So apparently the MSNBC boys feel burned (again) by Stewart

[Smelodies]

Keith wasn't especially catty, showed disappointment in Jon by shaking his head a few times, said MSNBC and Fox are not equivalent, and he's going to discontinue "Worst Persons."

[Andy]

This board leans a little left.

[cavorting with nudists]

I don't even know what that means any more.  Left by contemporary American standards? Tea Party standards? Left by the American standards of, say, the 70s, when substantial numbers of Republicans supported a guaranteed income, the ERA, and federally subsidized child care?  Left by the Republican standards of the 90s, when Republicans supported a health care plan that mandated universal compliance as their alternative to Hillarycare?  Left by the standards of the world's industrialized nations?  Or just left by the standards set up by the corporate media after 45 years of browbeating by the bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces of the superrich?

I don't know what "leaning left" means in contemporary America, but I'm pretty sure that taking exception to the current direction of the Republican party doesn't require much ideological fervor.

[cutout]

The American 'Left' would still be considered Moderate-Right anywhere else in the world.

[Smelodies]

[dave from knoxville]

I am still terrified by Skeletor.

[fonpr]

I don't even know what that means any more.  Left by contemporary American standards? Tea Party standards? Left by the American standards of, say, the 70s, when substantial numbers of Republicans supported a guaranteed income, the ERA, and federally subsidized child care?  Left by the Republican standards of the 90s, when Republicans supported a health care plan that mandated universal compliance as their alternative to Hillarycare?  Left by the standards of the world's industrialized nations?  Or just left by the standards set up by the corporate media after 45 years of browbeating by the bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces of the superrich?

I don't know what "leaning left" means in contemporary America, but I'm pretty sure that taking exception to the current direction of the Republican party doesn't require much ideological fervor.

I'm with you, Nudie.
I've never liked the simplistic notion of a straight horizontal line  as a way of representing different political views.  I imagine a circle with conservative/libertarians and liberal/anarchists meeting at the top and oppressive state control Fascist/Totalitarian communism meeting at the bottom. 
The straight line doesn't allow for any connections to be made between the two sides.
I also recall a graph divided into quadrants that seemed more realistically representing the people I've gotten to know.  I first saw this graph in Reason magazine a long time ago.

[Andy]

Left of center.

[njkaters]

I don't even know what that means any more.  Left by contemporary American standards? Tea Party standards? Left by the American standards of, say, the 70s, when substantial numbers of Republicans supported a guaranteed income, the ERA, and federally subsidized child care?  Left by the Republican standards of the 90s, when Republicans supported a health care plan that mandated universal compliance as their alternative to Hillarycare?  Left by the standards of the world's industrialized nations?  Or just left by the standards set up by the corporate media after 45 years of browbeating by the bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces of the superrich?

I don't know what "leaning left" means in contemporary America, but I'm pretty sure that taking exception to the current direction of the Republican party doesn't require much ideological fervor.

I'm with you, Nudie.
I've never liked the simplistic notion of a straight horizontal line  as a way representing different political views.  I imagine a circle with conservative/libertarians and liberal/anarchists meeting at the top and oppressive state control Fascist/Totalitarian communism meeting at the bottom. 
The straight line doesn't allow for any connections to be made between the two sides.
I also recall a graph divided into quadrants that seemed more realistically representing the people I've gotten to know.  I first saw this graph in Reason magazine a long time ago.

Right on, Fredericks. I teach a college history class and I always use a horseshoe-shaped graphic to represent political ideologies. Fascism and communism in theory are quite different and would fit as polar opposites on a straight line but in reality, the means used to exert fascist and communist control are very similar (though never completely meet).

I also agree with the idea of political labels as moving targets. I'm not sure how I would be characterized today and that is why I end up with a messy ballot.

[Sarah]

I remember that graph.  I scored lower lefthand corner.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

@NTC: what has Greenwald made up?  Do you have any evidence of this?

Greenwald's deal is that he imagines that anybody who disagrees with him (even people more liberal than he is) is a phony and sell-out. He acts like he's the only honest person in the world and everybody is just lying. 

Everything he wrote about health care reform (and the public option especially) was bullshit. According to him Obama only did HCR because he's in the pocket of insurance companies.  That's making shit up.

Yeah, except that it isn't.  I find Greenwald insufferable at times, often for the reasons you mention, but he's never lied as far as I can tell.  You could say that Obama was seeking a compromise with powerful corporations.  Greenwald could say that he's in the pocket of the insurance industry.  I would say (as has been borne out by my current experience trying to get health care for my family) that it's the Democrats' usual total fucking cluelessness and/or indifference as to how their policy changes actually affect people on the ground.  All three of these interpretations are probably true to some degree or other.  None of them involve making shit up.

[Smelodies]

Not all wingnuts are celebrating today.

[cavorting with nudists]

"The Editors" at Esquire.com pinpointed pretty well where Stewart went wrong. I think:

The problem is not that we don't play nice enough with each other. The problem is that one side plays by its own rules in a universe of its own devising, with its own physical laws, its unique economics, and its own history and theology, and that universe is now devouring the real one.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/state-of-the-union-essay-110210

[Smelodies]

The unedited interview he had with Chris Wallace last night is really strong.  He elaborates on his MSNBC dig, and he gets Wallace to concede Fox's double standard:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-3-2010/exclusive---chris-wallace-extended-interview

[cavorting with nudists]

Yeah, he handled Wallace pretty well, but as is often the case when JS interviews a right-winger, I want to beat the smug fuck around the head and shoulders a lot harder than Stewart will allow himself to do.  I understand he has to walk a fine line, it's just frustrating.