Skip to main content

The Daily Show, The Bill Maher Show, and The Colbert Report Like Ron Paul

I've been offended by Bill Maher several times before, but it was likely because of my misinterpretation of his intense hatred of George W. Bush. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert usually make mincemeat of their guests. But in three recent cases, I was surprised at how much these political satire hosts enjoyed their conversations with Ron Paul, and how well he held his own. I guess maybe Jon, Bill, Stephen, Ron, and I have something in common--we don't much care for the establishment. That's why Ron Paul makes such a great presidential candidate.


Ron Paul was recently a guest of The Colbert Report.

Here are some of the highlights of the conversation he had with Stephen Colbert.

"I'd rather be free and alive, and you can be." He said that Republicans deserved to lose the last election, because they did not follow the Constituion. "I ran
away from the President, and I won." "All these wars [on terrorism, drugs, and poverty] are just to scare the people into giving up their liberties." See the interview below.



Bill Maher announced recently on his show that "Ron Paul is My New Hero!"

The host asked Representative Paul, "If America was a smarter country, wouldn't you be leading in the polls?" Ron Paul said, among other things, that "We should spread [liberty and democracy] with a good example[, not by force]."



The Daily Show with Jon Stewart


On The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart said of and to Ron Paul "Consistent, principled, integrity. Americans don't usually go for that." One of Representative Paul's most enlightening statements of the interview was "Militarism is the opposite of defense," meaning that the Constitution allows the country to defend itself, but that's not what we've been doing for the last several years.




Comments

  1. This is what I dislike about Bill Maher: his condescending attitude toward average Americans. It pervades his every comment. For example, he says, in essence, that Americans are too stupid and corrupt to vote for Ron Paul. That is hardly the type of endorsement a candidate should want.

    I'm not saying anything about Paul with this next statement; I'm merely making an observation. Candidates that distrust and hate people should not expect to be elected. Pundits that distrust and hate people should not expect people to tune into their programs. And that cuts pretty much across all party lines.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I actually think Ron Paul did a good job of not buying into Maher's statement. Maybe he should have been more emphatic that it was an untrue statement. I think Ron Paul expects that there ARE a lot of intelligent people out there, who just haven't really had much of a choice lately when it comes to presidential candidates.

    It's exciting that now they do!

    ReplyDelete
  3. His attitude may be condescending, but in a way, Maher does have a point. We as an American people haven't been doing our duty in upholding the Constitution and holding our representatives accountable. Power has been so far removed from the people, hoarding in the executive, that we feel that we can't do anything about all the poor decisions being made by government, and so we let things go time and time again.

    I agree with Frank. It's nice to have a candidate that will bring the power back to the people--exactly what the Founders intended.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, Connor. Another point about this election: it has become banal, but people still say it regularly, to wit that we have to vote for someone who has a chance of winning. I agree, but my definition of who has a chance of winning is completely different than theirs. They would say, don't vote for Ron Paul, because he can't win. I say, if as many people as who really think he's the best candidate would vote for him he DOES have a chance of winning. They say, "don't throw away your vote." To which I say, "You throw away your vote when you throw away your integrity by not voting for the best candidate."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Absolutely. Vote your conscience. When enough people actually do that, it will make a difference. Still, it can feel lonely in the meantime.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We need to create a national "Vote your conscience lonely voter" convention. Someday it may rival The Yearly Kos convention!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...