bit?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Happy to, happy to, happy to.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Because this is the kind of conversation that I don't get, so I'm gonna come back with it. Uh, David Barton.<br />
<br />
<i><b>[end of broadcast portion of interview]</b></i><br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
<center><i>[video segment "David Barton Extended Interview Pt. 1"]</i></center><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But that, again, gets to, sort of back to the original point, which is the case of Guttesman [sic] in Rhode Island and the prayer: Why didn't the Founders <i>okay</i> a litmus test to hold office — of religion — if they wanted us to be a Christian-infused (or Bible-infused) nation?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Well, now, you've got something else. How do you define <i>Christian nation</i>?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I would assume that you would do it as following the laws of —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, never been the definition.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh; what is the definition?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> There's 300 court cases that declare America to be a Christian nation. Not once have we ever said you have to be a Christian or you can't be this religion. Every — and great definition by U.S. Supreme Court is —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, we <i>are</i> defined as a Christian nation, is what you're saying?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Three hundred times by the <i>courts.</i> Now, there's a reason they said that, because we've had twenty-something religions in America since the American Revolution — you know, I mean, real simple stuff.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, we're a Christian nation? By definition?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Take the right definition. Not the way it's used in the last 20 years.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Ah.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> The court definition is a nation whose institutions and cultures have been shaped by the influence of Christianity. It's hard to say that hasn't happened in America.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Now, when you say that's in court cases, in what context?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> U.S. Supreme Court — well, there's several. There was a whole series of cases that debated things about religion, there've always been people who didn't want religion in public, and the courts have said, "Nah, you can't do that." Until 1947, every time they used Thomas Jefferson's "separation of Church and State" phrase —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> — it was to keep religion <b><i>in</i></b> public, because they said "separation of Church and State" means the government can't <i>stop</i> religious exercise. In 1947 <i>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education">Everson v. Board of Education</a>, <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/330/1/case.html">330 U.S. 1</a>]</i>, Justice Hugo Black wrote a decision for the Court that said, "No, no, no. Jefferson got it all wrong. Separation —"<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, we are all <i>mistaken,</i> that prayer <i>should</i> be in school?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> I don't know we're mistaken, but we have reversed policy since 1947. So, what we had for 150 years and what we had for 50 years are two different things.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, why did we have for 150 years that on our coins and things was <i>E Pluribus Unum</i> and not <i>In God We Trust</i>? Why did we change that in the 50's with Eisenhower?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Because it was on a lot of the states. Now wait a minute, it wasn't in the 50's, we changed it before that. [In 1863] '63, Lincoln put it on the coins; we <i>didn't have</i> paper currency.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> On the coins, yeah, but not in the Pledge [of Allegiance].<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> The currency they added in [1864] '64 and I think Eisenhower did six things in the [1950's] 50's that way.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But your basic point is, we are a Christian nation, as defined by —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> The influence.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — that influence.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Not exclusivity at all.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But who is defining Christianity's "influence," and who is saying that we are <i>not</i> influenced?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Oh, there's a lot saying we're not influenced. The cases I get involved with — we've got a case going right now —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But who would bring a case saying that, "I would like to adjudicate that this country is influenced by Christianity"? In what context would that —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> It goes the other way. They bring a case saying there's never been a religious influence in American history; therefore — in the case we've got now, out of New Hampshire — you can't have "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance because there's no history of religion in America. We say, "Wait a minute — time out — there <i>is.</i>" So —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But isn't the argument not that there's no history of religion in America, but that by explicitly putting religion in the Pledge it goes against the minority rights to protect against the <i>establishment</i> of religion?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, no, because there's no coercion involved. Ever since the Pledge has been done —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Wouldn't coercion, though, not necessarily be legal, but sometimes, perhaps, peer — like, if you're — if everybody prays and you don't want to pray, 30 people praying, one person not — can that be considered coercion?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Hey, I'm a Republican, I'm in New York City, I've got coercion all around me. I have to live with that sometimes. There's coercion; you have to put on your big-boy pants and do some things. As long as you're not being <b><i>forced</i></b> to do it —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But you <i>are</i> being forced to be in school.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Look at all the pressure that goes through school, whether it's drugs or anything else, and we don't rule <i>that</i> unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, no, because there's not the <i>teacher</i> saying, "You have to smoke pot."<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But you do have — see, that's why we've always had the right of conscience, always protected. That's why Jehovah's Witnesses, from the very beginning in '47 —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But there's the right of conscience and the reality of conscience, and don't these laws exist to protect the right <i>and</i> the reality of conscience?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Now, laws exist to protect actual offenses; you have to be able to show that you've suffered an actual injury to even be able to get into court. You have to show an injury in fact, not a perceived injury, and the fact that it might make me feel uncomfortable is not enough to keep everyone else from practicing their faith, just because <i>I'm</i> uncomfortable with the way they do it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Actually, I think that might be. I think, actually, that <i>is,</i> isn't it?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> It has become that. It's become that. But it should never — I mean, here's a great example —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, why <i>shouldn't</i> it be?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Minnesota. We got a state employee in Minnesota. He cannot park his car in the state employee parking lot because it has a religious bumper sticker on his car, so, why not?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We can all pick anecdotal cases of ridiculousness, of overreaching in terms of tolerance and all that, but getting back to the larger issue, which is, you seem to argue for a Biblical or religious founding of our nation that the evidence doesn't seem — I guess it doesn't seem to be convincing to me, because the Founders could've put it explicitly in the Constitution and didn't. And I'm still waiting for the idea of, so why do we have to <i>dig around</i> to these other documents when we have the Constitution?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> It's fairly easy, because, when you have — like we do — 100,000 documents, it's so permeated. It's like, we don't put a law that says gravity pulls things from top to center. Everybody knows that. It was the atmosphere.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, we do — but it is — if we were writing a book about being on earth, we <i>would</i> put that law <i>first.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But that's not what these guys did. Yeah, we would.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right. Because it's one of the basic —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But that's not what they did.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — you know, laws of thermodynamics. I mean, that <i>is</i> what you would put.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> See, you gotta look at —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Why would you not list the basic laws of Christian nation when you're making a document that is the thing that all of our political leaders have to uphold and protect??<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Couple things. You've taken the definition of Christian nation <i>now</i> and taken it back 200 years; that was not the definition they used.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Actually, I think the reverse: I think <i>you're</i> taking the definition of Christian nation now and putting it back on what they are. They were certainly — I'm not saying they're not religious people —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Sure.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — but that argument was had. The anti-Federalists — Patrick Henry, Founding Father, would've preferred a theocracy, or some type of more Calvinist approach. He <i>had</i> the argument. The Federalists, who were working off of maybe a more Enlightenment type of model, <i>won.</i> And it's not that they <i>didn't have</i> the argument; they did have the argument. Patrick Henry would've liked to have had a litmus test for public office of religion, he would've liked to have —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> He didn't win. He didn't win.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Now, take the Federalist Papers. Three Federalist Papers —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Take the Constitution!<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> You brought the Federalist Papers —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, I brought the Federalist — I bring it up only in the sense of, this argument was had, and the idea of —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Where in the Constitution is there anything <b><i>hostile</i></b> to religion? And that's the argument we're having. See, why does the Constitution create a <i>hostility</i> toward — Now, here's what I told —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Are you really — and this is, I think, where I get to something that's more difficult to take — you believe there's a <i>hostility</i> —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Oh, Jon.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — to Christianity.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> You would not believe the number of <i>arrest</i> cases in the last year of Christians — a 67-year-old man in Georgia who gave out a gospel tract to somebody on a park bench, two days in jail.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I think there is real persecution of Christians.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> There is some.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I think it happens in <i>China,</i> but I don't think it happens in this country!<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, but how do you keep it from <i>becoming</i> like anywhere else? You stop it right when it happens.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Because we've had 240 years of evidence that it won't. One of the reasons that we separated it from the public square is to <i>avoid</i> these types of situations.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But here's a case we're working on right now: a pastor in Kansas just got arrested —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You may be right, <i>about this case,</i> but I am talking about the larger picture of, there's an idea that the Founders wanted this to be a specifically divinity, American exceptionalism —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> That's not the argument.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What is the argument, then?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> The argument is they did not require a <b><i>secular</i></b> society. Now, let me throw out another piece —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We're <i>not</i> a secular society! There's churches all over this country!<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But are there people <i>trying</i> to make us a secular society in court? Yes. These are the cases I deal with all the time in court.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> In schools, they don't want prayer and the Ten Commandments, but the idea that Christianity, as a religion in this country, is threatened, really is ludicrous! As a Jew, I can tell you, Christians have it made. You get — let me just tell you this — you get presents for Christ's birth; when he dies, you get a basket of candy — you can't lose!<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
<center><i>[video segment "David Barton Extended Interview Pt. 2"]</i></center><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All I'm saying is, <i>Let's be realistic</i> about what this country really is. We are a Christian-dominated society —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Sure.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — but through the Founders' wisdom, we have kept that from becoming a state religion —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Exactly!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — so that their vision of "all people are created equal" —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Exactly.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — could flourish in a —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> That's a Biblical vision, by the way: that all men are <b><i>created</i></b> equal. You don't get that from a secular world.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I think that that's not — you saying that —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> France didn't believe that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, we thought that France did for a little while, but you know, the idea that secular is purely bad and religion is purely good, I think, is why we need to keep that line from it getting in there. You know, I'm all for, if people use their religion to find morality, that's wonderful.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> You bet.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But it's not the only path.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> You bet. Thomas Paine proves that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> There's a lot of people who quit drinkin', they were alcoholics, 'cause they woke up and found Jesus. There's just as many people who woke up and said, "I don't like sleeping in my own vomit."<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> And it works.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So — exactly!<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But let me give you an example —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It <i>wouldn't</i> work if we brought a majority rule into the public square of religious —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> That's why it's an inalienable right, because majority has nothing to do. An inalienable right, by the way, the guys who wrote the Constitution said that's a God-given right. That's the right of conscience. You have the right to worship according to the dictates of conscience, regardless of what the majority says.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's right.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> There's no problem with that. So, now here's my question: the case we <i>just</i> dealt with, just a week ago, we're coming up with a National Day of Prayer. We've been doing this for 200 years. We have a court case <i>[<a href="http://www.wiwd.uscourts.gov/assets/pdf/FFRF_v_Obama_Order.pdf">FFRF v. Obama</a>, 08-cv-588-bbc]</i> that says <i>nobody</i> is allowed to celebrate on the National Day of Prayer. Freedom From Religion Foundation, we fought this thing all the way through, we won it. Why would people want to tell me I can't pray if I want to? This is not a government activity, this is a private activity.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And they lost.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> They did. But we had to fight the case.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You can't prevent — you know, there was a woman at McDonald's, she spilled coffee on her lap and sued them because it was hot! <i>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants">Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants</a>, 1994]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> She got $3 million, though. She won!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right. I'm just sayin', though — believe me, we are not arguing that America doesn't have some asinine people in it.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> And that's why we go to court to defend this stuff.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But on the flip side of that — I can understand — you know, you have gone and testified that Jesus is against the inheritance tax —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, I haven't. Nope.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You haven't said Jesus is against the —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> I've never testified that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Not testified, not testified, you have spoken in front of groups.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> In front of pastors, and what I did was, I quoted the 1765 sermon given by a pastor that John Adams praised, where he talked about the taxes that were good and bad.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, can you understand people being uncomfortable? You are —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> If they take a line out of it, you bet.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> For a Creationist — and I'm assuming —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Me? Sure.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Okay.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> I believe in the declaration. I believe in the declaration.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, for a Creationist, it's interesting, because you are almost the missing link, if you will, between theology and, sort of, activism politically, and I think <i>that's</i> where people's discomfort comes in, is when political leaders — your views are your views —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Sure.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — and, you know, I say, "God bless you!" to people when they sneeze; that doesn't mean I'm a Creationist. It just means —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Sure.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — it's a nice thing to say. You seem to be taking your religious views, channeling them through a sort of a faux-scientific or historical method, for use in political and curriculum activities, and <i>that's</i> where I think it creates some trouble.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, because, going back to curriculum: one of the things I teach teachers, and I show state legislatures testifying, is if you're going to teach history, there's 17 to 18 different strands you have to teach of history. You have to cover civil rights history, military history, community history; you have to cover economic history; you have to cover religious history; you have to cover all of it. Now, what happens is, people look at me and they pick out one of those 17 strands and say, "Oh, look what he says!" I've got all these other strands, too; I've got the economic history, I've got the civil rights history, you know, I go through that. So, what happens is —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But you can understand, if a person — let me just take it on the flip side — if somebody says, like, you know, "Listen, I give a lot of speeches where I'm just talking about that, and I happen to give speeches to <i>one group</i> where I say things that are really out there...." It's like, "Six days a week, I go to work and I do a thing, and on Sundays, I wear a diaper and I walk around the city."<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Whatever.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> "And everybody seems to focus on the "diaper around the city" part, and yet forgets that, during the week, I'm a salesperson with Prudential." Like, it's, you know, I don't think that's a fair thing to say that, you know, they forget about these other 16, because that 17th is pretty explosive to a good portion of the country.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But, you know, you've brought the minimum wage and the capital gains tax; all right, listen to the full one-hour speech, listen to the 1765 sermon that I'm talking about from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Chauncy_%281705%E2%80%931787%29">Charles Chauncy</a> that John Adams quoted, and then put it in that context. So, is Barton talking about a historical document here, an approach that was used 200 years ago, informing taxes —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> — or is he talking something — and see, that's what never comes out.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Okay, maybe here's the problem here. You're a theologian and historian, and people have confused what hat you're wearing when —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> I would say that's fair. I'd say that's fair.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So that's — the issue has been that you are promoting theology with these things, but would you also say it's fair that through your theology promotion, <i>that</i> is what you're known for in these circles politically?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Only when they pull out that — no, not politically. Not in political circles. No.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, let me ask you this: who's asking you, in Congress, to come help them? <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-ultimate-collection-of-stupid-michele-bachmann">Michele Bachmann</a> (R–MN)?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, both Democrats and Republicans.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What Democrats?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> I don't give names unless they give names. You know about Michele because she's used my name. There's <i>dozens</i> of Congressmen that we help, and I don't use their names unless they bring 'em out. Now, there's Democrats and Republicans, both, just like there's Democrat and Republican governors, both, just like in campaigns, I endorse both Democrats and Republicans on the basis of their ideas.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But the Democrats won't mention your name?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> By and large, they won't.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You're their pot dealer, and they don't wanna — ?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> That's right. That's right. And a lot of the Republicans won't mention my name, either.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> How does that make you feel?? You've got these guys, you're helpin' 'em, and they win a campaign, and you're like the guy in the corner, like: "I helped you, you son of a ...!"<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Well, it's like that textbook, you know. I told 'em, keep my name out as editor. As long as the textbook sells and kids get good information, I don't care if my name is there. It doesn't matter to me. And if I get information that'll help a Congressman, I don't care if they use my name. That's not my deal. I just want 'em to have good information. So if I can — and I tell you what is kinda fun is, you find out I got a call from three Congressmen off the floor, and they said, "Hey, anything in history about bailout and stimulus plans in Congress?" It turns out, in 1792 there was a big debate in Congress over bailout and stimulus plans. So we said, "Yeah, here's what James Madison said." We get calls all the time on all sorts of issues, and if I can get them information that will help them, that's what I want to do. And I don't ask them to use my name, and I don't care if they do.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you ever give them information that runs counter to this country being a more Christian-founded country than — you know, in terms of — because, in some respects, it reminds me of [pause] the Iraq War, God help me, for the idea that we had an idea about going in and then we turned around and found good reasons to do it. And that's, you know, the troubling aspect of it is, it feels like a —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But it's not a "pick and choose." And see, that's one of the things — what we do, is we collect all the quotes that have to do with a topic.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It <i>has</i> to be a "pick and choose," because history is contradictory. I mean, you can't say, "Jefferson was..." because people contradicted themselves.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Let me give you an example: I've got —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And the Bible contradicts itself.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Well, I've got a book that I've done called <i>Original Intents;</i> 1700 footnotes in it, they go back to founding documents.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> On the other side, there's a book done by two professors called <i>The Godless Constitution,</i> PhD's at Cornell. The footnote page, they said, "We have dispensed with the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes." Not a footnote in the book. I got 1700, they got one — I mean, they got zero. So there's —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But you're not arguing the idea that this country was founded on non-Christian principle, like that is a pretty accepted historical narrative. It's not just like a couple of dudes from Cornell who said, "No, no, no."<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> The notion that we were founded without religion, doesn't exist. All the 13 charters —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's a false choice — I don't think anybody's suggesting religion has not been an important part of this country.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Exactly.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But nobody's suggesting that.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Oh, yeah, they are. Yeah, they are.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, the people — let me put it this way: the majority viewpoint —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> The people I deal with, the professors I deal with, <i>absolutely</i> they do.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But then you have a very skewed perspective on —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Because that's what I deal with.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Now, see, another one, if you've ever seen Alexis de Tocqueville <i>Democracy in America,</i> good book, about that thick [about 4" or 10cm]. The book they use in colleges now is less than a half inch [12mm] thick. It says, "edited for the modern reader." They took out all of his references to religion, all of his references to family, and that's "the modern reader"? Now, I've got problems with that. This is the original; why not read the original? Or at least keep the <i>tone</i> of their — but that's what I deal with in academic universities all the time.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you think people would be more comfortable with you if they felt like you were consistently looking to extend historical context and — because there are a lot of critics out there who say you cherry-pick your religious facts, take them out of context — your historical facts — to use them to bolster your argument.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> They've never proven that. They've <i>claimed</i> that. Show me some documentation where it's taken out of context. They've never provided that. They <i>complain</i> about it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Didn't they say the John Adams quote, where you talk about, he says, "We were inspired by Divinity."<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, I don't recall him saying that. Have you got the quote?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yeah, let me see if I can find it. [consults notes] Okay, here it is. Here is what you wrote in your book about what Adams said, endorsing the Church being involved in the State: <i>"The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered, but by the Holy Ghost, who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the bishop upon the heads of candidates for the ministry. [...] There is no authority, civil or religious; there can be no legitimate government, but what is administered by the Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it; all without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words, damnation."</i> That's the quote that you used in your book.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Now, I have <a href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=59755">the original John Adams letter</a> with me off the set. I brought the original. See, I posted that online; how can I misquote it when I put the whole thing up there. That's the only John Adams letter in the world that he wrote on that day to that person, and that's what's in it. I posted that where everybody can see it, and that's what we do with our documents.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But you have then the sentence after the one, which is: "Although this is all artifice and cunning —"<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Oh, the entire letter is posted. The entire letter is posted.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But you can see that the next sentence shows that he's being sarcastic in that passage.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Not in — no, not at all. You read the entire letter, Jon — now, see, they've given you their critique of it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But how could he say the Holy Ghost — I mean, this man was a Unitarian; why would he claim the Holy Ghost sincerely?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> You know what a Unitarian was <i>then</i>?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yeah, someone who didn't believe in the Trinity.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, no. Not until 1839, long after his death. It did not become —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So John Adams believed in the Holy Ghost?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> He believed in the Trinity, and that's where Unitarian —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Did he believe we were a Christian nation? Because he signed the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli">Treaty of Tripoli</a>, and said we weren't, <i><b>explicitly</b>.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, time out. Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 is what you're talking about, it's 82 words long; everybody always puts a period after 17 words. There's not a period there. It says "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion," right? That's what it says, where everybody puts a period. Now, remember: it's a negotiation he's made with a Moslem nation. He says, "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion as having an inherent hostility towards Muslims. Hey, we're not the Europeans you guys fought in the Crusades. We don't hate you guys because you're Muslims." He didn't say we're not a Christian nation; we're not a <i>European</i> Christian nation that hates you and fights you because of your religion. And by the way, the State Department says there is no Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli. The original, it's not there. Everybody loves to quote the Treaty of Tripoli.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So it's Photoshopped?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Yeah, exactly. Exactly, exactly.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Photocalligraphied.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
<center><i>[video segment "David Barton Extended Interview Pt. 3"]</i></center><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But you use this quote to say that he is believing in the Holy —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, on John Adams, I put the whole letter up there. Now, see, they've taken those parts out; I put the letter up there.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, <i>you</i> are the one using things in context?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Well, I'm tryin' to. That's why I put the whole letter up there.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But didn't you have to print — wasn't there a whole thing where you had to print a bunch of retractions based on —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, I never had to retract a single thing. Every quote I've used has always had a footnote to it. [audience laughs] Let me give you an example of what you're talking about.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You're — it's — honestly, I feel like it's one of those things where it's like I received a dossier on someone and I'm looking at it and I have all these facts and all these things and I go, "You did this," and you go, "No, I never did that," and — it's like in <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057733/">Bewitched</a>:</i> remember <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0948685/">first</a> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0025453/">Darrin</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0765102/">second</a> Darrin?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Yeah, yeah.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I feel like I got all the research on the first Darrin and you're like, "I'm sorry, I'm the second Darrin."<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Yeah.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You know, but I'm always a <i>little</i> dubious of this idea, like, "Dude, you got me all wrong!" because, you know, the truth is, when you speak to pastors, you toe a certain line, and it's very difficult for me to imagine that when you come back to this other historical aspect, all that is forgotten.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But look at the textbooks I write. Read the textbooks. You won't find that through there. That's why they sell so well in public schools.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, the curriculum fight in Texas didn't feel pleasant to me, didn't feel fair.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> It didn't.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It felt infused with a more fundamentalist view of the Bible and Christianity.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Here's what I objected to about that, because that fight in Texas was done by press releases. They issued a press release, and when they did — and, you know, as I mentioned, New York Times and MSNBC all picked up the press release — never even called <i>me</i> to ask about the other side.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, that I don't — I mean, obviously when people are going out there, they <i>should</i> talk to you. I mean, that in and of itself.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> See, the thing to remember is, every bit of that was online, and is still online to this day. Our entire discussions, every change we made, several hundred amendments, is online. Now, if it's so bad, how come nobody's pulled out exact quotes online? They keep talking about the "tone" we tried to inject; no!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Look at the writings.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, you never claimed Congress printed an official Bible for U.S. schools in 1782?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Sure they did. And it's in the Bible itself. I have the actual Bible from 1782. It's got a Congressional endorsement in the front of the Bible; it is printed by Act of Congress. 1782, it's one of the rarest books in the world, they printed 10,000 [in] 1782, there's 28 left in the world, I've got one of 'em.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Here's the story I heard; you tell me, then, if I'm completely wrong again, which apparently I have been this entire time. Congress didn't print the Bible; a private printer named [Robert] Aitken printed it.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> He could not print it without Congressional permission.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, no, apparently he printed it, and then he had a bunch, so then he petitioned Congress to certify —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — that it was accurate in 1781. Because you're telling me the facts I'm saying to you are completely wrong.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Those are wrong, because when you —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> "For the use of the schools" were not Congress's words, they were the words of Aitken, who was trying to sell his Bibles to Congress.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And you say it's in the records of Congress, but anybody who speaks to Congress or petitions them has their words in the Congressional Record. So Congress agreed to certify it as accurate, but denied his request that it be published <i>under the authority of Congress,</i> and they never said anything about use in schools.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> It has, in the front of the Bible, a Congressional endorsement: "This Bible recommended to inhabitants of the United States by the Congress Assembled." It has a Congressional endorsement. They certify that they went through the Bible —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> They certified that it was an accurate copy, but <b><i>denied</i></b> that it be published under the authority of Congress.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, the whole thing went through committees in Congress. There were committees appointed. [Congressional chaplain George] Duffield and [John] Witherspoon were on the committees, James Duane; there were committees that oversaw the whole thing all the way through. Now, Aitken is the one who printed it; no question that Aitken is the printer, and no question that he asked Congress to do it —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Did he print it prior to asking, or — ?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, he asked them and then he printed it?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> He asked them, got their permission, then, with their oversight, going through the Bible —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Their permission, and then they said they would verify that it's an accurate Bible?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> That it's an accurate Bible, <i>and</i> they recommended it. And they advocated its use. As a matter of fact, they wanted Washington to give one to every soldier, but we'd won the Revolution by then, so by the time it came out, we're done with the Revolution. Washington has a letter of how I want to give this to every soldier, but the Revolution's over and they've all gone home.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right. But you can understand how these stories are all, you know, you're finding anecdote here, anecdote here, and ultimately what it all seems to come down to for me is, we have a founding document, the Constitution. It doesn't mention it, and —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But it doesn't exclude it, and that's where they argue, if it's not mentioned then it's excluded. And that's what I have to deal with all the time is, it doesn't have to be <i>explicitly mentioned</i> to not be excluded. In other words, it's an <i>inclusive</i> document, rather than an exclusive document. And they argue the other way. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> [laughs]<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, no. I would say that a document that says there will be no establishment of religion is an exclusive document. I mean, I <i>do</i> think that's exclusionary, by saying you <i>can't</i> establish —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> That's wrong, and who can't do it? Congress.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Did you disagree with me?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> I did, several times, man. Several times. That scares ya; I know that scares ya.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It does scare me, a little bit. So, wait —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But look at the prohibition: it's on <i>Congress</i> can't do it. So, to say that I can't participate in a National Day of Prayer —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> The states can't do it, either.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Yeah, and see: that was a <i>strange</i> twist of a court decision, because the Constitution doesn't say that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But they were all pretty much — the state constitutions had taken out those litmus tests by the 1800's.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, no. Maryland had theirs until 1962. U.S. Supreme Court —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, is that true? One of them had it, I guess.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Well, several did.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But they were down to three by the time the Bill of Rights came in.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> The one in Massachusetts is still there today — to this day. The one in New Hampshire is still there, to this day.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, you have to, to hold office in New Hampshire —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> It's not <i>applied;</i> it's still in their constitution.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> If it were applied, would it be legal?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> The court wouldn't think so, but from a constitutional standpoint it <i>should</i> be, because the Constitution limits the federal government, not the states, and that's the Ninth and Tenth Amendment. So, from the standpoint of the Founding Fathers, religion was to be dealt with in the states; that's why Thomas Jefferson never gave a <i>federal</i> prayer proclamation. He did when he was governor of Virginia, but he didn't as President, because that was a state's issue. So, now for —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Were the Founding Fathers — you know, the difficulty for me is, the Founding Fathers, they, I think, meant for slavery to be abolished at some point —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Exactly.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — but they left it up to the states —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> That's right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — to get — it struck me as what they called it, a compromise. A bargain, a terrible bargain.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Three states said, "We will not be part of this group if you don't do it."<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's right.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> So, three held ten blackmail, and, yeah. Exactly.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right. This strikes me as a similar idea, that the Federalists, who had wanted to remove it — because, again, they could have expressly <i>included</i> it, and by not, it strikes me as —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But they didn't need to. It was a jurisdictional issue. See, that's the Enumerated Powers doctrine, where if it's not there, you don't have — Congress doesn't have permission to do it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> So, the Bill of Rights was only to limit the federal Congress, not to limit the states. It was never intended to limit the states, and it did not limit the states until well into the 20th century.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But why would Franklin say when it was down to three, he would say this is a step in the right direction, the liberalizing of these laws? Like, you know, there's a difference between the Founding Fathers and Cotton Mather and Patrick Henry, and —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Sure.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — I think confusing what the Puritans wanted this country to be with what this country <i>is,</i> I think is where people have that delineation and that problem.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> There's a geographic difference. I mean, what they did in the southern states is not religiously what they did in the New England states, and what they did in the middle colonies is different from both of 'em.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> And you had all 13 of those groups coming together, meeting.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right. And that was the Articles of Confederation, and it didn't work, and then they got together again and formed the Constitution.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Even the Constitution, you had those geographic — slavery is a great example. You know, the northern guys, they had blacks holding office at the time, blacks voted in New England; southern guys, they're never gonna talk about blacks doing anything. The middle colonies, they wanted blacks to do that, but they've still got a lot of racism, so you've got three separate approaches to how to handle race in the Constitution.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Sounds like Goldilocks, really, it's that same kind of —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> It is, really.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — too hot, too cold, just right. Yeah, it's nice.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Exactly. And the same with religion.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> And that's why the Constitution — both on slavery and on religion — kind of took a hands-off approach.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you feel that we don't have enough religion in this country? You feel like we need more?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No. I feel that what is not justified is <i>hostility</i> toward religion — and again, these are the cases I deal with. I mean, on the House — on the Senate Judiciary Committee had a hearing on this, we had an 86-page document, single-spaced, of all the instances, court cases —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you feel like the majority in a locality should be able to determine —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Yes. And here in New York City, there's schools that are 100% Hasidic Jewish, and I think they ought to be able to have Hasidic Jewish practices there, because all 100% of the kids are.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, you would allow, in, like — let's say Dearborn, Michigan, was majority Muslim —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> And it is.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — you'd be all right with Shari'a law, and the whole business?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Sure.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, that's consistent.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> But for somebody from the outside to come in and say, "I don't like that; you can't do it," <i>that's</i> what I got trouble with.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Really? See, that strikes me as the essence of America, is that somebody from the outside of the federal government saying you can't do that.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> You can't do it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Because, I mean, it creates a barrier to people and freedom. It creates a barrier for people going into those areas and, you know, it'd be like saying, "And you can't restrict based just on race." By establishing a religious doctrine in an area, that is setting up an exclusionary boundary and a coercion to new people coming into that area — and I think, actually, the opposite of probably what you think —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> If it's coercion. If it's coercion.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Have you ever been to a Hasidic community??<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Mmm-hmm. I have.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Try walkin' in there and goin', "Hey, everybody, it's Easter!!" Like, you're not gonna — This is — can I tell you something? — and this is what I always say to Huckabee — it's fascinating.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Good.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Really is fascinating.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Good.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Really?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Yeah.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Man, debate's good.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you feel like you're talking to, you know, like, a secular humanist —<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — that is responsible for grave danger to this country?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> No, no.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> A cancer on our society?<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> You know, as long as there's open conversation, that's good stuff.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's all I care about.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> That's good stuff.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All I care about is open conversation that leads to nothing.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> Uh, yeah. We got that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, I thank you very much for being here, I really do. I appreciate it.<br />
<br />
<b>Barton:</b> My pleasure.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> David Barton, everybody!<br />
<hr /><h2>LINCOLN MADISON COMMENTS<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=12810512" name="barton-commentary"></a>:</h2>The United States is not now, nor has it ever been, a nation founded upon the Christian religion. The Treaty of Tripoli, discussed in the interview, was the very first treaty ever ratified by the United States Senate, and <i><b>the text that was ratified by the Senate</b></i> contains the "Article 11" wording that plainly and unambiguously states:<br />
<blockquote>As <b>the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion</b>; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.</blockquote>That language was accepted by unanimous vote of the Senate and by President John Adams in 1797. The issue of whether that paragraph appears in the original Arabic text of the treaty as signed in Tripoli and Algiers is immaterial to this discussion; the clear fact of the matter is that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to declare that the U.S. is not founded on Christianity.<br />
<br />
Barton also raises the claim that John Adams believed in the Holy Trinity, which the historical record is clear that he did not. John Adams was a Unitarian, which <b><i>does</i></b> mean that he did not believe in the Trinity. The earliest use of the word "Unitarian" in print in the English language was in 1672, at which point it already clearly referred to disbelief in the Trinity. There was no magic snap of the fingers in 1839 (or any other year) in which Unitarians, having previously believed in the Trinity, suddenly ceased.<br />
<br />
But the text Barton references, an <a href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=59755">original letter from John Adams</a> to Benjamin Rush dated 1809-12-21, supports Jon Stewart's interpretation and refutes Barton's own claim:<br />
<blockquote>But my friend there is something very serious in this business. The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a Sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost, who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the Bishop on the heads of candidates for the Ministry. <b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #660000;">In the same manner as the Holy Ghost is transmitted from monarch to monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove and by that other phial [vial] which I have seen in the Tower of London.</span></b> There is no authority civil or religious: There can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation. <b>Although this is all artifice and cunning in the secret original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lie down their lives under the ax or the fiery fagots [wood used for burning individuals at the stake] for it. Alas, the poor weak ignorant dupe human nature. There is so much king craft, priest craft, gentlemen’s craft, people’s craft, doctors craft, lawyers craft, merchants craft, tradesmen’s craft, laborers craft and Devil’s craft in the world that it seems a desperate and impractical project to undeceive it.</b></blockquote>The portion highlighted in red was elided from the quote Jon Stewart read from Barton's book, but it clearly casts doubt on Barton's interpretation. Are we to believe that John Adams believed that the authority of the French and English monarchies legitimately flowed from the anointing oil as a means of passing forward the infusion of the Holy Ghost? And are we then to ignore the last third of the paragraph, which overflows with Adams' sarcasm?<br />
<br />
Barton claims that Article VII of the Constitution refers to God, and incorporates the Declaration of Independence, bringing in three additional references to God. First of all, Article VII says that the Constitution shall enter into force when ratified by nine of the thirteen states; it makes no reference at all to God or religion or the Declaration of Independence. Presumably Barton meant to say Article VI, which says:<br />
<blockquote>All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.</blockquote><blockquote>This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.</blockquote><blockquote>The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.</blockquote>The only reference to God or religion is in a negative sense: "no religious test shall ever be required...." As to incorporating the Declaration of Independence, that would have to be from the first sentence, but, seeing as the Declaration itself neither contracted any debts nor entered into any engagements, it's more than a stretch to say it's incorporated.<br />
<br />
Barton also ridiculously mischaracterizes his opponents in the court cases he cites. In the case of <i>Lee v. Weisman,</i> where the rabbi gave a prayer at a public-school graduation ceremony, Barton gets his facts badly wrong. First of all, Rabbi Gutterman <b><i>did</i></b> give the prayer; after the fact, the Supreme Court ruled against the principal of the school, but based in part on the fact that the principal gave the rabbi a pamphlet with guidelines for what should and should not be included in the prayer. In other words, it was precisely the fact that an agent of the government (the principal) was telling someone how he could pray that was the problem. Furthermore, the fact that the prayer was offered at an official school function — even though it was an "optional" function — introduced an element of religious coercion to the students.<br />
<br />
The case of <i>Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama,</i> Barton gets even more badly wrong, which is particularly damning, since it is a current case in which he is directly involved. Barton says that the FFRF wants to prevent anyone from having a <b><i>private</i></b> celebration of a National Day of Prayer, but that is an outright lie. What the FFRF sought, and what the trial judge granted, was an injunction against the Congress and the President from issuing an <b><i>official governmental proclamation</i></b> for the NDOP. Any private group is perfectly free to declare a National Day of Prayer, but neither the Congress nor the President should give it the government stamp of approval, because that is precisely an establishment of religion. It is precisely the fact that <b><i>it is a government activity</i></b> — despite Barton's absurd claim to the contrary — that is the problem. Also, Barton and friends haven't won yet; the case is still on appeal.<br />
<br />
Going back into history, Barton also completely mischaracterizes the case of <i>Everson v. Board of Education,</i> the 1947 decision written by Justice Hugo Black. Justice Black didn't say that Jefferson got it all wrong, he based his opinion precisely on Jefferson's view of the First Amendment. Quoting Justice Black:<br />
<blockquote>The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between Church and State."</blockquote>Likewise, the New Hampshire case regarding the Pledge of Allegiance <i>(FFRF v. Hanover)</i> does not claim anything remotely similar to "there's never been a religious influence in American history," as Barton claims. It simply seeks to end one particular instance of the preference by the government of religion over non-belief. The case doesn't claim that there has been no religious influence; rather, it seeks to at long last take the government's thumb <i>off</i> the scales.<br />
<br />
Barton also gets wrong the history of state constitutional provisions about religion. The clause in the Maryland constitution requiring profession of belief in God is still there, even today, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961 <b><i>unanimously</i></b> ruled its application to be illegal [<i>Torcaso v. Watkins,</i> 367 U.S. 488]. The state of Maryland added a fig leaf in the form of the annotation<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> "</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Nothing in this article [Article 36] shall constitute an establishment of religion." The Texas state constitution co</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal;">ntains a similar inoperative provision, as do several other states, but the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.<br />
<br />
As for the case of the Minnesota state worker with a religious bumper sticker, no one seems to have any idea what Barton was talking about at all; no such case comes up on Google under several different combinations of keywords.<br />
<br />
The story of the Aitken Bible brings forth yet more distortions from Mr. Barton. First, a bit of context: the Constitut</span>ion was written in 1787 and went into effect in 1789, so we are talking here about the Continental Congress, operating under the Articles of Confederation, with the Bill of Rights not yet written. However, Barton's claim that Robert Aitken "could not print it without Congressional permission" is absurd on its face. The only thing that Congress "authorized" Aitken to publish was its conclusion that his Bible was accurate. The </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><a href="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006473.jpg">exact text</a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"> of the Congressional resolution is:</span><br />
<blockquote><i>Resolved,</i> That the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitkin [sic], as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and <b><i>hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation</i></b> in the manner he shall think proper.</blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">They did not authorize him to publish <i><b>the Bible</b>;</i> they authorized him to publish <b><i>their recommendation of it.</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"> As the <a href="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html">Library of Congress</a> says on their website,<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> "</span></span></b></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">This resolution was a <b>result of</b> Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project" — not a precondition, as Barton would have us believe. Also, giving the Bible to the soldiers was a suggestion made <b><i>to</i></b> General Washington, who said, in effect, "Gosh, that would've been nice, but it's too late now." It's also worth noting that Aitken lost a lot of money on the project because — even with no competition at all — he couldn't sell his print run of 10,000 copies.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Finally, a few other resources for rebuttals of some of David Barton's claims:</span></span><br />
<ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><a href="http://www.goddiscussion.com/61500/rebuttals-to-david-bartons-remarks-on-stewarts-the-daily-show/">God Discussion</a></span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;">PFAW <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/individuals/david-barton">Right Wing Watch</a></span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><a href="http://pubrecord.org/commentary/2686/idiocy-texas-threat-david-barton/">The Public Record</a> (Chris Rodda)</span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/christianitys-role-in-history-of-u-s-at-172516.html">Austin American-Statesman</a> re: Barton's curriculum recommendations</span></span></li>
</ul><div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-81083969421938132412011-04-06T23:59:00.000-07:002011-04-07T06:02:20.420-07:00Huckabee on Daily Show: transcript and video2011-04-06: Former governor Mike Huckabee (R–AR) did an extended interview on <i>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.</i> The full transcript with embedded video links follows after the fold.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="340" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal arial; width: 512px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-6-2011/exclusive---mike-huckabee-extended-interview-pt--1" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Exclusive - Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 1</a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; width: 512px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:380589" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="340" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal arial; width: 512px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-6-2011/exclusive---mike-huckabee-extended-interview-pt--2" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Exclusive - Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 2</a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; width: 512px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:380590" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="340" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal arial; width: 512px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-6-2011/exclusive---mike-huckabee-extended-interview-pt--3" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Exclusive - Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 3</a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; width: 512px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:380591" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Welcome back. My guest tonight, a frequent guest, he is the former governor of Arkansas, whose book is called <i>A Simple Government: 12 Things We Really Need from Washington and a Trillion We Don’t.</i> Please welcome back to the program Mike Huckabee! [fanfare, Huckabee arrives] Welcome to the program again.<br />
<br />
<b>Mike Huckabee:</b> Thank you.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You — you write a book every six weeks. It’s unbelievable.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, almost. One of these days, somebody’s gonna read one of ‘em.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Stop it! <i>A Simple Government.</i> First of all, the big news, obviously, where <i>you</i> work, Mr. Beck — <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-glenn-beck-conspiracy.htm">Glenn Beck</a> — has announced he’s transitioning from — I didn’t catch the end of it: I don’t know if it’s male-to-female, but he’s transitioning.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I’m pretty sure that’s <i>not</i> it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> He’s leaving Fox News.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> We’re not doing the daily show, is what I gather, but I also understand that he will be doing some projects. Now, everything I know, I learned because I was on WiFi on an airplane, and I was just getting it like probably you were.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Let me ask you: will you announce right here, right now, that you will form a committee? Will you run for the 5:00 spot on Fox? Can you answer that?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I have an exploratory committee established for that purpose, and then we’ll move it to a thoughtful committee, and we’ll see. I don’t know. It really kind of caught me off guard because it was not something I was expecting.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you think it’s a “If you love something, set it free” situation, or more of an “Oh, my god, the apocalypse guy is in today; keep your heads down,” like that? What do you think is —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, it could be that the world <i>is</i> gonna come to an end before the contract expires; I don’t know.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> [laughs] Well...<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> He’s a good guy —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — who’s had a great run.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> He seems to be a very ... good ...<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Big audience. No, I’m serious: he has a <i>huge</i> audience.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> He does have a huge audience.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> And so, uh.... But he also has a big audience on radio, and he does a lot of other stuff, so again: I don’t know. That’s at a pay grade way above mine at Fox.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, I completely understand.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> There are big trucks and buses, and then there are those of us who ride the bike lanes there.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>Does</i> he speak with individuals there, or is he kept in sort of a different facility? Not to say necessarily —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Like, we let him out? Only certain hours or something like that?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That — that’s right.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> You know, yeah.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I’m not suggesting a containment facility, necessarily.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> You know, he is — I know there’s people have this perception of him, but he’s actually one of the nicest, most gregarious people —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Off-air?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> [laughs] Yeah. But I mean —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> When you go on TV and you’re like, “Progressives are a <b>cancer</b> in this country!” You know, but, like, “He’s a nice guy.” Really?? He just called for us to be cut out of the body. A little harsh, isn’t it?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, I’m sure it wouldn’t be the most comfortable thing, if you were a progressive, for sure, but —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — anyway.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I don’t know.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You know, which brings me to an interesting point. Here’s something I wanted to discuss. We always get into good conversations. Uh, it seems like, whenever the conservatives in this country, the Right, it feels like they’ve lost a trust, or it feels like they’re not well represented in this country by institutions like universities or news, so they have created almost mirror institutions that they feel more comfortable with or that reflect more their viewpoint. Do you think that’s a healthy development for conservatives, or could it lead to, maybe, distortions and maybe poorly informed people?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, I think it’s a natural result of what has been perceived as a very distinct bias in many of the institutions that heretofore were looked at as objective. For example, when you have news anchors talking about a tingle going up their leg when they hear Obama speak, it’s hard for conservatives to say, “Now, <b>there’s</b> an objective point-of-view!”<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But that’s <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/">Chris Matthews</a>; I don’t think you’ve ever — I mean, I don’t think anybody held Chris Matthews up as a paragon of independence —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> He holds <i>himself</i> up as that, so —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, that’s helium. But you know, I think ... like, for instance, okay, so — you come on the show, we always have very reasonable conversations, and then I see clips of you, like this <a href="http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9606/barton.html">David Barton</a> historian.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Yeah.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You know, you spoke right after him at an event, and you called him the greatest historian in America, and I don’t know if everybody’s familiar with David Barton, but he doesn’t seem <i>like</i> a historian. He seems almost like a theologian whose thrust is, “I want this country to be Christian and to go by the Bible.”<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No, David is, I think, very much a historian, and I love his stuff, because he documents everything with source material, and he’s very specific about dates and times and he has a lot of original documents — <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/">Federalist Papers</a>, the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/">Constitution</a>, the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/index.htm">Declaration of Independence</a>, things that —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But he said that —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> He doesn’t just say, “I think, I believe, I hope”; he says, “Here it is, and here’s the page number.” If people want to dispute it, they’re certainly welcome to do it, but —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But they <b>do</b>, and usually he has to come back and say, “Yeah, I guess I was wrong about that one.”<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I haven’t heard that too much.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, there were like ten quotes. For instance, the Thomas Jefferson thing. He goes on a long thing about how Thomas Jefferson signed everything “the Year of our Lord” and that meant that he really <i>was</i> Christian and believes that this should be a biblical country. I mean, he has — would you disagree that he has an objective? His objective is, “This is a Christian country.”<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I think his objective is to bring some balance to the idea that the Founders had <b>no</b> spiritual direction at all, because I think that —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>Who</i> ever said that they had no spiritual direction?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Oh, I don’t know; there’s a perception among many that this is a completely secular nation and that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian">Judeo-Christian</a> worldview was not a very significant part of our creation. I think it was, and that’s what I believe <i>he’s</i> trying to do.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But again, now we’re talking — that’s much more measured language than what David Barton advocates, which is, “This is a Christian country, and the Founders <b>knew</b> it was a Christian country, <b>founded</b> it on Christian principle, and if we follow the biblical rules” — what did he say? “Separation of Church and State is a myth”!<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, separation of Church and State was a phrase that didn’t appear until a <a href="http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html">letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in [1802]</a> 1804, and it was written to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and it was the <b>polar opposite</b> of how many people have interpreted it. They have interpreted it to say that it was essentially a doctrine that the church wasn’t to involve itself in affairs of state; actually, it was the opposite: it was that the government would not pick out a particular church and establish it as the state church. The First Amendment is very clear: neither preference nor —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> He is suggesting Christianity is the religion. He would feel very differently — for example, you fought very hard against <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/islsharia.htm">Shari’a law</a> taking over this country, which, in Oklahoma, especially, I know is an enormous problem. (You never know when they’re gonna get <b>two</b> Halal carts!) So, the, uh — but it’s — but my point is, he is advocating, not — he’s <b>advocating</b> an establishment of religion, of Christianity.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No, I don’t think he’s pushing for an <i>establishment</i> of Christianity, pushing for a <i>recognition</i> that the — for example, the founding documents —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We have <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_God.22">under God</a></i> in our Pledge, and that didn’t show up until the 50’s.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> 1956 [1954], yeah.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right. Why wouldn’t the Founders, who were creating a constitution, just say, “Let’s put <i>under God</i> on our money — uh, <i>we trust in God</i> on our money, and <i>under God</i> in our Pledge of Allegiance,” and make it explicit? This whole idea that they left us clues: everything <i>else</i> they said was explicit. Why is this a puzzle that this fellow [Barton] has to go back and find evidence of this and this?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, listen: take the Declaration of Independence, which was the establishment of our nation as an independent country. When it says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” if you read the early state constitutions, the states — and originally our government was supposed to be a rather weak, limited, and local form of government, with not a whole lot of power at the federal level.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Sure, sure.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Power distributed to the states so that it <i>didn’t</i> get held by too few people.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Absolutely.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> But in the state constitutions, there are some surprising things regarding the establishment of the government, to make sure that there was a Christian — or a Judeo-Christian — there were often these very explicit languages in the constitutions of states in New England that would probably not recognize those constitutions today.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And wouldn’t recognize them in that day. Now, I don’t know if you’re familiar, but those constitutions were scuttled because it didn’t work. The Articles of Confederation — you know, it’s interesting to me that so many constitutionalists really sound more like articles-of-confederationalists, and that whole plan was scuttled, ‘cause it didn’t work, and we weren’t able to contain the states, so we formed the Constitution, and none of that was in it. If our Founders wanted it to be explicit, why did they not explicitly put it in, rather than something that had to be so, “See, it says <i>endowed by their Creator...</i>“?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> They <i>did</i> want government to be limited and local, and that’s why, when the Bill of Rights were created, and the ten first amendments we had to the Constitution, the <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentx">tenth</a> one was explicit, that if it’s not contained in the Constitution, that power is left to the states. Now, what we’ve done over the past 240 years is, we have moved more and more power to the federal government. Let me be fair: this isn’t a Democrat / Republican thing, because Republicans have been just as adamant about moving that power more and more toward the federal government and away from cities and states. The danger is that, the closer you are to the people being governed, the more likely you are to get it right, because when you govern more locally, and in a more limited way —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — you’re governing close to the people. I have a feeling you raise your kids better than I would raise them, because I’ve never met your kids.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I know a lot of black people who would differ with that opinion, who would say that, you know what, the local guy there maybe <b>didn’t</b> have my best interests at heart, when it came to slavery and <a href="http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/">Jim Crow</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> That’s the <i>balance,</i> though, where the federal government <i>does</i> make sure, but it’s not that the power —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But that’s —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — on a day-to-day basis of governing. Now, you know, clearly, I grew up in the Deep South. I saw racism firsthand.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That’s a different conversation. Let’s go — we’re going to go to a commercial and come back, because that is a very different conversation from the one we’re having, and that’s your <i>larger government / smaller government,</i> and that’s pendulum swings, but again it gets to this idea of measured language versus a more direct speaking to the base, and I think that’s a big distinction. I want to talk about that. <i>Simple Government</i> is on the bookshelves now; more with Mike Huckabee when we come back off the break.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
<center><i>Part 2</i></center><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We’re back talking to Mike Huckabee. I apologize.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Apologize for talking to me?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, not at all. Umm, when you’re speaking to the base, you’re much more explicit about Christian value and religion than when you’re talking to the public at large, and it feels — I don’t want to say <i>disingenuous,</i> but at times you soft-sell something that I think is maybe more what’s in your heart than you let on, and I don’t know why people wouldn’t embrace it. You know, David Barton, as sort of a historian, I think most historians don’t look at him in that way. They look at him as a guy with an agenda to get America to believe we’re — or to rule itself as — a Christian nation.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Mm-hmm.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And I think most historians believe we had that chance and the Founders didn’t take it.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I mean, I think the best thing to counter with David Barton is, read his material and look for yourself. If you don’t believe that he is sourcing it with accuracy, then take issue.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But that’s not necessarily the point, and again it gets you back to the evolution / creationist argument in schools, and it gets to my point of creating an alternate reality where your — where history is taken in reverse to justify your modern beliefs. Now, I’ll just go — okay, here’s David Barton. This is him on <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/wallbuilders-national-borders-were-drawn-god-and-obama-out-replace-core-americans-illegals">immigration policy</a>: “It is God and not man who establishes the borders of nations. National boundaries are set by God. If God didn’t want boundaries, He would’ve put everyone in the same world and there would’ve been no nations.” Now, you <i>do</i> know, when the world started, that <i>is</i> what we were? Now, that’s not “historian.” That’s a guy going —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I’m not familiar with that statement by David, so, out of its context, I can’t speak to that. I just know that if he talks — and I’ve heard him on many occasions, I’ve read his material, I’ve seen other things that he’s done — and I’m very impressed with the fact that he rarely if ever — I don’t think I’ve ever heard David say, “I think,” “I believe,” “I hope” —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, he doesn’t. He’s very certain.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Yeah. But he <i>sources</i> it with documentation, is what I’m saying.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> He can’t. How can a historian say, “It is God and not man who establishes the borders of nations”? Is he familiar with Great Britain?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I’m <i>sure</i> he is.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>They’re</i> the ones who established the borders of nations; they did it in 1909. Uh, I mean, “Jesus has an entire teaching on the <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barton-jesus-opposed-minimum-wage">minimum wage</a>.” [audience laughs] “Is Jesus for or against the minimum wage? Here’s a hint: <b>Jesus did not like the minimum wage.</b>“ “The Bible condemns the <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4366/jesus_hates_taxes%3A_biblical_capitalism_created_fertile_anti-union_soil">estate tax</a> as one of the most immoral taxes out there.” “For 40 years, parties have gone back and forth on capital gains tax. It really doesn’t matter to me what either party says, because the Bible is clear: Jesus has two teachings on capital gains tax.”<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, let me address one of those, because you’ve gone through several, but let’s just take the one about the minimum wage. I know what he’s basing that on, because I’ve heard him talk about it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Workers_in_the_Vineyard">parable</a> in which Jesus told of three workers: one who went early in the day, one who went in the middle of the day, and one who went late in the day, and at the end of the day they all got the same wages, and one was saying, “Hey, wait a minute! I worked all day,” and the master said, “It is not for you to decide what I pay, because you agreed to the wage for the whole day, and the other one agreed to the wage for half the day, and the other one agreed to a wage which was for only a small part of the day.” And I think what David was saying is not that there’s a hard-and-fast policy, but there <i>is</i> a principle, which is, if you agree to work for someone for a wage, then what someone else gets paid is really not the issue. It’s, did you agree to work for that wage, and if you did, then you agreed to work for it. I mean, there are people who get paid a lot more money than I do, and some don’t get paid as much.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right. There’s also parables in there about <a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=169177614">turning people into salt</a>; that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have any in your diet. But the point isn’t that. The point is, a historian doesn’t use a theological argument to back up a policy choice. <i>That’s</i> my beef, is that that’s not <i>historian.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> You should invite David on the show.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I would absolutely invite David on the show.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> You should do that, because he’s a much better defender of his views, because, I mean, I’m not David Barton.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So why say he’s the greatest historian, though? Why praise him and say you’d like his teachings taught in schools? Because, I mean, if you want to go with the Bible, I have a quote here from Jesus that says, “<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A42-47&version=ESV">All the believers were together</a> and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.” If that ain’t socialism and redistribution of wealth, I don’t know what is. If you want to be perfect — I mean —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Jon, you could take, also, the Bible says <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27%3A5&version=NIV">Judas went and hanged himself</a> [Matt. 27:5] and then later “<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:37&version=KJV">Go thou and do likewise</a>.” [Luke 10:37] If you put those two together, you’d end up with some real problems.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That’s exactly right, and it has things that <a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=deuteronomy+5:6-5:21&version=nrsvae">excuse slavery</a>. So why would you use it to make a policy argument in the 21st century about our tax code, and still be considered a historian??<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, here’s what I <i>do</i> think David would say — and again, I think you should invite him to let him defend himself —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I will.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — but I don’t believe that we ought to be punishing productivity and rewarding irresponsibility. That is the basic principle that I think is not only Biblical, I think it’s common sense. The current tax code —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Don’t quote Jesus, quote Andrew Carnegie! Why would you —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> But I think it is a principle that you will find in the Proverbs, and you will find it as part of that parable that I spoke of earlier, that when people work they should be rewarded, and if they don’t work they should not be rewarded for that. I mean, I was one of the Republicans who thought that <a href="http://www.blogger.com/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program">TARP</a> was a <i>terrible</i> idea, because what we did, we picked out really poorly run institutions and bailed them out, off the backs of well-run small businesses all over America, who <i>didn’t</i> get a bailout.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Consider the lilies, for they sit and do nothing, and yet I provide for them. (I’m paraphrasing, because I don’t know the Bible.) But Jesus also says the lilies do nothing to earn me providing for them, and yet I do it.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> But the point of that particular Biblical reference was not to say, “Oh, it’s great to do nothing.” It’s saying that God was blessing — the <a href="http://www.anonlinebible.com/parables/parable_of_the_lilies_of_the_field.html">lilies of the field</a> are not out there doing anything in particular to be beautiful, but God blesses the lilies of the field, and that was the point. It wasn’t to bless laziness, it was to bless beauty.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Says a theological manifestation of that, not a his[torical] — my problem is using that, and applying it to political leverage. He’s basically saying —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> David’s never run for office.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But <b>you’re</b> gonna run for President and you call him a historian who you think should teach our children in public school. Now, that is the intersection of state and religion that makes some people — non-evangelical Christians — uncomfortable.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Some of us, Jon, are uncomfortable with the idea that we have history books today in which there is more material about, let’s say, Madonna, than there is about George Washington. That’s the thing.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>Different</i> argument. If there —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> But I’m just telling you, there is a very strong —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> If there is more material about Madonna than about George Washington, I agree with you. That seems wrong. Don’t know what Jesus would think of that.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be that fond of it!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I think it all depends on which Madonna we’re talkin’ about, but —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, I’m pretty sure that Jesus wouldn’t be talkin’ about the one today.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
<center><i>Part 3</i></center><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you see the point I’m making? When we’re talking, it’s all “you understand, yes, that makes me uncomfortable,” but then there seems to be this conversation happening amongst the base that is saying, “This guy needs to be put in a position where he is in charge of children’s education. We need to get <b>Christianity</b>“ —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I wish people <i>would</i> listen to David Barton, and then they can make up their own minds and draw their own conclusions, because I think he is more than willing to stand on what he teaches and what he says, and if people want to argue with it, they can, but they can argue with anyone, too.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> They <i>can’t</i> if that’s the curriculum that the President of the United States, or someone who would like to be, is now putting through. That’s my point about what makes me uncomfortable with these <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/texas-textbook-changes-pr_n_799510.html">Texas curriculum changes</a> and all that is, they’re not looking at it from a historical perspective, they’re looking at a way to justify their religious beliefs within the context of the country, and I think that’s — Here’s my point.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> All right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Dearborn, Michigan, is, let’s say, has a high majority of Muslims. Would you be comfortable, since the <i>majority</i> in that area are Muslims, with them committing to praying five times a day, in the public schools, and employing Shari’a law in a public school? Would that be okay with you?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I would not be happy with the Shari’a law. I think that would be problematic, because we don’t have Shari’a law in this country. We have a constitutional republic that we elect representatives to create laws and they’re not laws that are based on Islam — or, for that matter, that are directly out of, let’s say, the Old and the New Testament, though they might be gleaned from it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But this is you saying, “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of living God. And that is what we need to do, is so amend the Constitution so if in God’s standards — rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view how we treat each other and how we treat the family.” [<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXwjVXqw05Q">video</a>] That sounds like <b>you</b> would like to line up —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Let me just — because that is a quote that has been thrown at me many, many a time.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right. Tell me the context, because I could use that.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> The context of that quote was, when people say we should not amend the Constitution, because it is a <i>sacred</i> document. My point is, the Constitution was created — and the <i>genius</i> of it is that it <i>can</i> be amended. The Scriptures — any religious document, whether it’s the Qur’an, or for that matter the New Testament — is not a scripture that is written so that every culture can come and revise it and revisit it and then change it so it fits the culture. The culture is to fit holy scripture, not the other way around. <i>That</i> was the point that I was making, and <i>specifically</i> a reference to pro-life, that it would be easier to amend the Constitution so that we affirm the intrinsic worth and value of every human soul —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — than it would be, “Well, let’s —”<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So you were not expressing a thought that you were comfortable with the idea of the Constitution being amended to be in line with biblical law.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No, I was not saying that what we ought to do is enforce the everybody that they have to tithe of their income, in addition to their taxes, and that they have to go to church, because, frankly, once you force people into any form of religious practice, it no longer has any meaning whatsoever. It has to come out of one’s own heart and spirit and free will, or then it becomes an absolute form and it is led by a rote memory as opposed to something out of the heart and soul.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you believe I’m overreacting to the wish to influence, or to grant this country this idea of a divine providence through Christianity as our foundation? You think I’m over-exaggerating, perhaps, that influence in more, maybe, conservative politics?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Yeah, I think you are. I think you’re an incredible exaggerator on that point.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Really??<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Yeah! Well, I don’t think you are doing it consciously, but I do believe it’s, like, scaring you, and it shouldn’t. I think, again, it’s a matter of understanding that there are people who <i>do</i> believe — and I think legitimately — that there is a growing antagonism toward people who are Christian. Let me give you a specific example: tax dollars funded the placing of a crucifix in a jar of urine —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — under the arts program, when <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.artnet.com/awc/andres-serrano.html">Andres Serrano’s</a> famous <i><a href="http://www.artnet.com/artwork/424288434/piss-christ.html">Piss Christ</a></i> piece of art. This week, you had Harry Reid saying that he thinks, because of this nutcase pastor down in Florida who’s burning a Qur’an, that maybe we need to revisit the First Amendment. <i>[see </i><b><i>FOOTNOTE</i></b><i> below]</i> No, we don’t need to <i>revisit</i> the First Amendment. The First Amendment gives people the right to be stupid. That’s okay. In this country, you can say dumb things, you can say ridiculous things —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You can make a living at it.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> And a lot of people do. But you don’t want to go back and tell people, “Oh, if you say something bad about Muslims, we’re gonna shut you up. But you can say something terrible about Christians, and we’re gonna tax subsidize that.” That’s the problem, Jon, that a lot of people are feeling, is that there’s a complete double standard here.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Here’s what I would suggest: I would suggest that strikes me as more of an exaggeration of the peril of Christians than what I was suggesting in terms of — I mean, there <i>is</i> curriculums in Texas that set the stage for curriculums all across the country, that are influenced now by a more conservative Christian viewpoint. You pointed to Andres Serrano, which was, I don’t know, 1990-something?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Yeah, like ‘91, something like that. [in fact, 1989]<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You know, I have to say, as someone who is not Christian, it’s hard for me to believe that Christians are a persecuted people in America. I know — Maybe, God willing, God willing, maybe <i>one</i> of you one day will even rise up and get to be President of this country. Or maybe 44 in a row. But <b>that’s</b> my point, is they’ve taken this idea of — you know, freedom, no “establishment” — as persecution, because they feel entitled — not to <b>equal</b> status, but to greater status.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No, I don’t agree with that. I do not think that Christians believe that they should be able to —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Tell me how there’s a war on Christmas, then, because to me it’s the most ubiquitous thing I’ve ever seen in my life. I mean —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, the secularization of it certainly is, but that’s —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That’s a very different thing from persecution.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Many public schools can’t sing about the historic meaning of Christmas, if it has any reference that might be about Jesus —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> There is idiocy out there, I’ll give you that.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Yeah.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> There is politically correct idiocy out there. I’ll give you that.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> And no manger scenes, because that might somehow be religious. Of course it’s religious! The term <i>Christ-mas</i> means <i>the worship of Christ,</i> Christ’s mass. That’s what it means. So if we want to completely secularize it, let’s just call it the biggest gift-giving shopping day in America.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> The secularization of Christmas was not the result of a persecution of Christians —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> No.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — or a multi-cultural war on Christians. It was the result of Gimbels and Macy*s, <b>and</b> our free-market system. So, I don’t think you can have it both ways. And in the conservative viewpoint, “free market” is god, except where it comes to God, then God is god, except where it comes to the Constitution, and then that’s god. I think you’ve gotta pick your infallible document.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> That really was confusing.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I know.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I’ve gotta tell you.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Can I tell ya something, though?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Tell me something.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I love you.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, thank you.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Because you challenge beliefs that I have and you challenge easy beliefs that I have and you force me to reconsider them in the context of other issues, and I really do appreciate you being able to do that with such good humor. Umm, and I know when you leave here, obviously, you’ll go back to —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> I’ll probably go —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — David Barton and the church, and I appreciate that.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Yes, well.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, I really do appreciate you doin’ that.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Well, I appreciate you, because you always have a civil conversation with me, and you don’t belittle the fact that I have very clear Christian beliefs, and I appreciate that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Because I don’t belittle faith. I am a great — faith is, many times, all people have, and I always say this to people: we need religion to give grace and comfort to a world torn apart by religion. And I think it’s important that we —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Let me correct you: torn apart by a <b>perversion</b> of true religion.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes, a perversion of religion. It’s always important that we —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> A perversion. Because true religion will make me love you —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Exactly.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — and will also make me see, if you have a need —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> — whether it’s hunger, or whether it’s that you are hurting — <b>true</b> religion will make me sensitive to that need and want to help meet that need. If it doesn’t, then I have to question whether it’s valid.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It’s always important for people who see a dark side in powerful institutions to also recognize the power that they also bring to people, and the faith. And I have seen it myself in people, and I have great faith. Obviously, I’ve been a <a href="http://www.mets.com/">Met</a> fan 40 years, and I... [laughter] But I really do appreciate you being here.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Always a pleasure, Jon.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And I will have this fellow David Barton on —<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> You should have him on!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — and I’ll let him yell at me in person. Because I think that — Is he a nice fellow?<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> He’s incredibly nice, very mild-mannered and well-spoken, and I think you would have a delightful conversation with him. I really do. [audience laughs] Maybe you won’t; I don’t know.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Should I make finger sandwiches, because that’s what it sounds like. Thank you for being here.<br />
<br />
<b>Huckabee:</b> Always a pleasure, thank you.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
<b>FOOTNOTE:</b> On Sunday, 2011-04-03, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R–SC) were guests on CBS News <i>Face the Nation;</i> <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_040311.pdf?tag=cbsnewsTwoColUpperPromoArea">transcript</a>. Senator Reid said (page 3): “We’ll — we’ll take a look at this, of course. John Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has been on top of this. He’s made many trips to Afghanistan. And I think we’ll take a look at this as to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.”<br />
<br />
Senator Lindsey Graham (R–SC) said later in the broadcast (page 7), “You know, I wish we could find some way to— to— to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.”<br />
<br />
Neither senator used the word “revisit,” and in particular Senator Reid only suggested that Congress might consider a resolution condemning the burning of the Qur’an at the church in Florida.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-62859730776351935252011-02-23T23:29:00.000-08:002011-02-24T05:48:22.287-08:00Transcript: Rumsfeld on The Daily Show (extended)This is a quick transcript of the full extended interview of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on <i>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,</i> 2011-02-23. The embedded video is in three segments, totaling just over half an hour.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:261352" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-23-2011/exclusive---donald-rumsfeld-extended-interview-pt--1">The Daily Show - Exclusive - Donald Rumsfeld Extended Interview Pt. 1</a></b><br />
Tags: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div></div></div><br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Welcome back! My guest tonight served as Secretary of Defense in two different Presidential administrations, most recently under George W. Bush; his memoir is called <i>Known and Unknown.</i> Please welcome to the program Donald Rumsfeld. Sir! Nice to see you.<br />
<br />
<b>Donald Rumsfeld:</b> Thank you.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Please, come and join us. Thank you. Please, thank you for being here. We appreciate it. The book is <i>Known and Unknown,</i> and that's you, right there in a vest.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> In Taos, New Mexico.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Is that Taos, New Mexico? Lovely place, by the way. Uh, obviously, you know, "elephant in the room": tension between us. I think I know why you're here, and let me just deflate the attention, right off the bat: apology accepted. <i>[audience cheers]</i> Now we can move on, have a nice day, a nice conversation. I know this has been troubling you for some time now. I <i>do</i> thank you for being here. I don't even know where to start, so let's start with Iraq. Okay.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Why am I not surprised?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I don't know. I will take your stony silence as acceptance. There's an interesting quote that you had in the book about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman">John Ehrlichman</a>, who was in the Nixon White House, and you worked with Ehrlichman. And you say to him — uh, <i>about</i> him — "He seemed to have a high degree of certainty about his views that bordered on arrogance: a trait that did him no favors as he gathered more influence in the White House. Certainty without power can be interesting, even amusing; certainty <i>with</i> power can be dangerous." And I thought, Boy, if there was ever a solid critique of the administration you served under President Bush, it would be that. Certainty with power is dangerous: true or false?<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> If you go to the website that I put up, rumsfeld.com, there are hundreds of documents, thousands of pages, and what you will see is the <b>absence</b> of certainty. You will see probing, questioning, wondering — Do we have enough information? Are there things we ought to know? It's quite exactly the opposite.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> If you would go to my TiVo —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> <i>[to audience]</i> He doesn't think I know what that means!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What I said — you said "rumsfeld.com"; you're way ahead of me, brother. I'm still lickin' stamps and puttin' 'em on envelopes and hopin' it's gettin' to wherever it's goin'. Umm, I think there is — I guess I'm drawing a distinction, perhaps, between the <i>internal</i> deliberations —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — and what was <i>presented</i> to the American public.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Because what was presented to the American public was a picture of — not just <i>relative</i> certainty — certainty bordering on arrogance, and there was a dismissiveness to anyone who would challenge that certainty. That's not how you remember it?<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> It isn't, at all, really. I mean, I know what was going through <i>my</i> mind, and I know the kinds of questions the President would ask and the questions that Colin Powell or Condi Rice or the Vice President would ask, and there was a searching, there was lots of questions.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> A yearning, if you will.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Well, it's not quite the word I would've used.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you — so, you disagree that the administration showed a face of certainty when it came to the intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War? Is that —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> No, no. In that respect, you're exactly right. There's no question that the intelligence community presented that information, Colin Powell made the presentation at the United Nations — he spent — he probably had as much experience dealing with intelligence products as anyone in the government, including the Director of the CIA. He spent days on it, he worked hard on it, he believed every word he said.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> And yet he — and he <i>presented</i> it that way. Now, the intelligence always is never perfect. It's always questionable; you <i>have to</i> question it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Did you guys <i>know</i> intelligence was never perfect?<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Oh, my goodness, yes.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I feel like we're sitting on a porch now, sipping lemonade.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I said what I shouldn't've said.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> "Oh, my goodness."<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> "Oh, my goodness."<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you — let me say this —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> He makes fun of that, but there are a lot of people in the Heartland of America who talk like I do —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, I —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> — maybe not on the coasts, but in the Heartland they do.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes, on the coasts we just curse and have gay sex. That's all we do. We just run around cursing and gay-sexing each other.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> No, let me go back to Colin Powell.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right. Powell was not the <i>only</i> one, to be fair —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Of course not. Of course not. The President made the decision, Colin Powell made the presentation. There was <b>no one</b> in the NSC who disagreed with that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, I would take issue with some of that. For instance, the linkage between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, in terms of the intelligence —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> There wasn't much of a linkage at all.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Thank you. We didn't <i>hear</i> that, though; what we heard was, there was a direct link, "You cannot <i>talk</i> about the War on Terror...." You even came out and talked about how this fellow — you didn't mention his name, but [Ibn al Shaykh] al Libi — had described <b>training</b> that had been occurring from Iraq to Al Qaeda —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> There <b>had been</b> training camps, and there was an Al Qaeda-connected group called Ansar al Islam (ئهنسهر ئهل إسلام) up in Kermal that was actually preparing chemicals, and we found traces of Ricin and Potassium Chlorate (KClO₃) after major combat operations — and Saddam Hussein was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, and he'd been on the State Department terrorism list for years.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No question he was doing that. No question he was on that list. I think my ultimate point is — and I guess I'm somewhat getting to it — is, there was no <i>real</i> momentum for a war in Iraq. We had to focus the country on that. Afghanistan didn't take much convincing. People, I think, were behind that one.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I think that's fair.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, the White House and the Defense Department and the State Department had to coordinate a pretty extraordinary effort to gather information and convince America that this was in our best interests to do so. And would it be fair to consider that, in the effort that it took to <i>sell</i> us this, that we lost our —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> That's a little strong.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> "Sell" is the wrong word? Let me back up a little. In the effort it took the Administration to —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Present? <i>[audience laughs]</i> I'm just tryin' to help ya!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Thank you; I appreciate that. Oh, if only I had talked to you before.... Okay, not "sell." I wouldn't say "present" because they did not present, they gave us, again, they were pretty <i>certain</i> when it came out; all the deliberation had been done, so it wasn't — they were —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> You want to know what I did at one point?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> In the book, I talk about it. I sat down and prepared a list of all the things that could go wrong.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> "The Parade of Horribles."<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Exactly. And one of them was, there might not be weapons of mass destruction.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's right.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> And another one was, it might last six or eight years. And —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Mmm-hmm. Did you "star" those?<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> No. No, I didn't. And I didn't believe them, but I just knew that a rational person had to sit down and say, What are the things that could go wrong?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> And I presented it to the President and to the —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Now we're getting somewhere.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> — National Security Council.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Could I give you a little background?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No. <i>[audience laughs]</i> But wouldn't a rational person — so you presented — I guess what I'm saying is —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Please.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> The effort on presenting us the information of certainty that Saddam Hussein was a <i>grave threat</i> that had weapons of mass destruction capability and was in the process of disseminating that to Al Qaeda operatives — the effort to present that —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> You've overstated.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>[skeptically]</i> Hmm.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Yeah, promise. Goodness gracious.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you want to — does the, does the — all right. We're going to go to commercial. We'll come back and I'll finish and I will try and recalibrate —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Me?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes.<br />
<br />
[break]<br />
<br />
[PART 2]<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:261352" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-23-2011/exclusive---donald-rumsfeld-extended-interview-pt--2">The Daily Show - Exclusive - Donald Rumsfeld Extended Interview Pt. 2</a></b><br />
Tags: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div></div></div><br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What I'm trying to get to is this: You had a memo of "Parade of Horribles." Two pages or three pages?<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I don't know.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It was about 30 or 40 "Horribles." But you —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Possible "Horribles."<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>Possible</i> "Horribles."<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I didn't <i>know.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You don't know if that parade's gonna <i>happen;</i> it could be a Puerto Rican Day parade; nobody knows. It could be a [inaudible] parade. But my point is, it seemed that the <i>effort</i> that the Administration exuded was more geared toward <i>making the case</i> of why we had to do this than examining your memo. You say yourself in the book, "I gave the memo to the NSC; I don't know what happened to it."<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Not quite.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You gave the memo to the NSC but they didn't really pay attention?<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Individuals did, and people did make preparations for some of those things. Certainly we did in the [Defense] Department. There were not extensive meetings on them —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — but that's my point.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Fair enough.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> The White House Iraq Group met weekly. The group that was assigned the job of coordinating the "presentation" about going to war in Iraq, met weekly.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Mmm-hmm. I guess so. I don't know. That would've been at a different level. The NSC met frequently.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Did they tell you <i>anything</i>? <i>[Rumsfeld scoffs, audience laughs]</i> You poor man!<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> No, I don't know what —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Are you not on the e-mail list?? Are you not cc'd?<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I was in the National Security —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> There was a White House Iraq Group.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Of course there was.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, I'm telling <i>you.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> No, I know that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Did you know — you created a whole <b>office</b> to deal with intelligence within the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans. Did you know that??<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I didn't create it. I did; he told me.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You recommended it.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I did <i>not.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You didn't recommend that office??<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> No!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Did you have any power over there??<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You did have a lot of power?<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Sure.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So they said to you, "Can we create a special office called the Office of Special Plans, to deal with intelligence?" You could've said, "I don't think that's a good idea."<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> There are three million people in that operation, and everyone did not ask me everything they were going to do; they were delegated large chunks of responsibility.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Your undersecretary Doug Feith, though —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> They were very good people, and they did a good job.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, let's not get crazy. <i>[audience laughs]</i> How did they do a good job??<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> We disagree on that!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But no, how did they do a good job?? They were <b>wrong</b> about the major implications of why we went to war. How did they do a good job?? And in fact —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Well, the intelligence community was wrong on the facts on weapons of mass destruction. A lot was right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But there were people within the [Defense Intelligence Agency] (DIA), even, and the CIA, who were saying, "Curveball and al Libi: they are not credible!" These people, <b>before</b> the administration went out to present that information <b>as fact</b>.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I was not the head of intelligence, and I was not making the presentation. I can tell you that those people are honorable people — George Tenet and Colin Powell. They gathered <i>hundreds</i> of pieces of information, hundreds and hundreds, some from human beings — some of whom were wrong, some who lied. Some lied for money, maybe. Some lied for self-aggrandizement.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> That's always true with intelligence gathering. It's a very tough job.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I understand that.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> And they did an <i>imperfect</i> job, but they did the best job they could. And there are dozens of instances throughout our history.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I want to make it clear: I am not impugning whether they are honorable people in <i>any</i> way, shape, or form.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Good, good.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What I am suggesting is — and maybe I'm not being clear — is that you're <i>surrounded</i> by a group of individuals who are in the PNAC — you know, the group you were a signatory to, that talked about changing régimes in Iraq in 1998.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> The National Security Council?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, the [Project for a] New American Century.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Oh, back in the '90s.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Exactly, back in the '90s, <b>before</b> even September 11, that talked about, <i>this</i> is something we need to do. They are in the Defense Department, dealing with the intelligence — can you, in your — was there <i>any</i> point that you saw intelligence that <b>countered</b> the idea that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that <b>made it to the public</b> — that was <i>presented</i> by the administration to the public? What I'm saying is, whatever internal disagreements they had, they solved amongst themselves, and presented a unified, very direct, relentless campaign that we needed to take out Saddam Hussein. It would be painless, it would pay for itself.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> No, no, no, no. No. You were right, up to that point. No one in the Pentagon thought it would be painless.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I'm not talking about "thought." You're saying <b>presented to the American public</b>.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> No.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Who brought up pain?<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I have no idea, but you did. No one in the Pentagon — people in the Pentagon know that war is a terrible thing, that people die, that people get wounded, and they know that, looking throughout history, no one is smart enough to tell you how long a war is going to last, how much it's going to cost, or how many people are going to be killed or wounded. You just can't <i>know</i> that.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You have to pardon my skepticism here, because, being alive during that time, there was an insistent drumbeat. You said, "How long will the military operation take? It will take six days, maybe six weeks; I doubt it will take six months."<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> That was major combat operations.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> "Major combat operations."<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> And I was right. I was vague because I didn't know.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's not very vague. That's saying six days, six weeks —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> And what did it take?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Five weeks. So it was within your range. But later on in the book, they talk about, "Why was security so bad in Iraq? Catastrophic success." We had no <i>idea</i> Saddam's army was going to fall so quickly. So, the reason we couldn't've planned for that is that we just never knew it was going to happen. It feels like you sold us a car — and you said this is a car you have to have, it's going to keep your family safe — we got in the car and it flipped over, rolled down an embankment, burst into flames, and then we came back to you and said, "That's a crappy car!!" and you went, "Hey, you never know with cars." Do you get what I'm frustrated with here? You guys own the Iraq War — unfairly, maybe, but because you pushed so hard to make it happen.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> We'll come back to that, but I don't think it's correct to say we pushed hard to make it happen. The President made a decision that it should be done. He had been attacked in our country, he spent day and night trying to make sure that the American people were safe, that there wouldn't be another attack, putting pressure on terrorists — deeply concerned about the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. At that moment, Johns Hopkins [University] had done a study called "Dark Winter," and you're undoubtedly familiar with it —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Mmm-hmm.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> — where they put smallpox in three locations in our country, and within a matter of months, close to a million people were dead. And imagine: you'd have to have martial law and quarantines. It was clearly a deep concern on the part of people in the government, in the Congress, in the intelligence community, that there <i>could be</i> chemical or biological weapons, that they <i>could be</i> provided to a terrorist network, we had <i>just</i> lost 3,000 people here. I know the President and others there got up every day, determined to try and protect the American people. Now, in retrospect, it's easy to say what you said. And put yourself in their shoes at the time. I don't think there were people rushing to judgment; in fact, I know at the very end, the President and I talked, and Colin Powell and others, and he tried to offer Saddam Hussein a chance to leave with his family, to prevent a war. There were any number of — <b>no one</b> was rushing to war. It may, in retrospect, make you <i>feel</i> that way, but I was there.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But I wouldn't suggest "rushing"; what I would suggest is "relentlessly pushing to make something happen there," and I think the frustration is, the lead-up to the war is — and I'll give you the example, and this is maybe not one of your fondest memories, but you were speaking in front of the troops and one of the gentlemen who you were speaking with asked a question, one of your troops said, "Why do we have to scrounge" — and I'm paraphrasing — "to get scrap metal and things to up-armor our vehicles?" because the IED explosions, etc., are really damaging us, and we don't have the MRAPs, the Mine-Resistent [Ambush-Protected] vehicles. And you said, "You go to war with the Army you have, not necessarily the Army that you <i>wish</i> you had."<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> That's not incorrect, but let me tell you what I really said.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Okay.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> In the <a href="http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1980">transcript of that briefing</a>, presentation, question-and-answer period — apparently some press person had given that question to him. <i>[Note: to find the exchange in question, click on the transcript link and search for the word "logistical."]</i> I answered probably three or four or five minutes, explaining all that had been done. Then I said <i>that</i>, which is true. I mean, every President, every Secretary of Defense, every Congress, is left what their predecessors provided them. That is just a fact of life. And you use those things, and you then put in play things for the future, and your successors will use the things you put in play, so the fact is, the quote was correct.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Now, then I asked the general to come up and talk to the troops and tell them precisely what they were doing. What a combatant commander has to do is, to the extent the enemy has a brain, the enemy keeps adjusting and adapting, and that's what happened: the insurgents constantly were putting different types of IEDs out there, and therefore the tactics, techniques, and procedures of the military commander had to adjust, and they did. Finally, I said, "Well, look, just stop any vehicle that doesn't have the proper armor, just don't take it anywhere outside of a compound," and they didn't, and I said, "We'll fly in armor, we'll fly in people to attach the armor." Of course, then you put the armor on vehicles that aren't used to the armor and the hinges get bad, the suspension gets bad, and the society, the Congress, the Department of Defense, in the year 1990s, after the Cold War, drew down, lowered the budgets, reduced the level for support for intelligence, and we had to literally deal with what we had. And it was pretty darned good, and they did a great job.<br />
<br />
[break]<br />
<br />
[PART 3]<br />
<div style="background-color: black; width: 520px;"><div style="padding: 4px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:261352" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 4px; padding: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-23-2011/exclusive---donald-rumsfeld-extended-interview-pt--3">The Daily Show - Exclusive - Donald Rumsfeld Extended Interview Pt. 3</a></b><br />
Tags: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></div></div></div><br />
<b>Stewart:</b> My question to you was more along the lines of, we <b>chose</b> when to go to war, and we knew — so, if we choose when to go to war, why do we go to war with the army that we have when we know — people have been raising the issue of mines and IEDs and those vehicles and the MRAPs — they've been screaming for it — why, then, go at that time?<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> They hadn't been screaming for them before the Iraq War.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, once it started. No, [General Anthony] Zinni, or one of those gentlemen, was talking about how war, and that, and mines and the IEDs were going to be a terrible problem, and that was in the '90s, when they were planning, when he put together the first plan, which was, what would happen in a post-Saddam Iraq. So it was — I guess what I'm saying is, there are known knowns. We had "knowns" before we went in, we had a "Parade of Horribles" memo — it seemed like <i>those</i> were minimized, and everything that could go <i>right</i> was maximized.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I don't think so. I sat in the room where the President of the United States, who had to make these decisions — and they're tough decisions — and he did not rush to them. He took them very seriously. He went around the room with all the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the combatant commanders, and said, "Do you have everything you need?"<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> And each one of them looked him in the eye and said yes.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But it's clear that they <b>didn't</b>. It was clear that certain people said that others wanted more troops to go in there. There was a lot of people that thought this was a <i>bad</i> idea, that we needed more troops for the postwar, that we needed to protect the security situation in Iraq. Dick Cheney himself said in 1994, the <i>reason</i> we don't go into Baghdad is, it would be chaos: who would you give it over to? Well, what changed?? Why is it that it feels like we didn't do enough planning to protect against the chaos, yet we did <i>so much</i> planning to coalesce the information that convinced Americans that this was something that had to be done? My chief complaint is, I feel like <i>so much</i> time and effort was spent on making Americans feel like, if we <i>didn't</i> do this, "the smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud," when, in essence, we <b>didn't</b> have to do it, the intelligence proved itself to be faulty, and our postwar plan proved itself to be inadequate — and isn't <i>that</i> a reasonable criticism to make of the administration that was accountable for that?<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> It is certainly a criticism that is made. <i>[Stewart laughs]</i> And you have done it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>[laughing]</i> Damn you, Rumsfeld!!<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Just a minute: and you have done it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> You have done it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But you think that's completely — because we weren't in those meetings. I wasn't in the meeting where Bush went, "Geez, it <i>could</i> go all wrong — maybe we should put in 500,000 people." The face presented to the American people was one of certainty — <b>arrogant</b> certainty.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I think when a President makes a decision, he has to lay it out, and he may continue to question his people, he may talk to the combatant commander, he may talk to the Secretary of Defense, and say, "What about this? What about this? What about that?" But when he goes out and decides to do something, he doesn't go out and say, "Well, what about this? What about that?," he goes out and says, "We're going this way." Now, it was <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/dwightdei149111.html">Eisenhower</a>, I think, who said, "The plan is nothing; planning is everything." And what did he mean? The enemy has a brain. There's never been a war that went by plan. The first contact with the enemy, the plan goes out. And then you start adapting and adjusting and fixing things the way you have to; that's the nature of it. Look at World War II. You've read the history books about what took place in Germany, in Bremen, and it was just total disorder for a period. When you go from one régime to another, it's almost inevitable. I don't think that was a surprise.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But don't you think that there's a reason Afghanistan has not had the same <i>level</i> of criticism that Iraq has had? And there's a difference of perception of <i>how</i> we got into Afghanistan, versus how we got into Iraq.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I think that's fair.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And so the higher level of criticism towards Iraq is based on the idea that there was a momentum created by the administration to get us there. And that's why the criticism is more pointed, and in some ways makes the architects of it more accountable to these "You know, it's war, and things happen." And I think it's difficult, you know — look, I'm not suggesting that these people aren't honorable or that they're not humane, but during that time there was a lot of dismissiveness over the criticism and a lot of, as you said, "Henny Penny, the sky is falling!" but the result of this war is 100,000 — easily, lowball — Iraqi civilians killed, 5,000 Americans. It's very difficult to hear sometimes the shrugging off of things as, "Hey, man, things happen in war," when this was clearly something that felt <b>not</b> inevitable.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Well, I mean, you're clearly — there's no one — certainly not Don Rumsfeld or the President or anyone involved — who doesn't, every single day, think of the people whose lives have been lost, and you've visited the wounded, as I have, and you carry that with you every day. These are people whose lives have changed, and they've sacrificed, and you always worry in a war that that's going to happen, and you know it's going to happen, and it's heartbreaking. I think that it <i>is</i> fair to say that much of what you've said is correct; on the other hand, if you look at Iraq today, <i>I</i> think that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. He was a vicious dictator. We have a beginnings of a democratic process there with the Maliki (نوري المالكي) government, the constitution they drafted. They've got the schools open. Are there still terrorists attacking people? Yes. Are people getting killed in that country? Yes. Is it likely to go on? I think probably. It's <i>not</i> a peaceful place. There are deep splits among the ethnic groups in the country. One other thing that happened, interestingly, thinking of what's going on in North Africa today, when [Libyan dictator Moammar] Khadafy (معمر القذافي) saw what happened to Saddam Hussein, he had a nuclear program. He said, "I don't want to be Saddam Hussein! I'm gonna give it up," and he invited inspectors in and totally dismantled it. And we don't have a nuclear competition, or arms race, taking place in the region, and that's a good thing.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yeah, we have a <i>winner,</i> which is Iran. I mean, when you speak of, "the world is better off," and Saddam Hussein, obviously there's a cost-benefit analysis, and I don't think anyone in their right mind would say, "Geez, Saddam Hussein was a great leader," but it's very difficult when you start to get into, "Well, the reasons we went in there weren't correct, but still it's a good thing," because it's <b>completely</b> changed the balance of power there. Iran now, I would suggest, is in a much stronger position in that part of the world. I think it's allowed them to pursue their nuclear capabilities in a way that they weren't able to before. Syria —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Oh, I don't think so at all. I think they were determined to have nuclear weapons and they're on that path. It didn't change at all.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But doesn't that trouble you at all? If we — you know, the spotlight that we put on the intelligence of Iraq. Let's say we had turned it to Iran. Couldn't you have said, "<i>They</i> pay suicide bombers, <i>they</i> support Hezbollah, <i>they</i> have nuclear ambitions, they have an arrogant dictator who has been brutal to his own people."? Why not topple them? Why not Pakistan? Why <i>not</i> Libya? Why not — there's a guy who committed an act of terrorism over Lockerbie that we know about, had a U.S. citizen, a physician, assassinated. It's very difficult to figure out the rationale — in all that you said about we've been attacked and we had to be careful — I don't believe we're safer from the type of attack that you described — that sort of isolated biological attack, or a small group of people. <i>Nineteen</i> people attacked us on September 11th. Nineteen. For the billions of dollars that we've spent and the lives that were lost, have we made the world a place where nineteen people can't attack us again?? I don't believe we have, and I don't believe we <i>can.</i> And from the sounds of it, I don't think <i>you</i> believe that.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Well, let me put it this way: I visited Oman shortly after 9/11 and met with Sultan Qaboos (قابوس بن سعيد آل سعيد). He said, as harsh as it sounds, 9/11 may be a blessing, because it may be the thing that alerts the United States and the world to the dangers of another attack, using weapons of mass destruction, where it's not 3,000, it's 300,000, or 3,000,000 people dead. And now you say, "Well, can we be sure that we can't still be attacked?" No. On the other hand, the structures that President Bush put in place have put so much pressure on terrorists, it makes everything they have to do harder — harder to talk on a phone, harder to move between states, harder to recruit, harder to raise money. They're hiding. And a lot of them have been killed, a high number of Al Qaeda have been killed. Now, terrorists can attack any time, any place, using any technique, and you can't defend it every time, every morning of the day or night or every technique: it's not possible. So we could still be hit, to be sure. But the pressure's there. We <b>haven't</b> been hit for close to a decade; <i>that's</i> worth something, it seems to me. And, who knows what the next one might be. It might not be 3,000, it might be 300,000, and I think the world and the free people of the world need to understand that there are radicals out there who are determined to do that. We know that. They go on video and say that! Now, does that mean we can't be attacked? No, you're right; we could still be attacked. It wasn't just 19 people, it was an Al Qaeda network that planned it, structured it, helped these people, trained them, raised money for them, sent them over. It doesn't take a lot of people to kill people.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, I think that's my suggestion. And if I gave you the impression that I don't believe there are radicals out there who are plotting to kill us, that is not my intention at all. My suggestion is perhaps that the idea that we can prevent terrorism —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> You can't.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — by — Exactly. And then, so, by removing régimes that we feel are dangerous and have ties to those organizations, the effort it will take, the money it will take, the human capital it will take, the wonderful men and women that we lose in that fight, does not ostensibly remove that threat or even make us safer — that those are resources and things that we will never get back in this country, that we used for a misguided attempt at creating safety and stability.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> The President and Colin Powell and the State Department put together a 90-nation coalition — ninety nations — to share intelligence, track bank accounts of terrorists, and we <i>are</i> safer today. There is no question but that we are. Now —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Are we safer because of — I guess my point is, yes, we're safer for a lot of the methods, because of the awareness that we have, some of the things that were put in place. Are we safer because of <b>Iraq</b>?? <i>[shrugs]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> I think so. You know the <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi_key-findings.htm">Duelfer Report</a> after the war. They found chemical capabilities, the people were still together, the precursors were there, his report announced —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But the Duelfer Report said he had given everything up in '91 and his biological in '96 and that, of course —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> — <i>and</i> they had the ability to rapidly build up stockpiles.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> They said that you could rebuild some of the biological stockpiles in 5 or 6 weeks —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Exactly.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — but anybody could do that. I mean, that's not just Saddam Hussein. Anybody could do that.<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> No, but he wanted to do it, he was determined to do it, he had used chemicals on his own people — it's not like he was some benign person here. It's on the record.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, not at all. But it's not like we weren't paying attention to that record already. It's just — you know what, we could talk about this all night, and I would, but I just want to tell you this: I really do appreciate you at least having the conversation and having at least the ability to sit and —<br />
<br />
<b>Rumsfeld:</b> Why do you say "at least" twice?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Nicely done. I really <b>do</b> appreciate it. And I know you have to go and your time is valuable, and I do thank you for being here. <i>Known and Unknown</i> is on the bookshelves now; Donald Rumsfeld. Sir, thank you.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-24551339709211220632011-02-15T01:37:00.000-08:002011-02-15T01:37:48.299-08:00Doing the Right ThingTonight's blog entry is entirely personal. I'm not writing about politics or transcribing somebody else's interview that I thought was important. You might say that I'm bragging on myself in this piece, but I'd say I earned it, because tonight I Did The Right Thing (IDTRT).<br />
<br />
I was walking back to Muni at the end of my evening when I saw three people on the sidewalk ahead of me, arguing. I heard what sounded like the man shoving one of the women against the metal cover over a shopfront. I walked around on the other side of the row of parked cars, assessing the situation, and then heard the woman scream, "Give me my purse! Give me my purse!" I found an inconspicuous place from which to observe the altercation and call 911, but did not intervene directly because there did not appear to be any immediate danger of bodily harm. At some point, though, the man noticed me standing there, talking on my cellphone, and he walked off, dropping the woman's bag on the sidewalk. I followed from a safe distance, about 20 or 30 meters back — close enough not to lose him, but not close enough to be in his space. The last time I ran that hard, I was trying to catch the driver that did a hit-and-run on my car. I kept the 911 dispatcher informed of our movements, but before the SFPD found us, I happened upon two UCSF patrol cars. I shouted, "Help! Police! Help!" and the police officers detained the suspect. I am told they also found the woman and got her account of the whole scenario.<br />
<br />
It's been over an hour and a half, and my heart is only now slowing back to normal. I was so out of it that I spaced right through my Muni station, and just barely caught the last train back. Wow.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-15453312623042662782010-10-27T23:33:00.000-07:002010-10-28T01:10:15.937-07:00Full transcript of Obama on Daily ShowPresident Barack Obama was the special guest for the entirety of tonight's <i>Daily Show with Jon Stewart</i> on Comedy Central. The full transcript follows below the fold, along with embedded video clips. The interview is in three segments.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody>
<tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-27-2010/barack-obama-pt--1'>Barack Obama Pt. 1</a></td></tr>
<tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:363490' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Rally%20to%20Restore%20Sanity'>Rally to Restore Sanity</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br />
<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-27-2010/barack-obama-pt--2'>Barack Obama Pt. 2</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:363491' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Rally%20to%20Restore%20Sanity'>Rally to Restore Sanity</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br />
<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-27-2010/barack-obama-pt--3'>Barack Obama Pt. 3</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:363492' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Rally%20to%20Restore%20Sanity'>Rally to Restore Sanity</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the President of the United States, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/">Barack Obama</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>["Hail to the Chief," audience cheers]</i><br />
<br />
<b>President Barack Obama:</b> Thank you! Thank you very much.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Please have a seat.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Thank you. <i>[audience cheers and applause]</i> Thank you.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I'm sorry; that's all the time we have. <i>[laughter]</i> Thank you for joining us.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> This is a nice set.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Thank you very much.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> It reminds me of the <a href="http://www.denverdnc2008.com/">convention</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> We actually bought it. It was in a warehouse and we bought it. We had it chiseled. Let me give you "Mug Force One." This is yours.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Oh, nice.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> There's no water in it; let me get some for you. I'll get that on the thing there. Thank you so much for comin' by. There you go. <i>[hands him the mug]</i><br />
<br />
<i>[audience cheers]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Does that happen to you wherever you go? Is that just a wild — 'cause when you guys <i>[gestures to audience]</i> go to work, do people typically applaud? It's a nice feeling.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> It was a wonderful welcome. It does not happen, for example, when I go to the <a href="http://www.gop.gov/">Republican caucus</a> meetings.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I see; slightly different. So here you are —<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Here I am.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — you're two years into your administration, and the question that arises in my mind: <b><i>Are we</i></b> the people we were waiting for? <i>[laughter]</i> Or, does it turn out those people are still out there and we don't have their number? How are you feeling about <i>that</i>?<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Well, you know, I'm feeling great about where the American people are, considering what we've gone through. I mean, we've gone through <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023184.php">the two toughest years</a> of any time since the Great Depression, and in light of that, the fact that people have been resilient, that folks are still out there workin' and opening businesses and, you know, workin' in the community, lookin' after their families, taking care of <i>their</i> responsibilities: that's encouraging. So, there's still a lot of good stuff happening, but people are frustrated. You know, a lot of people are hurtin' out there, still, and, you know, in that environment, I think they're hoping that we can do a little bit better, here in Washington, than we've been doin'.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Now, does that — do you feel that as well? Because it is — you know, you're coming from a place, you ran on very high rhetoric, "Hope and Change," and the Democrats this year seem to be running on, "Please, baby, one more chance!" <i>[laughter]</i> Now, how did we go, in two years, from "Hope and Change: We are the People We've Been Looking For" to "You're not gonna give them the keys, are you?" Is it — are <b>you</b> disappointed in how it's gone? Are you surprised that other people — even your base — can be disappointed? Or do you reject that narrative?<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> You know, look: when I won and we started the transition, and we looked at what was happening in the economy, a whole bunch of my political folks came up and said, "You know what: enjoy this now, because two years from now, folks are gonna be frustrated." And that is in fact what's happened. When you've got 9.6% unemployment, when folks are seeing their homes under water, when the economy is growing but is still not growing as fast as it needs to to make up for the 8 million jobs that were lost — yup, folks are gonna be frustrated, and that's gonna reflect itself in the political environment. But, having said that, I look over the last 18 months and I say, we prevented a second Great Depression, we've stabilized the economy — an economy that was shrinking is now growing — we've got 9 months of consecutive private-sector job growth, we have passed historic healthcare reform, historic financial regulatory reform, we have done things that some folks don't even know about —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What have you done that we don't know about? <i>[laughter]</i> Are you planning a surprise party for us? "Filled with jobs and healthcare!"<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> When you look at what we've done in terms of making sure that — before we even passed healthcare, 4 million kids got health insurance that didn't have it before, through the <a href="https://www.cms.gov/LowCostHealthInsFamChild/">children's health insurance program</a> <i>[cheers]</i>, expanded <a href="http://www.americorps.gov/">national service</a> more than at any time since the beginning of the <a href="http://www.peacecorps.gov/">Peace Corps</a>, made sure that credit card companies couldn't jack up your rates without notice — over and over again, we have moved forward an agenda that is making a difference in people's lives each and every day. Now, is it enough? No. And so I expect, and I think most Democrats out there expect, that people want to see more progress.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> But certainly in terms of the folks who voted for me, my expectation and hope is, if you look at the track record that we've accomplished in very difficult circumstances over the last 18 months, we have done an awful lot that we talked about during the campaign, and we're gonna do more in the years to come.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, that's what we'll do, we're gonna take a commercial break and we're gonna come back and talk a little bit about how that progress will be or what the process was like; we'll be back with President Barack Obama. <i>[cheers]</i><br />
<br />
<i>[commercial break]</i><br />
<hr /><br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You know, you were talking about a list of accomplishments that you feel very proud of for the Democratic Party; they don't seem to be running on the list of accomplishments. If anything — you know, I saw a commercial for a guy running for Senate in West Virginia — <a href="http://www.joemanchinwv.com/">Manchin</a> —<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> He shot the thing.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — he took a rifle and he shot the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act">Cap and Trade</a>" bill. And I thought, "Oh, gosh, the Republicans are so — oh, that's a Democrat?? Oh, that's interesting." Have you convinced your own party that the legislative progress has been enough, and how do you feel about <b>their</b> reaction to it?<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Look: let me say this about members of Congress —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Are you gonna curse?<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> No, I'm not gonna curse. <i>[laughter]</i> I know a lot of folks feel frustrated about Congress, about how it operates, the bickering, the weird rules, the filibusters, all that stuff. But the fact is that there are a bunch of folks who, during the course of this year, took really tough votes, that they knew were bad politics, because they thought they were the right things to do. <i>[audience cheers]</i> There were a whole bunch of Democrats — guys like <a href="http://perriello.house.gov/">Tom Perriello</a> in Virginia [D, VA–05] or <a href="http://boccieri.house.gov/">John Boccieri</a> in Ohio [D, OH–16] or <a href="http://betsymarkey.house.gov/">Betsy Markey</a> in Colorado [D, CO–04] <i>[audience applause]</i> — who are basically in Republican districts — you know, they won in the big surge that we had in 2008, they knew it was going to be a tough battle, that these are generally pretty conservative districts — and yet still went ahead and did what they thought was right. And my hope in this election is that people who vote on the basis of what they think is right and have integrity and aren't just thinkin' about the next election but are thinkin' about the next generation — that they are rewarded. Now, that's tough in this political process, because you've got millions of dollars of independent money that's pouring into those races, they are being <b>hammered</b> by negative ads every single day, and the question then becomes: Do the millions of voices who came out in 2008, who said folks were interested in fixing our healthcare system, wanted a serious energy policy, wanted the kinds of changes in our student loan program that have allowed millions more kids to have access to college — <b>that's</b> what we ran on, that's what we've delivered, and my hope is that those people are rewarded for takin' those tough votes, and if they are, then I think Democrats will do fine on Election Day.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Is the difficulty that you have here the distance between what you ran on and what you delivered? Is that — you ran with such (if I may) "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Hope-Thoughts-Reclaiming-American/dp/0307455874">audacity</a>" — so much of what you said was, "great leaders lead in a time of opportunity," "we're the ones we're looking for" — yet legislatively it has felt timid at times. I'm not even sure at times what <b>you</b> want out of a healthcare bill.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> And this is — Jon, I love your show, but —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Very kind of you!<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> — but this is something where, you know, I have a profound disagreement with you and — I don't want to lump you in with a lot of other pundits — but —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You may.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> — but this notion that healthcare was "timid": you've got 30 million people who are gonna get health insurance as a consequence of this —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> — you've got a <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.healthreform.gov%2Fnewsroom%2Fnew_patients_bill_of_rights.html&ei=eCfJTIS6OoyCsQPGwIyEDw&usg=AFQjCNHAkfhgvAIvuSglS3ckdWhla6upeg">Patient's Bill of Rights</a> that makes sure that insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick, if you've been paying premiums, that make sure there aren't lifetime limits, make sure kids who don't have health insurance can stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26, <b>and</b> cuts the deficit by over a trillion dollars. This is what I think most people would say is as significant a piece of legislation as we've seen in this country's history. And the notion that — <i>[audience cheers and applause]</i> — but what happens is, it gets discounted because the presumption is, well, we didn't get 100% of what we wanted, we got 90% of what we wanted, so let's focus on the 10% we didn't get as opposed to the 90% that we did. And right now there is a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/22/president-obama-you-should-hear-these-stories">woman in New Hampshire</a> who doesn't have to sell her house to get her cancer treatments because of that healthcare bill. <i>[audience cheers and applause]</i> And she doesn't think it's inconsequential. She doesn't think it's "timid."<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> The suggestion was not that it's inconsequential or that it doesn't help —<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> The suggestion was that it was "timid."<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Timid.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Yeah, that was —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And I'll tell you what I mean, and I don't mean to lump you in with other Presidents. <i>[laughter]</i> But I think if I were to try to coalesce whatever criticism of it may be, it's that you ran on the idea that this system needed <b>basic</b> reform —<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Yup.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It feels like some of the reforms that have passed, like healthcare, have been done in a very <b>political</b> manner that has papered over a foundation that is corrupt. And I thought that —<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> <i>That</i> I think is fair — here's what I think is fair: that, over the last two years, in an emergency situation —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> — our basic attitude was, We've gotta get some things done, in some cases <i>quickly,</i> that are — in order to do that, basically <i>worked with</i> the process as opposed to transformed the process — and there's no doubt that that frustrated folks. It frustrates me. Look: I would love not to have a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster">60-vote requirement</a> — which is <b>not</b> in the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/">Constitution</a>, but is in the Senate rules right now — that apply to <i>everything</i> we do, so I can't get a Deputy Secretary of Treasury in the middle of a financial crisis because somebody's holding it up and is filibustering the appointment. So there are all kinds of things that happened during the course of these two years in terms of process that I'd like to see changed. Keep in mind that those areas where we had control over process, we actually made changes, so, you know, we've got a whole bunch of rules about lobbyists interacting with the White House that are very different from any White House before. If somebody wants to come to <i>visit</i> the White House now, that list is given out to everybody. That's a change, but —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Did you just invite me to the White House?<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> No, no. Because we'd have to disclose it and I don't think you would actually —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right. You don't want people knowing I was over there.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Exactly.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Let me explain more specifically, because I think to say "within the system/without the system," you know, in the healthcare bill —<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Yeah.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — you worked within the system. You know, during the campaign there was talk that we were gonna be able to negotiate prices with Canadian pharmaceutical companies —<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — a deal was made with them — $80 billion over 10 years — okay, that seems like a <i>quid pro quo</i> that seemed reasonable, but there's other things with the insurance companies. You know, I was talking with a woman in the audience before the show <i>[audience cheers]</i> but she brought up an interesting point: you know, 2014 is when these exchanges kick in and there will be some kind of price controls, but up until that point there's really nothing in this bill that doesn't allow these insurance companies to raise rates.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Not true! In fact, what we have done is we have <i>empowered</i> state insurance commissioners to review the rate hikes that are taking place in states — in some states, like North Carolina, they've already used it and rolled back premium increases by 25%.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Doesn't that only trip, though, on <i>egregious</i> raises, like 30%? Don't they, you know, if you raise it 30%, so they raise it 29%?<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> If the point, Jon, is that <b>overnight</b> we did not transform the healthcare system, that point is true.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>[laughs]</i> When you put it that way, it seems so petty!<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> When I say that — when we promised during the campaign, "Change you can believe in," it wasn't "Change you can believe in in 18 months." It was "Change you can believe in, but you know what, we're gonna have to work for it." <i>[audience cheers and applause]</i> And the history of this country — let me make this point, because I think it's really important. Look: when Social Security was passed, it applied to widows and orphans, and it was a very restricted program, and over time, that structure that was built ended up developing into the most important social safety net that we have in our country. The same is true on every piece of progressive legislation, every bit of progress that we've made. When the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964">Civil Rights Act</a> passed, there were still a bunch of folks down South who couldn't vote. And you know, I'm sure there were a bunch of commentators out there who said, "You know what? This law's not doing the job. There's still folks who aren't able to exercise their franchise." But the point was that we had created a structure, we had put a framework in place, that allowed us then to continue to make progress. That's what we've done over the last 18 months. That's what I expect we're gonna keep on doin' as long as I've got the capacity to do it, as long as I'm President of the United States.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right, sir. We're gonna take a commercial break and come back with more President Barack Obama.<br />
<br />
<i>[commercial break]</i><br />
<hr /><br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Welcome back to the show President Barack Obama. <i>[audience cheers and applause]</i> You expressed some frustration with those on the Left who are still feeling dissatisfied. Do you think in any way the expectation was something that maybe even you and your campaign created? Were people being naïve, in the sense of — I remember very clearly you said, "We can't expect different results with the same people."<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> And I remember when you hired <a href="http://bigthink.com/lawrencesummers">Larry Summers</a> <i>[laughter]</i> — I remember thinking, "Well, that <i>seems like</i> the <b>exact</b> same person," and why would you — so, in some respects, I get your frustration with this idea that, "Well, geez, are you never satisfied?" but again, the expectation, I think, was Audacity, going in there and really rooting out a corrupt system. And so the sense is, has reality of what hit <i>you</i> in the face when you first stepped in, caused you to back down from some of the more visionary — like bringing in a guy like Larry Summers, like —<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> First of all, if you look at how we have handled this financial crisis —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> — if you had told me two years ago that we're gonna be able to stabilize the system, stabilize the stock market, stabilize the economy, and by the way at the end of this thing it'll cost less than 1% of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product">GDP</a> where the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis">S&L crisis</a> cost us 2½% of our entire economy for a much smaller crisis, I'd say, "We'll take that," because we saved taxpayers a whole lot of money. And, in fairness, Larry Summers did a heckuva job trying to figure out how to —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You don't want to use that phrase, dude. <i>[laughs]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Pun intended.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right. <i>[audience laughs]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> You know, Larry was integral in helping to think through some really complicated stuff. Now, you know, the notion is, I think, that somehow managing a crisis of this magnitude is a matter of black-and-white and you've got some clear decisions that you can make and here's how you can do it and you shut down these banks and push this stuff aside, and somehow it's all gonna be right. It turns out that, at every juncture where we're making decisions, we've gotta make some calculations. If you shut down <i>this</i> bank, does that mean that you're gonna have a cascade of a hundred other banks that are gonna be shut down? Does that mean that taxpayers suddenly have to pay for all that? Is that gonna cost more taxpayer money? So a lot of the debates that were taking place, in terms of financial regulatory reform, in terms of how to stabilize the financial system, were ones that required some expertise —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> — and Larry helped to provide that. Now, having said that —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yeah. <i>[audience laughs]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> I appreciate your being polite.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It's just really hard not to talk! <i>[audience laughs]</i> Just one thing: if they had told you the same thing: stabilize the banks, stabilize the Dow, <i>unemployment will be near 10%</i> — would you have taken that deal?<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> You know, if I had the capacity to have prevented the unemployment that happened, basically, before we put our economic plan into place — obviously, we would've done that. But the problem was, we lost 4,000,000 jobs before I was sworn in, 750,000 jobs the month I was sworn in, 600,000 the month after that, and 600,000 the month after that — so most of the jobs that we lost, were lost before the economic policies we put into place had any effect. <i>[audience cheers and applause]</i> But I want to go back to your earlier point, which is this notion that, you know, folks, I think, hoped that we could completely transform Washington. I understand that impulse. There are some very good people here, some good public servants who work very hard. There are some folks who aren't so good, and the culture here is not always real healthy, and we're gonna have to — <i>[audience laughs]</i> — And so bringing about change in terms of how the legislative process operates, in terms of the power that lobbyists have, the power the special interests have — you know, that is a work in progress. It's just not gonna happen overnight. But I don't regret, during the campaign, having said that we <b>can</b> change that process, we can make it <i>more</i> transparent — it's not gonna be <i>ideal</i> — we can <b>reduce</b> the power of special interests, although special interests are still going to have power in a democracy. They're gonna be able to petition their government, like everybody else, and they've got a lot of the lobbyists and a lot of the cash to do it, but we can <i>limit</i> the amount of power that they have. We can make sure that as a White House we are <i>more open</i> than previous White Houses. You know, there are folks, I'm sure, who don't think that we've achieved the ideal. And so, I guess, on all these issues, <i>my</i> attitude is, if we're makin' progress, step by step, inch by inch, day by day, that we are being true to the spirit of that campaign —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You wouldn't say you'd run this time as a pragmatist — it wouldn't be, "Yes, we can — given certain conditions..."?<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> No, I think what I would say is, "Yes, we can, but — <i>[audience laughs]</i> — it is not gonna happen overnight."<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you believe government is <i>nimble</i> enough to handle these 21st-century crises? Is government <i>agile</i> enough — you said, "We want to build a 21st-century regulatory regime for business" — by the time government builds that, obviously it'll be the 22nd century, but won't they have already started trading molecules in some sort of weird — Does government still have the ability to be <i>agile</i> enough to handle these types of things?<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> I think it's a legitimate question. I will tell you that there are a couple of things that have changed in our politics that are gonna have to be fixed. One is the way the filibuster operates. As I said, that's just <i>not</i> in the Constitution. In fairness, Democrats used it when Bush was in office and felt very comfortable using it — although <i>not</i> to the extent that it's being used today. What we've been seeing is <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/09/21-4">unprecedented</a>. And <i>that</i> makes it very difficult for us to move forward in serious ways, and actually <b>reduces</b> compromise, because what ends up happening is that if Republicans know that they can block anything because we don't have 60 votes, then <i>they</i> feel no need to compromise. That means the Democrats, then, their attitude is, "Well, <i>we're</i> not gonna compromise; we can't get 60 votes," and everybody moves in opposite directions. The same thing is true, I think, when it comes to how our districts are drawn. You know, we've got a lot of districts that are <i>so</i> safe — 90% Democrat or 90% Republican — that that also helps to polarize the electorate, so there are a couple of things that are structural that are probably going to need to be changed, but, having said all that, we have made a lot of progress over the last 18 months that, from a historical perspective, ranks up there with any legislative session we've seen in history. And we're gonna have to <i>continue</i> to make some progress on things like energy (which didn't get done), on immigration reform (That did not get done.), and most importantly we've just got to do a lot <i>more</i> work in terms of generating the kind of jobs that ensure we've got a growing middle class and that people are able to live out the American Dream, because right now I think there are a lot of folks who are worried that if we <i>don't</i> make serious investments in education, in energy, in infrastructure, in research and development — that we're gonna start fallin' behind.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, I thank you for being here, for taking the time — I know you're a very busy man, you've got lots to do.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Jon, I appreciate this. You know, the one other thing that might've made a difference is if you had held the <a href="http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/">Rally to Restore Sanity</a> <i>two years ago....</i> That — <i>[audience cheers and applause]</i><br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I didn't know you could do that.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> That might've made a difference, but I enjoyed it. Can I just make a plug, just to <b>vote</b>. <i>[audience cheers and applause]</i> Make sure that folks out there —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I didn't know where you were going with that. When you said, "Can I just make a plug," I was like, Are you droppin' an album? What's happenin' here?<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Go out there and <a href="http://www.rockthevote.com/">vote</a> November 2nd. A lot of you have early voting in your <a href="http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?CONFIGURATION=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&ARTICLE_ID=11606&USERTYPE=1&LANGUAGE=en&COUNTRY=US">states</a>; make sure to make use of it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Thank you very much. President Barack Obama.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:</b> Thank you.<br />
<br />
©2010 Comedy Central<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-36641158831294816922010-10-13T23:52:00.000-07:002010-10-14T00:27:36.144-07:00O'Donnell rips Palin for "Moron-mongering"Well, yes, that would be <i>Lawrence</i> "No Relation" O'Donnell on MSNBC, on his new show <i>The Last Word</i> (10pm E/7pm P), remarking on Sarah Palin's interview on NewsMax.com, in which the ex-gov showed off her knowledge of foreign policy and social issues. I've got a link to the original Palin interview and video link and transcript of the MSNBC clip, below the fold. The "share" link from MSNBC.com came with this introduction:<br />
<blockquote><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/39661940#39661940"><b>Lawrence [O'Donnell] and Sarah Palin agree?</b></a><br />
<br />
It's shocking, we know. The former governor of Alaska makes a strong statement on the separation of church and state, earns herself the Last Word re-write.</blockquote>My own comments follow at the very end.<br />
<a name='more'></a><hr /><b>Lawrence O'Donnell:</b> Sarah Palin talked to the conservative website Newsmax[.com], which posted the interview with the understated headline "<a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/sarah-palin-newsmax-make/2010/10/11/id/373322"><b>Breaking: Sarah Palin Talks of Armageddon, Obama's Socialism, and Her Thoughts About 2012</b></a>." Palin warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III, and pointed out that Russia plays a critical role in making sure that doesn't happen.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>We need to remind <b>Russia</b> that any assistance given to Ahmadinejad — given to Iran — we have to realize that at the end of the day, a nuclear weapon in that country's hands is not just Israel's problem or America's problem, it is the world's problem.</blockquote><br />
We do need to remind Russia about that. And the good news is, we do. I mean, the President does. And by "the President" I mean <b>every</b> President. Bush did it every chance he got, and Obama does, too. So Sarah Palin is right on this one. Not exactly original, but she <b>is</b> right. And when Palin's right, <b>Newsmax</b> is right to present it as "Breaking News"! She had more to say about war.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I hate war, war is hell, we don't want war, we don't strive for war....</blockquote><br />
Again, right on target. I agree with her, word for word. And if you don't, I'm sure the History Channel's got some war footage you can revel in right now. Finally, though, Sarah Palin says she is deeply religious herself — technically a Christian not affiliated with any organized religion (like Catholics, Lutherans, or Presbyterians) that might make serious demands on her attention — but she takes an unambiguous stand on <b>the Separation of Church and State:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Americans will never stand for Sharia law being the law of the land. <i>[... jump cut ...]</i> Americans will never stand for this, because Americans are smart enough to know: Sharia law — it that were to be adopted, allowed to govern in our country — it will be the downfall of America. And too many Americans are onto this already and starting to rise up and send that message to our federal officials and say, "No, we will not put up with any <b>hint</b> of Sharia law being <b>any sort</b> of law of the land.</blockquote><br />
I am <i>so</i> on board with that! Luckily, so were the Founding Fathers; they've got us covered on this one, with a little thing they like to call the Constitution of the United States of America.<br />
<br />
I guess I <b>do</b> have one little "Rewrite" note for Sarah Palin. Three little words: <b>"Needless to say...."</b><br />
<br />
That's what most of us say before we say something everyone already knows and agrees with. Of course, saying "Needless to say...." would make some of her statements seem a bit less scary to the very, very few people who can be scared by such innocuous language. And if she is trying to scare people that way, these statements don't qualify for the label "fear-mongering." You can't scare <b>anyone</b> who knows we already have a Constitution, with talk of Sharia law becoming the law of the land! That's not "fear-mongering." That's <b>moron-mongering</b>.<br />
<br />
<i>©2010 MSNBC and/or Lawrence O'Donnell. Fair use rationale: furthering political discourse. To my knowledge, no other written transcript of these remarks is publicly available.</i><br />
<hr /><br />
<h3>LincMad's take on all this:</h3><br />
My apologies for putting the punchline up front as a spoiler, but I just couldn't bury that juicy a lead.<br />
<br />
I had a recent experience on Facebook — one of those dreaded political arguments with someone you don't remember, but whose picture, sure enough, is in your high school yearbook — that touched on this scare issue of Sharia law. My classmate, whom I'll call Lenny, posted as a status update a link to a video. Lenny's headline was "Here is a real nice bed time story for you.............NOT !" but what <i>really</i> caught my eye was the link text alongside the thumbnail of the video: "<b>The true Face of Islam•This is how they will subjugate us.</b> Islam and Islamists are raping our civilization and will make us their slaves if we still are complaisantly stupid and do not fight back. Islam is an INVASION. It is a hostile take over...." <i>[note: "civilization" with the US spelling, not the British spelling]</i><br />
<br />
I did actually watch the video. It's a man named Shahid Malik, who was the Labour Party Member of Parliament from a district near Leeds in northern England from 2005 to 2010. In 2007, he became Britain's first Muslim Minister. His first portfolio was international development, which was the focus of much of his remarks at the eerily named "Global Peace & Unity" conference. He bragged about helping direct, over a 3-year period, £370 million to Bangladesh, £480M to Pakistan, £243M to Palestine, over £100M to Yemen, "not to mention Sudan and Somalia." If you add those up, it comes to, as the video subtitles helpfully point out "over a Billion Pounds ££££" — sounds like a lot, doesn't it? But let's put that in perspective: that's about 5.5% of the UK's total international aid budget. Besides being majority Muslim, the specific countries named have something else in common: strong historical ties to the UK as former colonies. But clearly I'm supposed to believe that giving development aid to some of the poorest parts of the world is something <i>other than</i> encouraging stability and reducing human misery, both for the obvious humanitarian reasons but also for the equally obvious reasons of providing less-fertile soil for the seeds of future terrorism.<br />
<br />
Malik goes on to give a timeline of the progress so far in the total Muslim subjugation of Britain. In 1997, the first Muslim MP was elected. Over the next four years, their representation doubled, and over the succeeding four years, IT DOUBLED AGAIN. He hoped that in the then-upcoming election they would double yet again, crossing the crucial 1% threshhold — 8 out of 650 seats, "insh'allah." He gazes into his Muslim crystal ball to see the Muslim future of Muslim Britain's Muslimy Muslimness: "At this rate, the whole Parliament will be Muslim!" Well, yes, and sending $5 to the names on that e-mail list will get you rich beyond your wildest dreams.<br />
<br />
So, in summary, aside from the obviously tongue-in-cheek remark about the whole Parliament, the video was political pablum of the blandest order. There was absolutely nothing in the video to lose sleep over, and it is as much proof of a Muslim plot to rape our civilization and enslave us as it is proof that Abraham Lincoln faked his own death so he could try out for American Idol.<br />
<br />
Okay, so how do I respond? I decided to take the calm, reasoned approach of pointing out that the description of the video was a severe case of false advertising. I said:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The video is thoroughly innocuous, to the level of political pablum. Wow, the UK is going to send more than a billion pounds in development aid over a three-year period to some Muslim countries. That's a small fraction of their total foreign aid budget, and nothing compared to what they'll spend on the military, probably in several of those same areas. Stability is the bedrock of security, and development aid is the cornerstone of stability in developing countries.<br />
<br />
As to the increasing numbers of Muslims in Parliament, the remark about the whole Parliament being Muslim is obviously tongue-in-cheek, with the main point being that Muslims are dramatically underrepresented: with 3% of the population, they have less than 1% of the seats. Is there some reason that you think they're NOT entitled to fair representation?<br />
<br />
If you truly see that video as frightening, you're nothing short of addled by your own Islamophobia.</blockquote><br />
The dictionary defines "phobia" as "an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something." The video that you linked to, Lenny, contains nothing whatsoever to support any rational fear of or aversion to anything other than perhaps self-congratulatory political speechifying. Therefore, if you find that video frightening enough that you are fine with forwarding it under the heading of "Islam will rape our civilization and enslave us," then guess what: that is the very definition of Islamophobia. But still, another friend — I'll call him Carl — leapt to Lenny's defense from my vicious liberal bullying.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>In calling [Lenny] an "islamophobe" you are merely attempting to dehumanize someone whose feelings you disagree with. The truth is that there has been a debate in Britain as to whether sharia law should be allowed to supersede british law in cases where muslims are involved. The French have outlawed muslim headdress. Europe has legitimate concerns when it comes to people from third world countries who are still culturally living in the middle ages. Left-of-center political pundants enjoy using the term islamophobia. But why is it that this religion (not this people...) seems to inspire such acts of violence worldwide? It is their own job to police their religion and they have not. You would hold them to a different standard than other religions. When christians speak of martyrs they speak of people who have been killed by others, when muslims speak of martyrs they speak of those who have died killing others. You should stay with the facts you first quoted instead of resorting to calling [Lenny] names for his well founded concerns...</blockquote><br />
So, in other words, "Carl," what you're saying is that I'm a bad guy for calling out Lenny for what is demonstrably the dictionary definition of Islamophobia, but when Lenny says without foundation or reason that Islam is out to "rape our civilization" and enslave us, that's just an expression of "his well-founded concerns."<br />
<br />
I could point out that I didn't actually call Lenny an Islamophobe; I merely pointed out that he made an Islamophobic posting. In no way did I paint this as an inescapable part of Lenny's personality; indeed, if I viewed it that way, I wouldn't've bothered to reason with him. However, I think that's the least of the issues with Carl's critique of my response.<br />
<br />
There has indeed been a debate over Sharia law in Britain, but only in two specific areas: permitting financial products that comply with Sharia <b>and also</b> secular law, and making some accommodation to Muslim beliefs in the area of family law. However, the Prime Minister's office said it quite well:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>There are instances where the government has made changes in regulations, for example to include sharia-compliant mortgage products, but in general terms, sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor can the principle of sharia law be used in a civilian court. — statement from the office of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, circa 2008-02-08, via Reuters</blockquote><br />
The idea that Britain is somehow going to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims is beyond implausible; it reads like a bad Dr. Who episode about an alternate universe. On the other hand, yes, France did enact legislation restricting certain kinds of traditional Muslim head coverings for women. And I know that many Europeans — on the political left as well as on the right — are deeply concerned about the influx of Muslims who don't share their traditional European values on issues like gay marriage and topless beaches, not to mention honor killings and forced marriage and stoning adulteresses, and more broadly the societal roles of men and women and God and gods and atheists and heathens. But that is still a very long way from saying that 3% of the population in either Britain or the US is a reasonable, rational threat to stay awake worried about.<br />
<br />
Ah, but then there's the issue of the double standard. Am I exempting Islam alone from responsibility for "inspiring acts of violence worldwide"? Well, let's see: do I hold all of Christianity responsible for the small number of nutcases who draw from it the inspiration to go bomb abortion clinics? No, I recognize that the people who take that view of Christianity are a tiny minority, in no way representative of the whole. Human history is full of acts of violence inspired by virtually every religion that has ever existed. A great many Muslims <b>have</b> spoken out against the violence and terror being carried out in the name of their religion — including, by the way, the people behind the Park 51 Cultural Center — but insane "us-and-them" rhetoric like yours, Carl, <i>actively undermines</i> their efforts to, as you put it, "police their own religion."<br />
<br />
No, "Carl," it seems to me that you have the double standard, holding the entire Umma liable for the fringiest of its fringes but ignoring the acts of violence carried out in the name of so many other religions including your own. And by the way, I don't think I really qualify as a "pundant." I do, though, qualify as a neutral party in looking at Christian extremists — including people who would apply a particularly narrow interpretation of Christian doctrine as the law of the land — and Muslim extremists. I am neither a Muslim nor a Christian. I do not believe in either religion, but neither am I afraid of those who do.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-73656286368848622602010-09-23T23:59:00.000-07:002010-09-26T02:07:18.194-07:00King Abdullah of Jordan on The Daily ShowKing Abdullah II of Jordan was on Comedy Central's <i><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a>,</i> discussing the current Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the future of the region in an extended interview. Embedded video clips and a full transcript follow below the fold.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: 11px arial; width: 360px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-23-2010/king-abdullah-ii-of-jordan" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">King Abdullah II of Jordan</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=12810512"></a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px; text-align: right; width: 360px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="301" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:360002" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tea Party</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: 11px arial; width: 360px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-23-2010/exclusive---king-abdullah-ii-of-jordan-extended-interview" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Exclusive - King Abdullah II of Jordan Extended Interview</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=12810512"></a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px; text-align: right; width: 360px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="301" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:360008" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tea Party</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> My guest tonight is the reigning King of Jordan. Please welcome to the program <a href="http://www.kingabdullah.jo/homepage.php">King Abdullah II</a>. Nice to see you, thank you for coming. Very nice to see you.<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> Thank you.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> It's funny to see you — you and I are pretty much the exact same age, and our lives have mirrored each other in so many ways: your accomplishments in the army and with your people, you work with poverty, and I bartended in a Mexican restaurant for a while. Do you feel the weight and the responsibility of all that is happening in the Middle East right now? This is such a momentous moment, and you are literally in the middle of it.<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> Yes, because, I mean, there's an opportunity to really change our part of the world around, and to lose that opportunity and to resign our peoples to another decade or two of destruction, weighs on my shoulders, as it does on a lot of people in our part of the world. And if we don't get it right, then I think we're all in trouble.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Now, we — you know, people in this region have been fighting each other over this land for — what time is it now? — and the process, they say now, "We have a year" — but isn't the real deadline, the settlements freeze expires in a week?<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> That is what the challenge is today. For the first time, the Israelis and Palestinians are back to direct negotiations. We lost almost 9 months, 10 months, for the moratorium on <a href="http://peacenow.org/map.php">settlements</a>, which ends on the 30th of September [2010-09-30]. The discussions that we had in Washington started out better than any of us could've expected. Both sides have made a lot of ground, and if the issue of settlements is still on the table on the 30th, then everybody walks away. And if they do, <b>how</b> are we going to be able to get people back to the table? And I don't see that happening in the near future, so, if we fail on the 30th, expect another war by the end of the year.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Expect another — ?<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> Expect another war by the end of the year, and more wars that I foresee in the region over the coming years. You're already in two wars in our part of the world, you have troops in two other hot spots, I can see potential crisis #5, 6, or 7 — unless we solve this problem, not only do we as the Arabs and Israelis pay the price for it, but your loved ones in harm's way will continue to be in the trenches with the rest of us, so <b>everything</b> is riding now on whether we can get both parties beyond the 30th, and so much is riding on our future.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Does that — laying that on the table, almost, does that put too much power in the hands of those who could easily subvert the negotiations? Because clearly now, you know, facing the unfortunate facts of the region, there are people on <i>both</i> sides who would very much like to see this go away. How fragile is it — the settlement issue — and if that's the issue that turns us to war....<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> Well, we all got painted into a corner on the issue of settlements, unfortunately. And where we should have concentrated is on territories and the borders of a future Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution. So now we've got this unfortunate issue of the 30th of September, and there are people waiting in the wings for us to fail, and we, I think, as the moderates, are becoming definitely the minority, and we're losing our voices, and what people will say as we go beyond the 30th is, "Look, we've been telling you for years now that the moderates having dialogue with Israel is not the way to go. Violence is the only way." And then we run out of an ability to answer the extremists in our region, so I think we're on a defining crossroads, whether we're going to go down the abyss or not.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> When you talk about extremists — and help us out, because unfortunately for us the delineation now between extremist and moderate is unclear. We think of the extremists as Al Qaeda. Are you talking about the <i>leadership</i> of these countries?<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> We have extremists, I think, all over the world. I mean, if you look at the challenges, unfortunately, there's elements in all three of our religions that are pushing us into the abyss. We have our fair share of them in our part of the world, and they're just waiting for us to fail. The extremists are those that don't want to see Arabs and Israelis have peace, Israelis and Muslims have peace, and that is the major challenge that we have.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> So, now we've painted only with grays. Give us some color in this. Give us a little bit of autumn color, give us a little bit of spring, a little bit of a green bud that you feel like gives you a hopeful scenario, because right now, I don't mind telling you, I'm a little nauseous. I feel a little nauseous.<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> You know, we're living there and —<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> I know; you're very calm about it.<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> We're kind of used to this, but I think where we are today is that, where are we going to take — what is the next step we're going to take? Our future is either continued war and destruction that's going to bring everybody in, or people just getting to the table. The atmospherics between the two leaders are there — I mean, I saw the sincerity in Washington. We've got a long way to go, but it's not like we're starting from the drawing board. Everybody knows what needs to be done on territory, on refugees, on Jerusalem. And so getting to the end game <b>can</b> be done; it's just, do the leaders have the courage and the backbone to be able to do it? That is what is in question, but again, I <i>believe</i> in humanity, I believe in the people of our region — Israelis and Arabs — that when you put it to the people, "Look, this is the best deal I could get," because there's no way that either leader is gonna be happy with what he gets. At the end of the day, he's going to have to go back to his people and say, "Look, I did the best I could. This is what I have for you. Now, are you gonna vote for peace or are you gonna vote for war?" And I have to believe in humanity, that, you know, for the future of our coming generations, that the overall people on all sides will vote for light and not for darkness.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> It's gotta happen.<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> It has to.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> But playing a little <a href="http://www.hasbro.com/stratego/">Stratego®</a> here — in the region, it feels like two competing powers are going for a moment: Iran and Turkey, to some extent. It feels like they're both kind of competing in this idea of, like, Hey, maybe we're in ascendance, the West is not —<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> That's what people have to understand here. Obviously, you made remarks to Iran. People have found, or certain powers have found —<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> He's not gonna hear that, is he? I mean, he wasn't just —<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> I'm sure he watches you every day, as I do. <i>[Jon Stewart laughs, audience cheers]</i> Look: the problem is, you have non-Arab actors that have realized that to be popular in our part of the world is to hijack the <i>[air quotes]</i> "injustice" of the Palestinians and the future of Jerusalem, and this is why Iran is central — not only to the problems that I think America is facing, but all of us are facing. And this is why they're front and center. If the Israelis and Palestinians sit down and solve the problem, Iran cannot play mischief in our part of the world. The <b>first</b> people that will stand up to Iran and say, "Why are you threatening Israel?" is going to be the Palestinians themselves. But because they have hijacked this cause, their star is up here and we moderates have very little voice to be heard.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> So in some respect, you know, in some respects you're saying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is kind of the nuclear reactor of trouble within the region —<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> Everything is interconnected —<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> — with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, whether it's Al Qaeda —<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Won't the extremists just find another excuse? Isn't there always <i>another</i> excuse? Won't they then say, "Well, actually, we were talking about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir#Current_status_and_political_divisions">Kashmir</a>; <i>that</i> was the problem"?<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> But it no longer becomes global. What happens is that, if you have a settlement between Israelis and the Palestinians, Al Qaeda, which is an <i>international</i> organization, becomes a domestic issue, because what is their rallying cry? Just as Iran, the plight of the Palestinians and the future of Jerusalem. If they make peace, which allows 57 Arab and Muslim countries to have normal relations with Israel — that's a third of the world — then they have no longer a soapbox to stand on. What happens then is Al Qaeda will be an extremist organization in your country, trying to take over your nation. It becomes a domestic issue, and not an international issue. And <i>that's</i> the big difference. Iran, also: how could Iran — you know, where is Iran now? It has its influence in Iraq, it has an influence in Afghanistan, through Hezbollah they're involved in the Mediterranean, they have good relationships with Hamas, so they're sitting on the Mediterranean because of the Israeli-Palestinian cause. If we solve that problem, they no longer become the big —<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> And that's the largest foundation that we can pull out from underneath them? That's the <i>largest</i> rug we can pull out?<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> You then put them back in their box, you put Al Qaeda back in their box, and all the other boxes. Evil will still persist.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> It has a way of popping up every now and then, it does.<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> Unfortunately, yes, but it becomes then a localized issue, which then governments, I think, will have to address, and that is reform and restructuring the way the Middle East deals with its people.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Boy, if it were to work this way.... Do you have two minutes? Are you in a hurry? Is the king in a hurry? Can you — what I was thinking of doing is, we were going to throw to a commercial and come back and maybe speak to you a little bit longer, if you please, and just put it up on the interwebs.<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> Okay.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Uh, hello. We're back. Let me — you know, one thing that I wanted to get across, maybe, to an American audience — and I don't think <i>I</i> realized this — I was reading your interviews — uh, <i><a href="http://www.bopandtigerbeat.com/">Tiger Beat</a>,</i> those kinds of things — no, I was reading interviews that you've done with American journalists and interviews you've done in your own part of the world, and I was so struck by the difference in <b>tone</b> and the difference in subject matter. Here, they say, "Oh, the Middle East peace process, Jordan is in the middle; what do you think of prospects for the future? What do you think...?" Over there, every single question: "What will you do about Israel's vicious actions against the Palestinian people?" They're very <b>emotional</b>, they're very direct, and it is absolute.<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> Absolutely, and the problem is not just in our part of the world. As I said, this [Israel-Palestine issue] has been hijacked by, in this particular case, some non-Arab actors, but throughout the Islamic Muslim world — that's what I'm saying, 57 Muslim nations, a third of the UN. I mean, I was in India, which is not a Muslim nation, but has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country">largest Muslim population</a>, and when I met with the Muslim community there, they were saying, "When are you Arabs going to solve your problems with the Israelis, because it's hurting us here in India." So, wherever you go, this issue emotionally resonates far beyond the borders of our region.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> And what about, even, for yourself: Jordan is in, you know, I would think, a difficult position in terms of the natural resources — I mean, I think you've discovered uranium but you don't have the oil resources — you have a tremendous Palestinian population there, I imagine Israel looks to you as well for a little bit of security as well on that border. What can Jordan do, and what <b>can't</b> you do?<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> Well, I mean, we describe ourselves as between Iraq and a hard place. <i>[Jon Stewart laughs; audience cheers and applauds]</i> And, you know — but to us this is a normal day's work.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> And because we have I think a very honest and straightforward relationship with the Israelis, built by his late majesty <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_of_Jordan">King Hussein</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin">Prime Minister Rabin</a>, and obviously we have such a close relationship with the Palestinians, it puts us in a unique position to be able to help both parties. And, you know, we've had our "two steps forward, one step back," but because their future security is our security, we have a vested interest to bring a "win-win" for everybody here. And it's not just, you know, if the Israelis and the Palestinians — you've got to remember, if we can get past the 30th, which shows sincerity that the Israelis and Palestinians are actually going to move forward, we're then talking about a comprehensive peace, so look to beyond the 30th very quickly, Syria and Lebanon probably being brought into the equation, and the Arab and Islamic world being able to reach out to Israel for the first time. There's something called the Arab Peace Proposal, which has been around for 7 or 8 years — which is signed by <i>all</i> the Muslim countries, <i>including</i> Iran — that says that <b>if</b> you give the Palestinians their future, then we want to all normalize with you. Now, whether the Iranians actually believe it or not, they are actually signatories to that.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> If that — playing that out, so, Syria walks in; I imagine, then, the support for Hezbollah dries up from Syria and also from Iran. Don't they then immediately go, "All right, then, we gotta go in. We gotta start a war."? If you remove the proxies from these organizations, wouldn't they say — isn't their recourse then — "All right, boys, line it up, let's go"?<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad">President Bashar</a> has his own difficult decisions to make. I left from Washington and went straightaway, basically, to see Bashar, to explain to him that I felt that there was sincerity from the two leaders to be able to move forward. I said, "Listen, I'm not asking you to believe me. If we get beyond the 30th, and we can get beyond the settlement issue, then you need to start thinking about your role and how you want to play it." And the message I get from Syrian leadership and Lebanese leadership is that, if the Israelis and the Palestinians <i>can</i> move forward, that shows sincerity on each side that they actually want to solve this problem, then the comprehensive part of it will play and they will want to come on board and solve their problems once and for all with Israel.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> What role does ego play in — look, at the end of all this, it is a human endeavor, and I wonder in that part of the world, where you see a leader like Saddam Hussein, who clung to power with a bluff, based on his own feeling that, "If I show weakness, I'm done in the region" — in that interplay between Iran and Saudi Arabia — certainly Saudi Arabia's gotta be <i>very</i> nervous about what's happening in Iran — Syria, Turkey — how do you manage that so that everybody is satisfied that they have been respected, and is it possible to satisfy that?<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> It is. Again, we have a lot of our domestic challenges: you know, we have the largest youth cohort in history. We have to come up with 200,000,000 jobs as the Arab world over the next several years, and the only way you're going to do that is with regional stability. So, it's not just the politics — which takes, unfortunately, 90% of our time — but providing a future for the youth of our nations. And, you know, I'm 48 years old; I don't think I'm that old, but 70% of the country is younger than me, and that's, I think, indicative of the whole Middle East. So if we don't solve this problem, we've got <i>another</i> time bomb coming, which is young generation, more and more educated, that want a decent future, that want jobs. And unfortunately it's taking all those resources away because of the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and we're not paying enough time and effort to this younger generation that demands, I think, a good chance at life.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> How about the United States and our role, you know, within the region? Obviously, we brought democracy to the region — you're welcome! <i>[audience laughs]</i> If there's anywhere else you'd like us to bring it, we'd be <b>happy</b> to oblige — umm, have we — you know, it sounds like your mindset is, if we had focused on Israel and Palestine perhaps a little bit stronger, less on some of these other things, we may have done ourselves a little more good before spreading ourselves somewhat thin. Have we strengthened your hand in the region? Have we hurt your hand in the region?<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> I think with the conflicts that are still ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the lack of ability of moving the Israeli-Palestinian process forward, are weakening the moderates, and I think if this continues, will we as moderate voices be around in 10 years time? I think <i>that</i> is a major issue that people have to think of very seriously. The problem with the United States is, kicking or screaming, this has dragged every single American President into the issue whether they like it or not. And so if you choose to ignore it, it's going to take a war to drag the United States back in, but how many Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs have lost their lives and how much destruction has happened? And that answer changed today. You're actually based in our region: Iraq, Afghanistan. You've got two other countries that you've got people already in, and I see, like I said, #5 and #6 coming very, very soon.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_of_Africa">Horn of Africa</a>? Is that —<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> The Horn of Africa. So you're as threatened as we are. If we don't solve this problem, you're going to be in the fight as much as we are, and young Americans will be giving their lives away for something that can be solved between two nations. It just unravels the whole complexity of the Middle East.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Is Jerusalem — you know, when you really do try and unravel the politics of it, it comes down to Jerusalem being the seat of power for these three major religions —<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> Isn't that a wonderful thing? <i>[Jon Stewart laughs]</i> If we do it in the right way, I mean, this is the problem —<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> But can any one group have control over — <i>should</i> any group bear the responsibility to have control over a city of that importance, and is there an international solution to Jerusalem?<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> We should <b>all</b> bear the responsibility. This is the symbol, I think, that brings all our three religions together. I think, there's one saying that always sticks to mind: <i>Unfortunately, there's enough religion in this world for us to hate each other, but not enough religion for us to love one another.</i> If you truly believe in God — your God, my God, the Christian God, it's the same God.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> I'm workin' on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukkot">Sukkot</a>, so I don't know <i>what</i> I'm doin'.<br />
<br />
<b>King Abdullah II:</b> But truly if you believe in God, as we all do, and the Torah, the Bible, and the Holy Qur'an, the basic tenets that binds us all together is the love of God and the love of your neighbor and your brother. And I think this is the symbol in this century to bring the world together, of having all of us working together — and again, homework has been done. There are a lot of ideas out there of how Muslims, Christians, and Jews can run Jerusalem as a symbol of hope, which would have such tremendous impact throughout the world. It is not impossible; a lot of work has already been done about it, and I think that's the future that we have to look forward to.<br />
<br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> Well, from your mouth to one of those Gods' ears, and I can't thank you enough for coming by. It's a great honor for us; please come by and see us again. King Abdullah II.<div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12810512.post-46339719793436493532010-08-18T13:42:00.000-07:002010-08-18T23:03:50.770-07:00Transcript: Dick Armey on The Daily Show with Jon StewartJon Stewart's guest on last night's <i>Daily Show</i> was Dick Armey, a Republican Congressman from Texas who served as House Majority Leader and who was one of the authors of the 1994 "Contract with America." Armey is now heading up FreedomWorks, a conservative political group. He has also been promoting himself as a leader of the Tea Party movement.<br />
<br />
The interview as broadcast was about 7 minutes long, but the full, unedited interview is available from The Daily Show website. The embedded video clips (in 3 parts) and the full transcript appear below the fold.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal arial; width: 360px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-17-2010/exclusive---dick-armey-extended-interview-pt--1" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Exclusive - Dick Armey Extended Interview Pt. 1</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=12810512&postID=4633971979343649353"></a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; width: 360px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="301" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:350583" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tea Party</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal arial; width: 360px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-17-2010/exclusive---dick-armey-extended-interview-pt--2" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Exclusive - Dick Armey Extended Interview Pt. 2</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=12810512&postID=4633971979343649353"></a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; width: 360px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="301" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:350584" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tea Party</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal arial; width: 360px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-17-2010/exclusive---dick-armey-extended-interview-pt--3" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Exclusive - Dick Armey Extended Interview Pt. 3</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=12810512&postID=4633971979343649353"></a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; width: 360px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="301" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:350585" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tea Party</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<b>Jon Stewart:</b> My guest tonight, former Republican Congressman from Texas, served as House — U.S. Majority Leader [Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives], his new book is called <i>Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.</i> Please welcome to the program Dick Armey.<br />
<br />
Sir! Hello, sir. Come and sit. How are you, sir?<br />
<br />
<b>Dick Armey</b> (R–TX-26, 1985 – 2003)<b>:</b> [inaudible] Howdy.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Thank you for joining us.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Oh, it's my pleasure. Thank you.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I should've filled this [cowboy hat] with delicious fruit for us. A cornucopia.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Ohh! Actually, you can water your horse with it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>That's</i> why —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Actually, I brought that for you.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> This right here?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> That's yours.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Thank you so much, because I <i>broke</i> my old one.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Aah, aah! You gotta — You — You —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, this is interesting:<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Yeah, right. Gonna make you smarter.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Danny — Danny Feinberg Bar Mitzvah. This is interesting; it's inscribed. No, I'm excited. Which is the —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Which is the right? There you go!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> This is correct?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> There you go!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I think they [cowboy hats] don't do well with people with long faces.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> You're really doing well, actually.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It's always good to draw more attention to my <i>giant,</i> ridiculous head.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> If I leave here —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Thank you very much; that's very kind of you.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> If I leave here sayin' you're "all horse and no cattle[<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=12810512&postID=4633971979343649353#all-h">*</a>]," at least I'll know you've got the hat.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I'm gonna look that up, sir.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> You look that one up.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I'm sure that's not nice, but I'll look it up. [places the hat on the desk, crown up]<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Oh, oh, oh — turn it over. Turn it over. There you go. There you go. <i>Now</i> lay it down.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, you're not supposed to put it on the thing?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> No, no, no, Lord have mercy! No. Put it —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I'm gonna taunt you now, every time —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> You're doin' that, yes.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So you do it like this. [places the hat on the desk, crown down]<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> That's the way you lay down a Stetson.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But in New York City, somebody's gonna look at that and say, "Oh, there's a homeless person" and gonna put money — or, God forbid, bodily fluids — into my hat, and then —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> No, no, no, no.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> The money's all right, actually, but it's the —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It's a Reagan hat.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> That actually was made for Ronald Reagan.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Are you serious?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Read it! It says in the hatband.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Very quickly: [in Reagan voice] "Mr. Gorbachev...."<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> You did well.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Thank you. I want to talk about this: <i>Give Us Liberty,</i> and it is a <i>manifesto</i> — a little close to Karl Marx there....<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> I wasn't very happy about that —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I understand. But it starts with what appears to be an arithmetic formula: "Lower Taxes + Less Government = More Freedom."<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Absolutely.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That is the thing. Now, it would lead me to believe that for <i>maximum</i> freedom, you would want <i>no</i> taxes and no government. How close am I to where you are?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Actually, you're really bordering on the edge of what is called the Armey Curve, because there is a question, and it's being addressed in debate across the world.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Isn't that the Laffer Curve?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> No, no, the Laffer Curve is kind of old information. This is, like, real good stuff.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, okay. Fair enough.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Better name.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Armey.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> No "laffin'" at the Armey Curve, but at any rate — you know, if you've got anarchy, then you've got a mess, and if you listen to the small-government — Constitutional small-government folks that make up this movement, what they're saying is, "We all understand that we desperately need a <i>good</i> government that clearly focuses on those things that governments <i>must</i> do, and do those things well, and cost-effectively." But our problem is, governments don't always do the things they should do, well, and they mess up other things. Armey's Axiom is, "Division of labor works best when people mind their own damned business." The problem with government is, it's just not very disciplined at minding its own business. Write that down. But so —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But those seem like competing ideas.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> No, no, no. No, it isn't. Actually, I mean, it's the most fundamental thing in the world: if you and I were left on a desert island —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Now, how would that happen? Why — All right.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Take delivery lessons from Tom Hanks, and there you are, bang.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Boom. All right.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> The two of us and a UPS package.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right.<br />
<br />
<i>One</i> of us is going to be the government.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> How tall are you?<br />
<br />
<i>I'm</i> gonna have a gun. [audience laughs and groans] I'm a Second Amendment guy, you know that!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right, but I'm gonna have a boat. [audience cheers]<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> I'm gonna shoot a hole in it!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I know. Not as long as [inaudible].<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> The question is, and the question is being addressed quite seriously, has been addressed, was addressed in the Continental Congress, What is the appropriate balance between the private sector and the government, and what are the necessary tasks that we assign to the government, and how do we restrain government from overstepping? Because government has something that you and I — private citizens — do not have, which is the power to compel people to do what they will not otherwise do.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's right.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> So how do you constrain government? And, of course, the great constraint against excessive government is our Constitution. I like to remind officeholders — there's not an officeholder in America today who doesn't take a singular oath of office: protect and defend the Constitution. Why? Because it's a marvelous blueprint.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> It is the structure of division of responsibilities, authorities, prerogatives, between the private sector and the public sector.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Nobody's arguing that the Constitution's not good.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Oh, yes!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> The idea is — and I think this is sort of where the rubber meets the road — what you're describing is a very reasonable system of checks and balances and a pendulum swing, but you've written something called a "manifesto," and on it, it says, "Join the revolution," and it speaks of it as though we — you know, <i>have</i> we misappropriated — you know, the [1773 Boston] Tea Party was about taxation without representation —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> The original one.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> They've gotten the taxation part, but do they understand that we actually <i>do</i> have representation? <i>Are we</i> losing your very cogent — and, I thought, very balanced — argument, with this idea that we're fighting "Tyranny" to "take back" our government?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> I tell ya, if you take a look at these folks, and go walk among them —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yeah — [laughs]<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> I think —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> [laughing] "Walk among them"?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Absolutely.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What, are you Moses, for God's sake? "I have walked among these people. I have <i>seen.</i>"<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Trust me.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I get it.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> All right.<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>[end Part 1]<br />
<hr />[Part 2]</center><br />
<b>Armey:</b> The first source of heartburn is TARP.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> And — Now, but —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well — that's not the Garden of Eden, Original Sin — TARP is a <i>long</i> way down the road.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> But, what caused these folks to say, "Hey," you know, like Popeye, "I've had all I can stands, I can stands no more"? I'm going to get out in the street and let people know I'm unhappy with the government.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> A Democrat got elected.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Noooooo, absolutely not. No. You take a look at the first real incident of their disaffection was the Troubled Asset Relief whatever [Program].<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What was the first real big rally?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> The first big rallies came after Obama was elected, but only because Obama campaigned saying, Elect me and I'll give you something different from Bush. All he gave us was doubling down on Bush.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Aren't you rebranding Republicans?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Noooooo.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Democrats ran on "I'm not Bush"; aren't <i>Republicans</i> now running on, "I'm not Bush, either!"? "I'm a Tea Partier"; what's different about lower taxes and less government than what Bush said?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> No, no, no. These folks are people who are, in fact, fairly disenchanted with both political parties and officeholders from both —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> [skeptical look]<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Hey, I was there, man.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You're telling me that there is a <i>reasonable</i> amount of disaffected Democrats and —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> If you take a look at, What incumbent officeholder has suffered the most grievous loss at the hands of the grass-roots activists that you all want to call the Tea Party Movement, it's a Republican Senator from Utah, for Heaven's sake.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Who wasn't conservative enough.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> He stood up and said, Gee, why me, I'm such a fine fella. How come ya turned on me? They had a chant, and the chant was, "TARP, TARP, TARP." He didn't get it. And what TARP <i>was</i> — the most egregious part of TARP other than this horrible waste of money — was Congress <i>handing over</i> $700 billion to the <i>unilateral</i> action of the Secretary of the Treasury, and that is —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, they're targeting anyone who wanted TARP?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> That's a direct violation of the whole concept of separation of powers.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But TARP was not — it's just a program that was instituted on a temporary basis. That is not a permanent entitlement program for our government. That's a <i>temporary</i> program.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> That remains to be seen. Most of us don't believe it's at all —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So you believe they will do a TARP every year?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> First of all, insofar as you have —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> By the way, TARP came about because of some deregulation in the financial markets. Isn't that more freedom for —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> TARP came about because the legacy of 20 years of foolish public policy <i>principally</i> directed at maintaining artificially low interest rates — and I'll lay this at the feet of both parties — gave us this big bubble in real estate that was bound to burst.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> The bubble was not based on — to use another arithmetic — it wasn't arithmetic home value to mortgage loans, it was based on bundling those and creating these enormous derivatives —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Absolutely.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> — creating <i>trillions</i> of dollars of debt when it could've been billions —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> The <i>incentive</i> for which came out of Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac, or whatever. [sic]<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No. That's not true at all.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> The government sponsored — that guy's got it right, he's got the names backwards.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Fannie and Freddie are one small part of it; this came from the bundling of derivatives — Fannie and Freddie weren't even in that <i>game</i> yet. They didn't <i>create</i> those derivatives, that was the financial unregulated Wall Street houses.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Fannie and Freddie represent a secondary housing market, and they let the public know, let the bankers know — irresponsible bankers — If you bundle up these assets, we will make sure they're purchased. And they did.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Were they the main purchaser of them in 2007?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Probably was; I'm not sure, because by this time they had become —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> "I'm not sure," to blame Fannie and Freddie — I guess my point is this: this [book] seems like flattery to some extent, to say to people, "Lower taxes and less government — <i>you</i> know better," and then you say, "Well, we do need <i>smart</i> government" —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Well, wait a minute: <i>who</i> knows better?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> The people.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> That's the <i>point</i> of the Constitution: it begins with "We, the People" will lend to you elected officials some limited authorities and responsibilities if you can exercise them like responsible adults. Rather than being short-sighted and self-indulgent, taking power onto yourselves —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But that's not "tyranny." That's just —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> No, that <i>is</i> tyranny.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> [drops pencil, puts head in his hand]<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> I'll give you a simple example.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>How</i> is that tyranny?! How is that tyranny, if you can democratically then remove them from office?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Well, that's what we're about to do! That's what we're doin'! I'm glad you got there! This whole thing is about, "Let's take them out of office! They're a bunch of juvenile delinquents, acting irresponsibly. Let's remove them and" —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But here's the difference: let's say America had voted, "You know what? I don't like King George's tax policy on tea. I'm gonna vote him out," and then they vote him out.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> They couldn't.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> <i>Right.</i> Do you see the difference now, between tyranny and elections?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> I do.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you see the difference?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Now, do you see the difference between people who are active —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Wait a minute! How are you the messenger for this?? You were a Congressman for how many years? You were the House Majority Leader and then you became a lobbyist!! How are you the messenger??<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Isn't that a remarkable thing?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> How did you wind up as the messenger of Tea Party, no government, freedom? This seems very opportunistic!<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Could you imagine? No, this is very —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I think you might've filled my hat with something! How is this possible??<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> This is a remarkable thing. I'm a walking, talking miracle. [audience laughs]<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> [laughs] You've seen the light, brother!!<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Absolutely, brother!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Sort of like that thing: "I found Jesus!" When did you find Jesus? "Right after the cops found me!!"<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> No, no, no, no.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It's the same thing!<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Nooo!<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, man! You're <i>killin'</i> me here!<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> I know it. I'm gonna hit you with a [indistinct] now.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Oh, my God! A [same indistinct]!<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> All right; get ready.<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>[end Part 2]<br />
<hr />[Part 3]</center><br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Let me ask you this: what — how is the Tea Party not just a more conservative, purer form of the Republican Party?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> No, no, no, no.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It's not? Okay, what's different?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> First of all, the Tea Party is <i>not</i> a political party. We don't <i>trust</i> political parties. Political parties' mission is about political parties. We believe in the American Constitution is the greatest act of entrepreneurial genius for the cause of freedom in the history of the world, and we think people who have the privilege to be elected and given the opportunity to swear an oath to that Constitution, have a <i>duty</i> to fulfill that oath, and they haven't been doing it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I know, but that's just random gobbledy-gook. That's one of those —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> It's not random gobbledy-gook.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It is, because it's like this: people who want "limited government" want government limited to what <i>they</i> want it to do. In other words, let me just talk quickly about gay marriage. Do you think that the Tea Party would agree that gay marriage is more freedom or less? Do you think that they would think —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> I think the Tea Party would say we've got more important things to concern ourselves with —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But that's a Constitutional issue. That's freedom for one, freedom for all. What about this: net neutrality. Where does the Tea Party stand on net neutrality?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> I'm not sure. We don't discuss these matters.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Have you <i>met</i> these people?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Let me give <i>you</i> one.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right. Give me one.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> All right, let me give you one.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> All right.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Because I'm gonna tell you something you didn't know.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I would appreciate that.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Okay. What would you say if I told you that my neighbor, the Christian Scientist, who has never seen a physician in three generations of his family's life, has just been told that if he doesn't sign up for Medicare, he can't have his Social Security? And that, on examination, he's discovered this isn't in the law, it isn't a regulation that was acted upon with proper due process, it's a dang "policy memo" that was written in 1993 and has been enforced by whimsical bureaucrats ever since? Now, <i>that's</i> not tyranny? If you say to me —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's pretty weak tea for tyranny, I gotta say. It's kind of weak tea for tyranny.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> It is, huh?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Christian Scientists have to get insurance.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> So, you're saying, "I don't care what your religion's convictions are, you either sign up for this program that you don't want, you don't need, and you won't use, or I'm taking your life's savings, and denying that to you."<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> What would you say to this: being Jewish, and living in a country that has a Kathy Lee Gifford Christmas special — I mean, <i>that</i> — isn't <i>that</i> tyranny?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Is the government —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> How come <i>I</i> have to listen to that?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Wait a minute: first of all, you <i>don't</i> have to listen to it —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But that's pick and choose.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Put it on public television and the government says you must tune in: <i>that's</i> tyranny.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, your tyranny is the government ordering people to purchase health insurance. In your mind, that's tyranny.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Absolutely.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> In my mind, tyranny would be the government allowing segregation to occur and not stepping in. So now we have two things. Let's say the government <i>mandates</i> to somebody who doesn't want black people to eat at their restaurant that you <i>have to</i> let them. That's tyranny, isn't it?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> I think that issue has been settled. No, not —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But isn't it tyranny?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Not whatsoever.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> How is it not tyranny? The government mandating to you, you're part of the White Sandwich cult —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> You're talking about civil rights —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> I'm talking about <i>the law.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> The Civil Rights Act of 1965, which is the law of the land, passed into law through the appropriate legislative processes —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, you have no problem, as long as it passes through the appropriate process, you have no problem?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Properly, in accordance with the Const —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You have no problem with mandated health insurance for Americans, as long as it is passed through law —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> I think it's bad public policy.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, that's different than tyranny and unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> But, here's the thing: any time you don't like the law as it is, you have the <i>right</i> to, in whatever ways are legal, to act to change the law.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> And that's what these folks are trying to do.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That's the beauty of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Absolutely.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right. Why is <i>your</i> interpretation of the Constitution the idea that anything <i>I</i> might think the government should do, is tyranny, and anything <i>you</i> think they should do, is patriotism?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> No, no, you're [audience applause] — again, let me just say this —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It's a very slippery slope.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> No, it's not. It's a matter of —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes, it is!<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> — difference of — Look: —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> It's a matter of <i>difference of opinion,</i> and you just said it.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> That's right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right! But that's not the Constitution! <i>That's</i> a difference of opinion. That's what I'm saying.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> All right, but again I would say, the Constitution of the United States set up a structure of governance —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> — with legitimate and limited responsibilities to people <i>in</i> the government —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Three branches.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Three branches of the government. They did not say in the Constitution, "The Legislative Branch can cede their responsibilities to control the purses of this nation, to the tune of $750 billion, to <i>one</i> unelected person in the Executive Branch of the government."<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Well, that would have to then be <i>challenged</i> —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> That's a Constitutional question.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> That would have to be challenged through the judiciary. That's why they have that <i>third</i> —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> It <i>would be</i> challenged through the judiciary, but it's <i>also</i> something that can be challenged in the electory [sic] process. In the process of deciding what candidates will win —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> But I don't think anyone disagrees with that.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> — Well, that's what we're doing. Are we not in fact, I say —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> No, no, no, no, no. I'm saying —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> — We have candidates that we would prefer to see win elections —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Right, but I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, I have this sense that people believe this is a new, magical reawakening of Constitutional principle that we have all forgotten. Anybody that believes the government should be involved in Social Security or a safety net or any of those things has "forgotten the lessons of tyranny" and the lessons of the bloody battles and all that, and all you're really saying is, "Hey, man, why don't you elect Republicans?" [audience laughs] That's all you're saying. And then, you know what's going to happen? The same thing that always happens: you're gonna elect Republicans and they're gonna leave office with a bigger government and a bigger deficit, because they always do. [audience cheers]<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> First of all, let me assure you —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Come on, Armey! Come on, Armey! I am an army of one! [audience laughs]<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Let me assure you that <i>nobody</i> in this movement that I know of has any particular affection for any political party that is winning elections in America today.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> There's not an opinion poll that's been done on the Tea Party that doesn't show it to be overwhelmingly conservative and Republican.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Overwhelmingly <i>conservative</i> and hopeful that the Republicans can be responsible in office — as they have been on occasions in the past. Not since <i>I</i> left, but still, nevertheless.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> [laughs] All right. Can I tell you this, though? I find you incredibly entertaining. [audience laughs] And I <i>do</i> enjoy talking with you, and it's nice. I don't — you know —<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> You know what's really stunning me?<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Let me tell you something I'm a little bit surprised about: I thought you'd be more "cattle," quite frankly. But you know what I'm seeing right now? A lot of hat.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Thank you, appreciate it. Let me tell you what surprised me: when my guys told me that the punditry watches <i>you</i> to see what's current in America —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Yes. I don't think that's true.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> — I figured they understand the American newspaper business appropriately. They got it right.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> You know the newspaper business is dead.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> It started here [points to his own head].<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Do you think that this, the Tea Party movement, will break off, or they'll just take over the Republican Party? Do you think they'll break off? Or they'll take over the Republican Party?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> I think we will reform and rehabilitate the Republican Party so that America has in fact —<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> So, you're kind of like MoveOn.org, to some extent, for the Republican Party?<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> Except they're wrong, we're right, and that's it.<br />
<br />
<b>Stewart:</b> Fair enough. <i>Give Us Liberty</i> is on bookshelves now. Sit right there. Dick Armey, ladies and gentlemen.<br />
<br />
<b>Armey:</b> And you buy it.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
<a href="" name="all-h"></a><i>* The expression is usually "all <b>hat</b>, no cattle," meaning that someone is a faux cowboy, dressing the part but not doing the actual work. The description is especially apt regarding President George W. Bush on his "ranch" near Crawford, Texas.</i><div class="blogger-post-footer">©2005-2013 Lincoln Madison. If you quote this article
in whole or in part, please include attribution to
LincMad.blogspot.com. "Comment spamming"
and "trackback spamming" are expressly forbidden
as theft of resources.</div>Lincoln Madisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14625854358421443659noreply@blogger.com0