Jon Stewart, Clapper Hack

Steven Crowder got rejected in his bid to be a conservative pundit on the Daily Show. (Not sure if he pitched himself as a one-shot or an ongoing thing; probably the former with an eye to the latter, if he performed.)

Here's the tricky thing: Crowder runs the peril of seeming jealous/pissy/etc. due to his rejection.

But he navigates this perfectly. Because he points out that Stewart expressly holds himself out as, if you can stand to hear this without laughing your eyes out of your skull, non-partisan, the reasonable man floating above the fray.

So is he?

Well, his producer's letter to Crowder's manager said Crowder was talented and funny, however, they have a blanket policy of absolutely no conservative-leaning pundits, period.

So, like every other liberal occupying a position in the media, he poses as non-partisan when in fact being partisan as all hell.

A liar, put briefly.

I have to say one thing here.

I find it sad that conservatives continue watching this semi-talented Clapper Comic. I find it even sadder that they continue to root, with their little hearts, that Stewart will say something vaguely conservative, as if it matters a loose stool whether Jon Stewart validates them.

I saw this with the Weiner thing, when I saw conservatives crossing fingers that tonight be the big night.

You know how he covered Weiner? First night, he made light of it (naturally), then praised blogs for breaking important stories, like "journalists" are supposed to.

You know which blogs he praised? Gawker and the Daily Kos and HuffPo (forget the exact ones) for breaking the story, basically, that Breitbart might have set up Weiner or actually hacked him.

Even after he said this, I saw, I'm sorry to say, a semi-praising post about it at one of Breitbart's own blogs.

Look: I get it. You like him. You want him to like you back.

I don't know why you like him, because he's not terribly funny, and his stock in trade is the cutesy mugging that Letterman used to do when Letterman was still bothering to even phone it in, back in the mid-90s, but I do get it, you like him.

But he doesn't like you back. Period. And you sound a little sad, desperate, and needy hoping for some Jon Stewart validation.

Jon Stewart is a loud and proud left liberal. Period. He is not fair, he is not balanced, and he is not, as the New York Times and other left-liberal organs constantly allege, "The most important, impartial voice in journalism."

He is a barely-funny TV clown who is left-liberal like the rest of them, only a little more arrogant and dishonest about that. At least other left-liberals occasionally roll their eyes at their own Nutty-Granola point of view, acknowledging, in a human, honest way, "Oh, there I go again, with one of my liberal jags."

Stewart never does that. He lies straight to your face and tells you he's some kind of non-partisan, objective neutral referee.

And actually I think he's so cocooned in his own partisanship and bullshit I think he might even believe that.

So can we please stop giving him credit he does not earned?

If you like him, fine. But maybe you shouldn't parade that around so damn much. It's a little shameful to be in so one-sided a relationship.

Jon Stewart doesn't matter now, the same as he didn't matter when he was on MTV.

He's a clown. A clown may be funny but a clown isn't important.

posted by Ace at 05:44 PM

| Access Comments