Marco Rubio interview w/ Jon Stewart

[zoogs]

A very high quality interview from Stewart, as usual.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews/415858/playlist_tds_extended_marco_rubio/415834

 

In Part 1 of this extended interview from 25 June, Rubio makes what I think is a very fine point regarding the partisan silliness of the Republican party in refusing to pass anything. Actually, it seems to me like a pretty great one, and what it boils down to is that the Democrat majority maybe shouldn't be playing the victim card.

 

He talks about how the Democrats, knowing they own a majority, will not allow votes in areas where the minority party may want to raise it, and push through bills with only the amendments they want considered. Essentially, a screw-you powerplay of their own, with the absurd screw-you-back being a response, and the only tool with which the minority has to fight back.

 

Stewart takes a bit of an issue with this as it jars with his perception of reality, so I'm curious what the rest of you think. Not being much well versed in politics lately myself.

 

Overall I thought this was a fantastic back-and-forth. Jon Stewart is amazing for what he does with his interviews on the otherwise mostly silly Daily Show, and Rubio is a great speaker who is able to generate a very quality, technical, challenging discussion from the so-called other side of the fence. (sidenote: Rubio apparently returned July 3, so there's another interview up there).

[knapplc]

It's clear that neither side is entirely wrong nor entirely right.

 

What is also clear is both sides are focusing more on what separates them than what binds them. With that focus, there is no way the country can move forward.

 

It is also abundantly clear that no matter which party you adhere to, you're choosing to support a party that does not have YOUR best interests at heart - they have THEIR best interests at heart. Which is why you should support neither party.

[zoogs]

Well, ye!. I'm in full support of that and am with you on the neither party deal. I only used "the other side" as a convenient way of saying, he really, really challenged Stewart's views here and the views typically represented on the Daily Show.

 

But this interview wasn't a clash of partisan left / right. I thought it was a great, issues-focused discussion on the nature of problems and in Part 2 which I'm watching now, I have to say Rubio is schooling Stewart a bit here. Rubio is arguing that economic growth is the single dominant and really, only real solution to pulling ourselves out of debt - making the implication, I think, that these other little things that wouldn't put a dent in the problem is just too much medicine applied in the wrong areas at best. While Stewart - and this is where I have to disagree with him - considers the latter to be "balanced", and the former to be "excalibur sword baloney."

 

I guess this is a 3-part interview. Really good stuff, IMO. This is really exactly the level of national discourse we need, especially in the context of an election year, but also in general.

[strigori]

No one is really arguing that economic growth is they key to getting things on the right track. What is at issue is How to make that happen.

 

The GOP favors the old 'trickle down' system. Just give all the money to the rich and companies, and get rid of all regulation and let companies do whatever they want to make the most money and it will all work out in the end.

 

The democrats aim more at getting more spending power into the hands of the middle and lower ends of the citizens and their spending in turn spurs local economies when the masses buy good and services.

[zoogs]

I feel like that oversimplifies and perhaps exaggerates one or more ends. For example in this interview, Rubio says on at least one occasion that he is in favor of regulation. The things he stresses are simplified tax codes and regulations that are easy to work with and are long-term stable. He places importance on this over any arbitrary specific "amount" of taxes.

 

He gets my respect for this bit at the end of #3:

 

I understand that some people don't agree with me about tax reform. Let's have a debate about it. I understand that some people don't agree with me on regulatory reform. Let's put a bill on the floor and have a debate about it. None of that has happened....and we do have those discussions, just not on the floor of the Senate because the bills aren't getting moved!

 

...I like having these debates, I think they're important for our country. The biggest thing that bothers me is not the people who disagree or agree with me about the issue, it's that there's no urgency about these issues.

 

I don't necessarily care about having more politicians in power who agree with me or not, but I do think there need to be more politicians who take this attitude into Washington.

[knapplc]

This is really exactly the level of national discourse we need, especially in the context of an election year, but also in general.

 

Exactly.

 

 

So... you're saying I have to actually watch this one online? I never watch the "throw it up on the web" half of these interviews. But this one is worth it?

[zoogs]

Yes, I thought so (ymmv). I usually never watch these either. But fair warning! Turned out Parts 2 and 3 were quite long...I think the interview ended up exceeding the normal show's runtime.

[strigori]

I feel like that oversimplifies and perhaps exaggerates one or more ends. For example in this interview, Rubio says on at least one occasion that he is in favor of regulation. The things he stresses are simplified tax codes and regulations that are easy to work with and are long-term stable. He places importance on this over any arbitrary specific "amount" of taxes.

 

He gets my respect for this bit at the end of #3:

 

I understand that some people don't agree with me about tax reform. Let's have a debate about it. I understand that some people don't agree with me on regulatory reform. Let's put a bill on the floor and have a debate about it. None of that has happened....and we do have those discussions, just not on the floor of the Senate because the bills aren't getting moved!

 

...I like having these debates, I think they're important for our country. The biggest thing that bothers me is not the people who disagree or agree with me about the issue, it's that there's no urgency about these issues.

 

I don't necessarily care about having more politicians in power who agree with me or not, but I do think there need to be more politicians who take this attitude into Washington.

I agree with you. This attitude currently that compromise is the same as failure has got to go. Politics at its core IS compromise. All we have right now is ' My way or the highway'

[ZRod]

Definitely worth watching the whole interview. Jon did a great jobs as usual and I gained a new found respect for Rubio, if he ran for the White House I would strongly consider voting for him. Stewart isn't so much arguing the liberal view point as he is trying to get a Republican (in Rubio) to admit that there isn't always one right answer, which he could really do for Dems as well. They may not have agreed on much but I really wish we could have more public discourse like this so we could at least come to understand each other better.

 

*edited for crappy phone spelling*

[Husker_x]

Whatever happens in November I hope it ushers in an era of calm and compromise. There are often many solutions to the same problem. There are issues where common ground can be found: decriminalizing marijuana (and a speedy removal from its absurd status as a 'schedule one' drug), lawsuit reform as it pertains to to medical care, investments in infrastructure, investments in science and technology, education, immigration, responsibly concluding our forever wars in the middle east, to name a few. Many of these aren't even multi-sided issues. They're common sense issues. If you can't find away to address a single item on this list in the next few years, then it's time to clean house, because it will have become apparent to everyone that all we've managed to do as a society is stockpile the largest group of imbecilic good-for-nothings in the history of politics.

 

The Tea Party is in disgraced tatters and the Occupiers packed up their tents and went home. Now can we resume the part where we actually accomplish useful things as a country? Somehow I don't find it to be an unreasonable request.

[Husker_x]

Okay, just watched the whole interview. Holy moly. Whether you're a dem or a repub, a Stewart fan or not, if we filled all of our congressional seats with people as willing to engage in detailed debate as these two just did, we'd be in good shape. The pitched war in congress needs to end. Cooler heads need to prevail.

[Yossarian]

Whatever happens in November I hope it ushers in an era of calm and compromise.

 

That's what was supposed to have happened with the election of Barack Obama. The oceans were supposed to stop rising, and hope and change were going to be ushered in. The latest Rasmussen poll says that a mere 30 percent of those polled believe that the U.S. Is headed in the right direction. http://www.rasmussen...or_wrong_track/ Wha' happened?? So, do you think that the New Black Panthers will stop their hate and threats if Barack Obama is given a second term? If Mitt Romnet wins, think MSNBC will tone down the rhetoric?

 

The Tea Party is in disgraced tatters and the Occupiers packed up their tents and went home. Now can we resume the part where we actually accomplish useful things as a country? Somehow I don't find it to be an unreasonable request.

 

How is the Tea Party in disgraced tatters? They were demonstrating for smaller government and lower taxes. How is that disgraceful? I think reducing the size of government and lowering taxes would help us accomplish useful things. There are some of us who believe that current Government policies are simply prolonging the recession. But you are right about one thing - when the Occupiers went home to their parents' basements, the sexual assaults were reduced in NY and Oakland. Which raises the question, what did the Occupiers want? Besides free stuff and the occasional grope?

[Husker_x]

Whatever happens in November I hope it ushers in an era of calm and compromise.

 

That's what was supposed to have happened with the election of Barack Obama. The oceans were supposed to stop rising, and hope and change were going to be ushered in. The latest Rasmussen poll says that a mere 30 percent of those polled believe that the U.S. Is headed in the right direction. http://www.rasmussen...or_wrong_track/ Wha' happened?? So, do you think that the New Black Panthers will stop their hate and threats if Barack Obama is given a second term? If Mitt Romnet wins, think MSNBC will tone down the rhetoric?

 

The Tea Party is in disgraced tatters and the Occupiers packed up their tents and went home. Now can we resume the part where we actually accomplish useful things as a country? Somehow I don't find it to be an unreasonable request.

 

How is the Tea Party in disgraced tatters? They were demonstrating for smaller government and lower taxes. How is that disgraceful? I think reducing the size of government and lowering taxes would help us accomplish useful things. There are some of us who believe that current Government policies are simply prolonging the recession. But you are right about one thing - when the Occupiers went home to their parents' basements, the sexual assaults were reduced in NY and Oakland. Which raises the question, what did the Occupiers want? Besides free stuff and the occasional grope?

 

My comments were referring specifically to congress which is currently in siege mode. A likely outcome could be the expiration of the Bush tax cuts matched with spending cuts--compromise. MSNBC and their twins at Fox News will not tone down the rhetoric. They're in business to exploit political passion by (intentionally or otherwise) over-simplifying incredibly nuanced issues. Note not every anchor on their respective networks is complicit in this--or wrong on every subject. Generally speaking my larger point is I think our political discourse would be improved if people would treat these networks in particular with greater skepticism.

 

The Black Panther Party is an irrelevant fringe group, almost as irrelevant as polling data asking Americans the hopelessly generic question, "Are we on the right track?" The question assumes the average American's ability to answer the question while offering no criteria on how to measure it. If by 'wrong track' you mean we still have 8.2% unemployment as of today's most recent jobs report, then yeah, we're on the wrong track. If you mean as a civilization where poverty has declined more in the last fifty years than in the last five hundred, that violence has drastically declined, that we've doubled our life expectancy in about a century, and that we're constantly smashing through frontiers in every field of scientific research, then no, we're not on the wrong track.

 

This disgraceful aspect of the Tea Party was that it elevated (again, largely with the aid of Fox News who got in the business of catering to them) political refuse like Sarah Palin--who is still, to this day, sought after for her political opinions, which has to be a product of some kind of derangement--Michelle Bachmann, Alan West, etc. The Occupy movement was less effective politically but nearly as silly as the activist geniuses dressed in the height of 18th century fashion and holding inane picket signs. But as I said, both movements have largely collapsed. Maybe now that the tri-corner hats and V-for-Vendetta masks are tucked safely under the bed we can get back to the part where we actually discuss issues calmly and intelligently.

[Yossarian]

Whatever happens in November I hope it ushers in an era of calm and compromise.

 

That's what was supposed to have happened with the election of Barack Obama. The oceans were supposed to stop rising, and hope and change were going to be ushered in. The latest Rasmussen poll says that a mere 30 percent of those polled believe that the U.S. Is headed in the right direction. http://www.rasmussen...or_wrong_track/ Wha' happened?? So, do you think that the New Black Panthers will stop their hate and threats if Barack Obama is given a second term? If Mitt Romnet wins, think MSNBC will tone down the rhetoric?

 

The Tea Party is in disgraced tatters and the Occupiers packed up their tents and went home. Now can we resume the part where we actually accomplish useful things as a country? Somehow I don't find it to be an unreasonable request.

 

How is the Tea Party in disgraced tatters? They were demonstrating for smaller government and lower taxes. How is that disgraceful? I think reducing the size of government and lowering taxes would help us accomplish useful things. There are some of us who believe that current Government policies are simply prolonging the recession. But you are right about one thing - when the Occupiers went home to their parents' basements, the sexual assaults were reduced in NY and Oakland. Which raises the question, what did the Occupiers want? Besides free stuff and the occasional grope?

 

My comments were referring specifically to congress which is currently in siege mode. A likely outcome could be the expiration of the Bush tax cuts matched with spending cuts--compromise. MSNBC and their twins at Fox News will not tone down the rhetoric. They're in business to exploit political passion by (intentionally or otherwise) over-simplifying incredibly nuanced issues. Note not every anchor on their respective networks is complicit in this--or wrong on every subject. Generally speaking my larger point is I think our political discourse would be improved if people would treat these networks in particular with greater skepticism.

 

The Black Panther Party is an irrelevant fringe group, almost as irrelevant as polling data asking Americans the hopelessly generic question, "Are we on the right track?" The question assumes the average American's ability to answer the question while offering no criteria on how to measure it. If by 'wrong track' you mean we still have 8.2% unemployment as of today's most recent jobs report, then yeah, we're on the wrong track. If you mean as a civilization where poverty has declined more in the last fifty years than in the last five hundred, that violence has drastically declined, that we've doubled our life expectancy in about a century, and that we're constantly smashing through frontiers in every field of scientific research, then no, we're not on the wrong track.

 

This disgraceful aspect of the Tea Party was that it elevated (again, largely with the aid of Fox News who got in the business of catering to them) political refuse like Sarah Palin--who is still, to this day, sought after for her political opinions, which has to be a product of some kind of derangement--Michelle Bachmann, Alan West, etc. The Occupy movement was less effective politically but nearly as silly as the activist geniuses dressed in the height of 18th century fashion and holding inane picket signs. But as I said, both movements have largely collapsed. Maybe now that the tri-corner hats and V-for-Vendetta masks are tucked safely under the bed we can get back to the part where we actually discuss issues calmly and intelligently.

 

I will cover your Palin, Bachmann, and West, and raise you an Al Sharpton, Van Jones, Lawrence O'Donnell, Jeremiah Wright, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren.

 

If you want to discuss issues calmly and intelligently, I suggest you read"The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes.

It addresses The Great Depression and was published in 2001 just before the meltdown in 2008 and resultant so-called Great Recession. Basically, her book outlines the reasons that the Depression in the 1930s lasted for some 12 years - with particular research into the double-dip depression of 1937, which was much worse than the crash. Ms. Shlaes examines the premise that the Depression lasted as long as it did because of the meddling of the Government under the banner of The New Deal, and everything that the Government did wrong in the 1930s is what Barack Obama and the Keynesians are either doing or are recommend doing. One of the most important factors was deflation - the disappearance of money and the resultant crash of the housing market. People couldn't make their house payments and at one point, over 20 percent of house were repossesed by banks. That's why everyone went into shanty towns or took to the road headed west. Investors and business socked their money away because of the uncertainty of tax policies among other reasons. Barter systems thrived and some cities actually issued their own money to be used within the city itself. Also one of the first things FDR tried to do was raise the taxes of the "rich" and even tried to tax "uninvested" after-tax profits. Sound familiar? He also threatened the court and tried to increase the number of SCOTUS justices when the court overturned many of his New Deal programs.

 

Again, take a look at the book. If nothing else, it will give you a sense of understanding how a recession/depression can occur out of fear for the future.

[Husker_x]

Whatever happens in November I hope it ushers in an era of calm and compromise.

 

That's what was supposed to have happened with the election of Barack Obama. The oceans were supposed to stop rising, and hope and change were going to be ushered in. The latest Rasmussen poll says that a mere 30 percent of those polled believe that the U.S. Is headed in the right direction. http://www.rasmussen...or_wrong_track/ Wha' happened?? So, do you think that the New Black Panthers will stop their hate and threats if Barack Obama is given a second term? If Mitt Romnet wins, think MSNBC will tone down the rhetoric?

 

The Tea Party is in disgraced tatters and the Occupiers packed up their tents and went home. Now can we resume the part where we actually accomplish useful things as a country? Somehow I don't find it to be an unreasonable request.

 

How is the Tea Party in disgraced tatters? They were demonstrating for smaller government and lower taxes. How is that disgraceful? I think reducing the size of government and lowering taxes would help us accomplish useful things. There are some of us who believe that current Government policies are simply prolonging the recession. But you are right about one thing - when the Occupiers went home to their parents' basements, the sexual assaults were reduced in NY and Oakland. Which raises the question, what did the Occupiers want? Besides free stuff and the occasional grope?

 

My comments were referring specifically to congress which is currently in siege mode. A likely outcome could be the expiration of the Bush tax cuts matched with spending cuts--compromise. MSNBC and their twins at Fox News will not tone down the rhetoric. They're in business to exploit political passion by (intentionally or otherwise) over-simplifying incredibly nuanced issues. Note not every anchor on their respective networks is complicit in this--or wrong on every subject. Generally speaking my larger point is I think our political discourse would be improved if people would treat these networks in particular with greater skepticism.

 

The Black Panther Party is an irrelevant fringe group, almost as irrelevant as polling data asking Americans the hopelessly generic question, "Are we on the right track?" The question assumes the average American's ability to answer the question while offering no criteria on how to measure it. If by 'wrong track' you mean we still have 8.2% unemployment as of today's most recent jobs report, then yeah, we're on the wrong track. If you mean as a civilization where poverty has declined more in the last fifty years than in the last five hundred, that violence has drastically declined, that we've doubled our life expectancy in about a century, and that we're constantly smashing through frontiers in every field of scientific research, then no, we're not on the wrong track.

 

This disgraceful aspect of the Tea Party was that it elevated (again, largely with the aid of Fox News who got in the business of catering to them) political refuse like Sarah Palin--who is still, to this day, sought after for her political opinions, which has to be a product of some kind of derangement--Michelle Bachmann, Alan West, etc. The Occupy movement was less effective politically but nearly as silly as the activist geniuses dressed in the height of 18th century fashion and holding inane picket signs. But as I said, both movements have largely collapsed. Maybe now that the tri-corner hats and V-for-Vendetta masks are tucked safely under the bed we can get back to the part where we actually discuss issues calmly and intelligently.

 

I will cover your Palin, Bachmann, and West, and raise you an Al Sharpton, Van Jones, Lawrence O'Donnell, Jeremiah Wright, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren.

 

If you want to discuss issues calmly and intelligently, I suggest you read"The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes.

It addresses The Great Depression and was published in 2001 just before the meltdown in 2008 and resultant so-called Great Recession. Basically, her book outlines the reasons that the Depression in the 1930s lasted for some 12 years - with particular research into the double-dip depression of 1937, which was much worse than the crash. Ms. Shlaes examines the premise that the Depression lasted as long as it did because of the meddling of the Government under the banner of The New Deal, and everything that the Government did wrong in the 1930s is what Barack Obama and the Keynesians are either doing or are recommend doing. One of the most important factors was deflation - the disappearance of money and the resultant crash of the housing market. People couldn't make their house payments and at one point, over 20 percent of house were repossesed by banks. That's why everyone went into shanty towns or took to the road headed west. Investors and business socked their money away because of the uncertainty of tax policies among other reasons. Barter systems thrived and some cities actually issued their own money to be used within the city itself. Also one of the first things FDR tried to do was raise the taxes of the "rich" and even tried to tax "uninvested" after-tax profits. Sound familiar? He also threatened the court and tried to increase the number of SCOTUS justices when the court overturned many of his New Deal programs.

 

Again, take a look at the book. If nothing else, it will give you a sense of understanding how a recession/depression can occur out of fear for the future.

 

I'll check it out. Thanks for the recommendation.