from Nov 18th.
canucks can watch here:

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/#clip235677

...because it's *blocked

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by SlipperyPete.

Palin's speech at the GOP convention was good, but she just sounds nervous all the time. I reject the typical left-wing smear tactics that routinely attempt to propagandize an opponent as unintelligent though. Maybe Stewart needs to consider that those are boilerplate conservative messages for a good reason. Because they're right. Low taxes are good. Getting government out of the picture is good. High taxes are bad. Bigger government is bad. She has to say those things because there's guys like Stewart out there who haven't gotten the message yet.

And Liberal Derangement Syndrome? Yeah - it's very real.

^ Um boilerplate messages are a problem because... um... they're boilerplate. Both sides do it, and it's a terrible scourge on politics. How about, rather than having a set of boilerplate messages that have been memorized (as Palin VERY obviously did during the campaign) and just try to insert them in whenever you possibly can in an interview no matter how off topic they may be... how about... um... THINKING and actually giving an insightful answer based on actually UNDERSTANDING the issues.

Oh, and don't go spouting shit like "High taxes are bad. Bigger government is bad." as if it's fact. IT AIN'T.

YOU and the conservative right think it is because it means more money for the rich, more money for those that already have it.

MANY others, including many, many in other countries where higher taxes and larger governments seem to be working a shit tonne better than your screwed up country, think that it might actually be a good idea. Have a large public sector employing people doing things that are in the public benefit (so you get double win of more jobs existing, and more public works being done), have services that help and support all.

I state "I think that a government that provides basic services like education, health care and financial support for ALL that need it is a Good thing." I don't state that as fact, I state that as what I think, and your statement is what YOU think, it's not some friggen fact. THAT'S the right wing dipshit mindset of being so set in your ways that you think you're unassailably right, and won't even consider why you think you're right or why the opposing viewpoint might be.

Palin is no good for any political position because she is driven HARD by fundamentalist religion, lack of clear thought and an insight into issues that barely skims across them. She do so much harm to your country if you let her, she really would.

Kudos for Jon Stewart for going after MSNBC's mean shenanigans. Still, Sarah Palin is awesome and expect her to beat Obama in 2012!

The Audacity of Droop, lol!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
...routinely attempt to propagandize an opponent as unintelligent though.


She's dumb as a post - get over it. Everyone knows it, including most Republicans. Can you blame America for not wanting another fucking retard in the White House? Even so, that so many people voted for McCain/Palin (and W), apparently the best the Republicans could muster, is a pretty sad indictment on how fucked up a huge chunk of your country is.

Oh, and don't go spouting %%%t like "High taxes are bad. Bigger government is bad." as if it's fact. IT AIN'T.

I could argue very persuasively that it is, but this is the internet and there is not the time.

Palin is no good for any political position because she is driven HARD by fundamentalist religion, lack of clear thought and an insight into issues that barely skims across them. She do so much harm to your country if you let her, she really would.

I would describe this as "Liberal Derangement Syndrome". I'm no Palin fan, but these kinds of hyperbolic claims are clearly based on opinion and have no substantive factual grounding in reality.

She's dumb as a post - get over it. Everyone knows it

I cannot help but be impressed with your persuasive argument.

I think he's saying that the problem is there's nothing behind the boilerplate messages giving them any force. Lower taxes are good? Didn't Bush tax higher than any previous government? Didn't he destroy the fiscal status of the US Government?

Pennypacker....you're wrong. It's that simple, she's nothing, she's just a talking point machine. I'm not a Liberal, but I am an educated person who can tell when he's being bullshitted. That's what you're doing right now, that's what Palin does all the time.

Serious people can tell there is nothing to her like there is most of the people in politics.

Winnie P gots a crush on Sarah!! He just wants some of her Alaskan salmon(ella).

I'm pretty conservative on issues that I think actually belong in the political arena -- taxes, government size and spending, etc. Lower taxes isn't always better, but holding the government to an extremely high standard of making sure that our tax dollars are used responsibly is. That feeds into government size -- I think it is easier to monitor a government that doesn't spread its tentacles into shit that it doesn't need to be involved in.

And *that* feeds into why I, as a conservative, am highly annoyed with the GOP these days. All kinds of right-wing nut stances are being pushed as "Republican" ideals. Marriage, gay or straight, has jack all to do with the government. Hands off. Abortion is an old issue, but I think that it is best left to individual people. Those that are against abortion can promote alternatives and provide assistance to Mothers-to-be in bad situations, but I don't think this is an issue for the *government* to muck around with. Hands off.

To me, Palin was a poorly planned gimmick response to Hillary being a force in the primaries before the election. I think that the GOP bigwigs in their smoke-filled rooms came to the insulting conclusion that women were going to universally back Hillary as "one of their own", and decided to counter that by putting Palin on the ticket without knowing *anything* about her. She then eclipsed McCain, "went rogue", and is now attempting to convince people that the way forward for the Republican party is by kissing the ass of the far-right fundies.

I'd like to see a strong Republican party to keep the Democrats in line, and a strong Democrat party to keep the Republicans in line. From my perspective, if Palin represents the best and brightest future of the GOP, the party has imploded. It will retain the support of the fundies and lose everyone else, just as it has lost me. Good luck with that.

^ Nailed it right there. If the GOP was more libertarian like they claim, then they would be a worthy opposition party.

These days all they do is feed fear and empty promises to their flocks of sheeple.

Oh, Winstonfield. Your obviously-biased rhetoric becomes a tiresome trudge. Palin doesn't have people thinking she's an idiot just grabbed out of nowhere. She created that visage herself by saying things like that she has foreign policy experience because she can see Russia from her house. The truth is, no matter how well she memorizes boilerplate talking-points, no one will trust her after her faux 'debate' with Biden where she just chose to ignore the questions and spout more bolierplate. And the bullshit about 'real America'. Shes just a mire of partisan idiocy. I feel sorry for people who trust this woman when she's shown from the get go that she's just a sham. I must say, having her as some sort of figurehead in your country makes others in the world exceptionally pitiful of you. That someone who has no ability to defend their beliefs, no ability to govern in ways that are not corrupt, no common sense of when to speak and when to not could become such a venerated figure in some circles is so sad.

Maybe she'll go to school and take a trip somewhere outside of the States for the first time in her life. Maybe she actually has some sort of hidden potential that she just needs time to make shine. It's possible. It seems very unlikely, but it's possible. Maybe she'll help inspire those wallowing in ignorance who look up to her. Help them out of their ignorance by being an example of a changed person. I would welcome that. But from what she has shown and is continuing to show, she chooses to be someone who wears their ignorance like a badge of honour. Like it's a good thing that sticking to one's guns that a mastery of foreign policy could come from a vision of, and not a walk to, the other shore. Until she has made it clear that she has chosen knowledge instead of her particular brand of uninformed but active vexation, she will continue to keep her self-made visage of ignorance. And rightfully so.

>> ^volumptuous:
Winnie P gots a crush on Sarah!! He just wants some of her Alaskan salmon(ella).


Yeah, at least she's got that going for her. Poor socialists have to mate with their like minded trolls (females). You'd think they'd at least try shaving...oh, might as well get the armpits and legs while you're at it.



>> ^MilkmanDan:
I'm pretty conservative on issues that I think actually belong in the political arena --
I'd like to see a strong Republican party to keep the Democrats in line, and a strong Democrat party to keep the Republicans in line. From my perspective, if Palin represents the best and brightest future of the GOP, the party has imploded. It will retain the support of the fundies and lose everyone else, just as it has lost me. Good luck with that.


I'd like to see a Congress who has their constituents and a sense of responsibility in mind and not their pockets, re-election and page boys.

Upvote for the Lieberman impression. Spot on.

Dear GOP,

Please, please, please, please keep eating yourselves like you did in upstate NY. The further Right you swing, the less electable and more batshit crazy you become. You're well on your way to being the Know-Nothings of the 21'st century. Let Sarah Palin and the rest of her crazy cronies take your party all the way to political oblivion!

Serious people can tell there is nothing to her like there is most of the people in politics.

To say she's nothing but talking points requires putting bias-blinders on regarding her record. As far as I can see, Palin has not been just talk in regards to cutting budgets. Not saying she's the person to vote for, but to say that "there's nothing there" is both inaccurate and disingenous. She has a record of doing the stuff she's recommending. Could she do that for the entire Republican PARTY? Pht - not bloodly likely. The GOP is so full of RINOs right now that no real fiscal conservative could do anything with it.

Lower taxes isn't always better, but holding the government to an extremely high standard of making sure that our tax dollars are used responsibly is.

That's a fair way to put it. There are SOME taxes that are useful, but the pendulum has definitely swung in the wrong direction and we're long overdue for a massive correction in our "government bubble" (as I call it).

To me, Palin was a poorly planned gimmick response to Hillary being a force in the primaries before the election.

Hmm - I'd say Palin was a desperate attempt by McCain to appeal to his base. When Obama ousted Hillary, McCain ended up looking like a doddering old liberal RINO coot who couldn't sell himself out of a paper bag. He needed a big jolt to his base. Enter Palin, who was both socially and fiscally more conservative than McCain. Too little too late though because (as you note) the Republican party no longer has any real interest or loyalty to fiscally conservative principles.

She created that visage herself by saying things like that she has foreign policy experience because she can see Russia from her house.

Uh - no - you are repeating a long debunked lie perpetuated by neolibs. Her actual quote is "You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." What you are quoting - to your everlasting shame - is a SNL skit. You know - a parody. At no point did Palin ever say she could see Russia from her house or backyard. And yet neolibs with Liberal Derangement Syndrome actually beleive that's what she said and meant. But that's what ideologues do. They take quotes out of context, they massage them into grotesque parodies, and then pretend they're truth. Every person in the public eye does & says stuff that is ripe for parodies & poking fun. Obama has made some HUMDINGERS. But only a brain-washed, biased, fool takes the parodies and pretends they're reality.

Now - the more I see Palin the less I think of her as a candidate. I just think she's not fully baked yet. She gets that tight sort of clench in her voice and just seems nervous. She's not easy & comfortable - probably because she hasn't had enough experience. She needs more time, and the book tour may help her get over it. She's got the right goals. She needs to get her sea legs before she's a serious contender though.

In case anyone missed this, here is a link to the unofficial index to "Going Rogue."

"Liberal Derangement Syndrome" is not real. Derangement is real. Imagining it as an affliction specific to one way of thinking is deranged, for example.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TDS, the daily show, John Stewart, Sarah Palin' to 'TDS, the daily show, John Stewart, Sarah Palin, Rogue Warrior' - edited by littledragon_79

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I love it when he does Lieberman.

Not saying she's the person to vote for, but to say that "there's nothing there" is both inaccurate and disingenous.

No it's not.
"Nothing there" doesnt mean she's not doing what the talking points says, or even that she doesnt agree with them, it just means that she doesn't THINK when she gets a question. Its so bleeding obvious you'd have to be blind to miss it. She simply repeats some conservative mantras that frequently has nothing to do with the question she was asked.. If you look at any other politicians, even George W. Bush, you can atleast trust that he answers the questions he gets asked, even if those answers are lies or just plain fucking stupid) ie: "Bring 'em on" ) atleast he could usually cough up an actual answer. Palin does none of that, she replies with talking points that often shows she doesnt even understand the question. look at this answer:

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it’s got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

Now what the fuck does this even mean? Random rambling about tax-cuts and "job creation". Obviously, her answer should have been something like "Because if these big institutions fail, it will be worse for everyone, and heres why:---" But because she doesnt really even consider the question, she just makes up an answer with some conservative ear-candy in there and , as was said, there really is nothing there.

Is nobody going to point out the obvious dumbassedness? BackAsswards?
Last I checked it was BassAckwards...

"Nothing there" doesnt mean she's not doing what the talking points says, or even that she doesnt agree with them, it just means that she doesn't THINK when she gets a question.

Hm - what you're describing as 'nothing there' I describe as uneasiness and inexperience. There are some people that are better at on-camera interviews than others. Everyone has a ramping up period. Clearly Palin gets a tightness in her voice, and does fall back fairly often of what can only be described as patter. To me, this is a person who isn't ready for the big time. But to say 'nothing there'? Nah. That's hyperbole. Palin may NEVER 'get there'. She just might be one of those persons who sucks at on the spot interviews. I don't hold that against her necessarily. We live in a unique day and age. I don't cotton to the idea that a politician has to be good on camera to be an effective leader. In fact, I put that characteristic pretty far down on the list. To me, Palin has the right idea about government (LESS) and that's what matters most. We need a politician who will butcher the government like a hog. It is long overdue.

*length=7:16

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 7:16 - length declared by bareboards2.