You know, it's weird. All during the Bush years, I patiently explained to my liberal friends, both here and in France, why the president was doing this or that. Not that it did any good, because they knew - they knew - both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were really into devouring children and not to be trusted. Actually, not being deep readers, they didn't know anything - they (also being NewAge pawns) merely felt it - and they weren't going to let a little thing like "facts" get in the way of their imaginations on the run.
Except for the frustration of dealing with imbeciles, I didn't mind talking to such people about what Bush was doing because A) they were my (soon to be ex) friends, B) I understood it, and C) I was proud of, and genuinely liked the president, so, except for reinforcing a reputation for being "someone who likes to argue" (remember: I'm debating people who weren't going beyond media portrayals and weren't to be diverted from their feelings about those portrayals or me) I accept and claim everything Bush did, and my support for it, without reservation.
Now, compare that with the Obots - including Jon Stewart. Here he is, telling us the guy he helped propel to office is lying to us - and breaking a major campaign promise - but there's not a single word of explanation or personal responsibility, from Stewart or anyone else, for bringing us to this. I mean, does it get any worse than saying your choice for president is like a character from "1984"? And I don't have to tell anyone I "feel" this is what's happening - Jon Stewart is telling me himself!
But what Jon Stewart won't say is he was wrong to support the guy, he was wrong to convince others into supporting the guy, or that he may have also had that Bush thing (that supposedly brought the liar to power) all wrong to begin with - because he, Jon Stewart, comedian and media monkey, felt he had it right at the time.
No, instead Jon Stewart will just report Obama's a bald-faced liar, and then pretend I don't notice his hypocrisy. He thinks he's got it covered by calling the whole thing "Orwellian".
I call it The New York Times Approach.