How do we move past this rhetoric if we do not examine it? How do we not ask the question that Stewart asked which was "why is it inconsistent?" It doesn't matter if you agree with his premise. What matters is that it's addressed.

 

The "let's not talk about it because it keeps us trapped" thnking is short-sighted IMO.

 

Stewart's point was not that it occurs the same on both sides but rather it is happening MORE now than when Bush was President. He continued with that point that it is WORSE now on the right than it was from the left with GW.

 

Pawlenty even tried to answer that by pointing out that the left was creating an unsafe area around the Republican National Convention and Stewart interrupted him by saying that "college students with their lawyer's number written on their arms" is not a problem.

As it became painful obvious that Stewart's sole purpose of the interview was to try and "get him" with an answer that was going to do nothing positive for Pawlenty but paint him into a position that Stewart wanted to paint him.

 

I completely disagree with the "get him" point. He had a question that he felt was important and he wanted an answer. How is that a "get him" question?

Stewart's point was not that it occurs the same on both sides but rather it is happening MORE now than when Bush was President. He continued with that point that it is WORSE now on the right than it was from the left with GW.

 

Pawlenty even tried to answer that by pointing out that the left was creating an unsafe area around the Republican National Convention and Stewart interrupted him by saying that "college students with their lawyer's number written on their arms" is not a problem.

 

The answer you cite proves my point that he either didn't get it or didn't want to answer it. That answer had nothing to do with the premise posed by Stewart.

I completely disagree with the "get him" point. He had a question that he felt was important and he wanted an answer. How is that a "get him" question?

 

Because as I said early, the answer had no positive reprecussions. It was either he admits that it is worse for Obama than it was for Bush or he gets into the fight that the political rhetoric is appropriate.

The answer you cite proves my point that he either didn't get it or didn't want to answer it. That answer had nothing to do with the premise posed by Stewart.

 

So, if it is a bad question for an interviewer, they have to answer it because the host posed the question?

 

So, when Obama goes on Bill OReilly on Super Bowl Sunday, if Oreilly asks, "President Obama why do you hate rich people and want all their money?"

 

President Obama is forced to get into a stupid argument that he does not hate rich people because OReilly posed the question?

 

No, Obama would do as he should and ignore the part of the question that is asked to try and paint him a certain way and talk about the importance, in his mind, of everyone doing their part to support the economy.

Because as I said early, the answer had no positive reprecussions. It was either he admits that it is worse for Obama than it was for Bush or he gets into the fight that the political rhetoric is appropriate.

 

As Stewart said it's not a matter of "more" it's a matter of specific issues. His premise is that it's inconsistent to be OK with govt intrusion under President Bush (wire tapping/NCLB) vs the "vitriol" we hear today about President Obama creating a tyranny or being intrusive. His argument is that it's the same YET that's not what we hear. The TEA Party came about specifically as a result of President Obama being elected because they believe in the "don't tread on me" thinking. That's fine if they believe that but the obvious and often asked question is "where were you in 2000?"

 

THAT's what would seem to be a fair/non-gotcha question and one that any reasonable person can express an opinion on without fear of losing votes.

So, if it is a bad question for an interviewer, they have to answer it because the host posed the question?

 

So, when Obama goes on Bill OReilly on Super Bowl Sunday, if Oreilly asks, "President Obama why do you hate rich people and want all their money?"

 

President Obama is forced to get into a stupid argument that he does not hate rich people because OReilly posed the question?

 

No, Obama would do as he should and ignore the part of the question that is asked to try and paint him a certain way and talk about the importance, in his mind, of everyone doing their part to support the economy.

 

You need better examples. Your O'Reilly example shows that. Who says President Obama hates rich people?

 

Who said it was a bad question for the interviewer? If it's a point that Stewart wants to discuss why is it "bad?"

As Stewart said it's not a matter of "more" it's a matter of specific issues. His premise is that it's inconsistent to be OK with govt intrusion under President Bush (wire tapping/NCLB) vs the "vitriol" we hear today about President Obama creating a tyranny or being intrusive. His argument is that it's the same YET that's not what we hear. The TEA Party came about specifically as a result of President Obama being elected because they believe in the "don't tread on me" thinking. That's fine if they believe that but the obvious and often asked question is "where were you in 2000?"

 

THAT's what would seem to be a fair/non-gotcha question and one that any reasonable person can express an opinion on without fear of losing votes.

 

There were many, many conservatives that had a problem with No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act. Alot on here had issues with both.

 

So, Pawlenty's first answer to the question would have had to lead to an argument denying Stewart's first point that there was no vitriol (I have never typed or said that word ever before now) with No Child Left Behind nor Patriot Act.

 

And The Tea Party was just a move by Fox News, remember? It had no real meaning according to everyone when they first started.

You need better examples. Your O'Reilly example shows that. Who says President Obama hates rich people?

 

Who said it was a bad question for the interviewer? If it's a point that Stewart wants to discuss why is it "bad?"

 

Using your logic, who says the vitriol is worse.

 

So, the person who is being interviewed is at the mercy of the person asking the questions and has to address anything and everything they ask?

There were many, many conservatives that had a problem with No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act. Alot on here had issues with both.

 

So, Pawlenty's first answer to the question would have had to lead to an argument denying Stewart's first point that there was no vitriol (I have never typed or said that word ever before now) with No Child Left Behind nor Patriot Act.

 

And The Tea Party was just a move by Fox News, remember? It had no real meaning according to everyone when they first started.

 

"Many, many" is a bit much. Regardless, there was no cry of "tyranny" or "socialism" or "govt intrusion" which is exactly the point that was being made by Stewart and avoided by Mr. Pawlenty.

 

If we can't get someone to stand up and say what they believe because the host might disagree are you saying he's ready to lead the country?

 

The Tea Party is exhibit A for the point being made by Stewart.

Using your logic, who says the vitriol is worse.

 

So, the person who is being interviewed is at the mercy of the person asking the questions and has to address anything and everything they ask?

 

Yes, the person being interviewed is at the mercy of the host. That's the way it works. It's not a 30-minute ad campaign.

 

How many times can Stewart say that it's not a matter of "worse." It's a matter of being inconsistent. Come on. It's not that difficult to follow.

^ He played the interview like an experienced politician who wasn't going to get drawn into a debate. It was well done and it speaks to his excellence. Jon Stewart is a TV host who wants to draw a guest like Pawlenty down into a level of debate. I can't fault either person for the way they handled that yesterday.

 

But let's not confuse that unwillingness to engage in a pandering debate that is, quite frankly, beneath a guest of Pawlenty's stature, with simple resistance to Jon Stewart's bullying. On one occasion, Stewart was asking about the change in rhetoric about "tyranny" since the start of the Obama administration, wondering where that same rhetoric was during proposals for National ID cards, the Patriot Act and other things during the Bush years. It was clearly something Pawlenty didn't want to discuss, so he pulled the discussion back to far more general terms about the state of political discourse. It was well done and made me admire him as someone who is capable of adequately representing the Republican Party. But the general, amorphous nature of his responses are exactly why it didn't sound like he said much.

 

In the end, he handled Stewart's questioning very well and kept the discussion focused on what he came on to talk about, not what Stewart wanted to talk about. It's not something that's easy to do.

 

Just ask Tom Selleck.

How do we move past this rhetoric if we do not examine it? How do we not ask the question that Stewart asked which was "why is it inconsistent?" It doesn't matter if you agree with his premise. What matters is that it's addressed.

 

The "let's not talk about it because it keeps us trapped" thnking is short-sighted IMO.

 

I just don't see the need to...in a sense...talk about the talking. I don't see what it accomplishes.

"Many, many" is a bit much. Regardless, there was no cry of "tyranny" or "socialism" or "govt intrusion" which is exactly the point that was being made by Stewart and avoided by Mr. Pawlenty.

 

If we can't get someone to stand up and say what they believe because the host might disagree are you saying he's ready to lead the country?

 

The Tea Party is exhibit A for the point being made by Stewart.

 

Been happening for ages so, the answer is yes.