Janeane Garofalo is an idiot!

Janeane Garofalo, on the Daily Show

You realize of course that The Daily Show is a satire right?

Love the "bears crapping on each other analogy". I love Garofalo's comedy and she is a passable comedic actress in the rather typecast archetype roles she has performed in, but just because you are famous and have *a* talent does not mean you are not a SJBEM when it comes to politics.

I guess my point was is that perhaps she was not being serious, given that she was on The Daily Show and all....
... but then again maybe not.

Wow. That is spectacular.

See, I poked in on your little entry because I was hoping it was going to be about Janeane Garofalo dying her hair blonde and selling us all out and then it wasn't.

We can't run Gore because you people villianized him so badly. "Gore is a crybaby!" "Gore is a wimp" "blah blah blah blah blah!"

We want to run Kerry/McCain on the same ticket -- I think everyone agrees that that would be a pretty strong ticket.

AND- Yes, I would put my incontinent dog in charge of this country before I would leave it to a 57 year old frat boy.

Also, congradulations on writing what must be the longest run-on sentence in the history of the world. Sheer Genius --

Kachina Crowe

Http://kachinacrowe.journalspace.com

It was an interview, and it seemed like she was being serious. In fact, I think Jon Stewart was a bit uncomfortable with her zealotry.

If they won't run Gore because he was called some names, then the Democrats don't deserve to win. Besides, what I've heard about Kerry is far worse than anything I heard about Gore. As for Kerry/McCain, that'd be great with one change: no Kerry. Is he the best Democrats have?

In that case I apologize and rephrase my question. Janeane Garofalo realized of course that The Daily Show is a satire right?

I wish I could have seen the show ... something made Jon Stewart uncomfortable? He's usually pretty quick on his feet.

Let's just say that he was defending Bush (i.e. Janeane said he was a fundamentalist and he was saying otherwise) but it didn't get heated up or anything.

Well, we can't very well nominate people who aren't interested in running...

Besides, I think Gore might have lost again anyway. I wanted Edwards myself , but Kerry will do.

We want to run Kerry/McCain on the same ticket -- I think everyone agrees that that would be a pretty strong ticket.

Really? you speak for the Democratic party on this? Amazing, didn't know JU had the insiders hook ups like that! Thanks for gracing us with your comments Mr. McAuliffe!

 

We can't run Gore because he is busy inventing the internet again, keeping that "lockbox" safe from the enemy, and holding speeches on global warming on the coldest day New York had in 51 years.

Also, congradulations on writing what must be the longest run-on sentence in the history of the world. Sheer Genius --

Also it is congratulations not congradulations... if you want to be a grammar cop then at least police your own spelling... or better yet just don't sweat the meaningless stuff.

and holding speeches on global warming on the coldest day New York had in 51 years.

And don't forget telling us to see the "documentary" The Day After Tomorrow to raise awareness on global climate change.

But don't be too hard on the guy, at least he can spell potato(e). (or I hope he can).

What's funny is left-wingers who think that supporting gay marriage is a mainstream position.

Typical response from someone (Janeane) who's out of the mainstream. She along with the rest of the liberals in this country need to realize; There views are outside the dimensions of mainstream ideology, the very thing she disparaged (divisivness of the republican party.) was, and is the impression that most Americans have of the democratic party today. Few areas of this country agree with the radical views of a Janeane Garofolo (i.e. American was responsible for Sept. 11th, All drugs should be legal, etc...) There has always been a struggle to define the morality of a nation, and given the democratic fall from power throughout the late 20th century; it's no suprise that they have contorted themselves into the position of fear mongers and apologists.
I considered myself a democrat during my younger years and now vote independently. I can no longer check logic and reason at the voters booth while Democrats continue to peddle too fear.

There views are outside the dimensions of mainstream ideology, the very thing she disparaged (divisivness of the republican party.) was, and is the impression that most Americans have of the democratic party today. Few areas of this country agree with the radical views of a Janeane Garofolo

The question begs, what's so important about keeping one's views within the mainstream boundary? I detect a hint of "if it's the majority opinion, it must be right." One needs to demonstrate why the views are wrong, not simply demonstrate that they aren't within the current boundaries of popular thinking.

VES

I think she was right about the country being polarized in its current state. Everyone is either conservative or liberal and stick to their ideologies regardless of facts or opposition. It sad when they coined that term "flip-flopper" and watching everyone start to repeat it. The only thing I am looking for is solutions and so far I am not happy with the effects this current administration has had on this country and over seas. I never considered myself a liberal and still really don't care much for labels but nowadays you are either one or the other....

I think the polarizing is mostly one way. The, frankly, bizarre hatred the left has of Bush mystifies me. I know some conservatives, particularly on the fringe, hated Clinton but there's nothing I can recall in recent history that matches this Bush-as-Boogeyman.  Heck, even from the day Ashcroft was appointed in there have been hysterical charges against him as well.

I'm convinced that what has happened is that some people have an almost allgergic reaction to people who are deeply religious.

I didn't not like a lot of Clinton's policies and I didn't vote for him but when he took office I was very optimistic that he woudl bring about change. I didn't waste my time hating him just becasue he was not the guy I voted for in the election. I won't debate the merits of how he spend all his political capital later but I had hgih hopes to start with was my point.

Draginol - I think you are right about why there is such a reaction against Bush. I am not a religios man whatsoever and my inner liberal recoils when Bush talks about faith based initaitives and such. I just have to grit my teeth and push through the reaction and use my brain and not my haert to analyze the man as a whole. He is not just religious, he is also the President.

I read in the news that even the GOP is reassessing his leadership skills, what do you guys think of this?

My opinion of Bush hasn't changed much. I never thought he had very good leadership skills.

But I do want leaders who will make tough decisions and not get lost in nuanced decision making.

Making decisions is easy making the right decision is what is difficult and what counts...

Both parties centralized authorities "re-evaluate" their candidates leadership abilities constantly. That is the very reason for their existance. Not exactly news.

Making decisions is easy making the right decision is what is difficult and what counts...

Actually in many situations it is impossible to know what is the "rightest" decision and the important thing is to do *something* and quickly. This is the fallacy of the UN, this mody will not make a decision until they are all totally convinced that this is the "perfect" decision. This of course leads to no decisions whatsoever on anything. Hence the complete eunuchization of the UN as any sort of effective body.

Yes and now they (GOP) are considering what was once decisive and resolute as simply idealic and wrong. They were behind him 100 percent until recently when things have just become worse with prisoner abuse and even within the military they think the june 30 deadline is impossible. With this I am not voicing an opinion I am relaying what is being said.

Actually I am in the military too, and impossible is a big word to use. Is June 30 ideal? no of course not. Nothing ever is. Frankly we could leave tomorrow and Iraq would be self-governing. It is certainly posible, just not necessarily the best way to go about it. I would love to hear what your opinion of a good plan of action would be though. If you have alternatives that would work better... trot em out. Otherwise you are just kvetching.