Many conservatives have a conflicted attitude toward Jon Stewart. He can be clever, and he sometimes trains his sights on Democratic foibles, but for the most part the ridicule on his show is aimed at conservatives in public life. But Stewart’s transformation over the years into a hectoring, standard-issue liberal means his monologues and interviews often demonstrate clearly and pithily what conservatives don’t like about the big-government left.
And he did so last night, in his extended interview with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Stewart, ever in search of Republican hypocrisy, tried to tag Christie with the label because Christie accepted federal disaster relief funds after Hurricane Sandy but balked at setting up a state Obamacare exchange. This is how the conversation went:
Stewart: So New Jersey is in trouble, and it needs the federal government to step in. And you go to them and you say I need this amount of money. And there’s some horse-trading. But for the most part, they’re going to deliver at least $30 billion to the state of New Jersey, wouldn’t you say? Or maybe even a little more?
Christie: I’m hopeful.
Stewart: At the same time, they want to set up exchanges for health insurance in New Jersey, and you don’t want to do that.
Christie: Well, I don’t want to do it right now.
Stewart: When they’re doing it.
Christie: Well, no. Here’s the issue, Jon, and why I vetoed it. I’m asking them a bunch of questions about how much this is going to cost and everything else, and they won’t answer my questions.
They argued for a bit about whether the Obama administration was being forthcoming enough, and how much money it would ultimately cost New Jersey to set up the exchange. Here is Stewart’s response:
Stewart: So my point to you is, but when you need it for hurricane relief, they don’t come to you and say: But wait a minute, how exactly is this going to go? What is the money going to go for? How are you going to spend it?
Christie: Sure they do.
Forget for a moment that Stewart was wrong, as Christie pointed out, and just peer into the mind of a contemporary liberal. Sure, the government will be happy to help the stranded, the people who just lost everything in a natural disaster, the people with nowhere to go. But first, says the liberal, don’t you think you should do something for the president?
Everything comes with strings attached, even in the case of a natural disaster. Christie pointed out that not setting up a state health-care exchange doesn’t prevent people from getting insurance through the federal exchange the government would set up instead. And he reminded Stewart that when other hurricanes and natural disasters hit around the country, the federal help to those states was paid for in part through New Jersey taxpayer dollars, so this is hardly a case of the victims being greedy.
Later on in the interview, the two came back to this subject. Stewart said he thinks Republicans don’t want the government to do anything unless they themselves need it, in which case their needs rise above those of others. Here’s the example Stewart puts forth to make his stand:
Stewart: For instance, two wars that were not paid for with tax cuts and all those things, yet God forbid a woman wants birth control paid for on her health-care plan, that’s government waste. Not everybody believes that their tax dollars are being paid correctly, but we live in a society.
Christie: But now what prevents us though, and what’s destructive about having a debate about that?
Christie’s answer was appropriate: Welcome, Jon Stewart, to a democracy. But notice Stewart’s logic: If fighting a war to defend the United States is the government’s responsibility, then so is taxpayer-funded birth control. If government’s job is to do anything, then its job is to do everything. And when the government helps its citizens, it expects that favor to be returned.
Liberals have no understanding of the significance of divided sovereinty in our constitutional system.
Maybe Christie or someone needs to call the Obamatrons and the Stewarts at their bluff and enact precisely what they've been demanding and costs be damned. Christie's statement was very simple 'We don't know what it will cost…." and Stewart's response was "That doesn't matter". n nFair enough, it doesn't matter. Let's do what they want and watch it unfold unplanned unbudgeted uncontrolled until it eats everything. I am dead serious.
Stewart is just another political hack deep in the tank of koolaid.
Stewart's logic does indeed seem to be that you have to support everything the federal government does or suport nothing. There's no in between, no debate on limits and restraints. If you support a war you then must support free contraception for every woman (by the way, Jon, Medicaid provides free contraception to poor woman; the question is do we have to provide it for EVERY woman regardless of financial need?)
"…you then must support free contraception for every woman …." n nI certainly hope the GOPers keep harping on contraception. It does more good for the Dems than a multi-million dollar super pac/
Please pay attention: Stewart raised the contraception issue. And it was Democrats who raised it during the campaign. n nRepublicans never talked about it until Democrats raised the issue. n nAs to the specifics: I don't think the American people support giving free birth control to those who can purchase it for themselves. n n
As much flak as Christie has taken over his conservative bonafides, it was encouraging to see that he has both the conviction and the competence to push back against the progressive meme being pushed by Stewart. Much as I like Rubio at the moment, I might have to give a heavyweight (pun intended) with executive experience another look. n nAnd kudos to Mandel for identifying the progressive conundrum that they are essentially in opposition to democracy and liberty…right down to the trivial instincts of Bloomberg in dictating the consumption of popcorn and soda pop and Sandra Fluck demanding that society pay for her recreation. But please, Seth, don't muddy the waters by classifying Stewart as a "liberal" even if you soften the blow with "standard-issue."
"If fighting a war to defend the United States is the government’s responsibility, then so is taxpayer-funded birth control. If government’s job is to do anything, then its job is to do everything." n nStewart may believe this, but I don't think that's what he was saying here. n npartly I think he was comparing the relative high cost of war (in money and lives) with the relative low cost of contraceptives. and partly he was just reiterating the liberal narrative about war vs. love. the '60s slogan "Make Love, Not War" is their creed. n nin their minds, they are lovers, and Republicans are haters and warmongers. they compare that to their own loving dispositions (as evidenced by their open attitudes about sex and contraception and so on).
Having re-read the exchange I think you're right. But it's still confusing because Stewart mentions wasteful spending and private healthcare plans that must include contraceptive coverage. n nWhat does one have to do with the other? The question on contraception (which is provided for poor women through Medicaid programs – both federal and state) is the government forcing employers, especially religious institutions, to include contraception in their healthcare coverage even if they have objections. Wasteful spending has nothing to do with. The contraception will be provided by private employers and not the government.
” The contraception will be provided by private employers and not the government. ”
And who is going to pay for all those govt., worker’s recreation if not the govt?
Discussing free contraception while not confronting our fiscal crisis is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I know many Republicans are down on Christie right now, but I think this exchange highlights the useful role he can play in clarifying their political philosophy, as well as in revealing just where many on the left, like Stewart, are wrong.
The left has a lot of unanswered questions. They care less about cost and have no intention to answer because they do not know the answers. If you do not know the cost, do not start the spending.