Maddow interviews Jon Stewart

[Thurnez Isa]

you can be ideological without being partisan, but you can't be partisan without espousing the ideologies that make up the (seemingly) make up the party.

I disagree with this. In fact I think it's the opposite.
Partisanism tends to be more tribalistic, "us vs them" kind of mentality. I see it dealing with more with people and individuals within groups then anything else.
Ideology is much more difficult to grasp since it deals with something that is suppose to be bigger then reality. That your group is inspiring to something in the beyond. So it has both tribalism and conviction.
So in a way I actually agree with Stuart here. I think the different is MSNBC is suppose to be partisan, FOX is suppose to be ideological.

[Cramulus]

stewart defends his point about fox being ideological (as opposed to partisan) by pointing out that they would be quick to embrace Lieberman if they had the opportunity



and the right wing is split right now - it's hard to be coherently partisan while there's a battle for what that party even represents. A lot of people on the right are trying to push out Palin et al and fox does not support them.

[Disco Pickle]

you can be ideological without being partisan, but you can't be partisan without espousing the ideologies that make up the (seemingly) make up the party.

I disagree with this. In fact I think it's the opposite.
Partisanism tends to be more tribalistic, "us vs them" kind of mentality. I see it dealing with more with people and individuals within groups then anything else.
Ideology is much more difficult to grasp since it deals with something that is suppose to be bigger then reality. That your group is inspiring to something in the beyond. So it has both tribalism and conviction.
So in a way I actually agree with Stuart here. I think the different is MSNBC is suppose to be partisan, FOX is suppose to be ideological.

I'm having trouble determining where exactly you disagree, but here are my thoughts.
adherents to an ideology can be just as us vs them.  The difference as I see it, is that while partisans often share the same ideology, it's not a requirement of a positive test for partisanship.  Partisans who might disagree on certain ideologies of the party as a whole (national platform) will still "vote a straight ticket" in reflection of their partisan politics.  Ideologues would part from their party in defense of their beliefs.

Ideologies also do not have to be bigger than reality, even if they often are.  They can be achievable given their persuasiveness.

It's all tribal and there's conviction in both.  By definition, a party is more than one person, and you wont find many ideologies that only one person believes, even if that's where conceivably any ideology would have to start, in the mind of a single person.

[Thurnez Isa]

stewart defends his point about fox being ideological (as opposed to partisan) by pointing out that they would be quick to embrace Lieberman if they had the opportunity



and the right wing is split right now - it's hard to be coherently partisan while there's a battle for what that party even represents. A lot of people on the right are trying to push out Palin et al and fox does not support them.

People automatically assume that it's a talking piece for the republicans but really it's a question of who is driving who.

[AFK]

stewart defends his point about fox being ideological (as opposed to partisan) by pointing out that they would be quick to embrace Lieberman if they had the opportunity

Well, you could argue the same for MSNBC who would embrace someone like Olympia Snow or Lincoln Chaffee when they have an opportunity.  But I think it is fair to say that Fox News has many more direct connections with the GOP through their paid staff than MSNBC does with the Democratic Party.  So I guess that is where I derive the view of FNC being partisan.  

and the right wing is split right now - it's hard to be coherently partisan while there's a battle for what that party even represents. A lot of people on the right are trying to push out Palin et al and fox does not support them.

I dunno, I think it's more the GOP establishment trying to push her out simply because they know she is a guaranteed loser if she became the GOP nominee for 2012.  Otherwise, I think they are glad to have her as a lightning rod.  

[Thurnez Isa]

The difference as I see it, is that while partisans often share the same ideology, it's not a requirement of a positive test for partisanship.  Partisans who might disagree on certain ideologies of the party as a whole (national platform) will still "vote a straight ticket" in reflection of their partisan politics.  Ideologues would part from their party in defense of their beliefs.

You kind of contradicted your former statement

Ideologies also do not have to be bigger than reality, even if they often are.  They can be achievable given their persuasiveness.

Ideologies are by definition based on something seen as "Ideal".

[Thurnez Isa]

I dunno, I think it's more the GOP establishment trying to push her out simply because they know she is a guaranteed loser if she became the GOP nominee for 2012.  Otherwise, I think they are glad to have her as a lightning rod.  

It seems every election cycle there's someone to lower the bar even more though

It's going to funny to see where it ends

[LMNO]

Palin is becoming more of a Rasputin figure.  She can influence the gullible masses with twitter and facebook posts, which can shiv shove the argument in a certain direction, but it would be improbable for her to win an election.





Also, I fully believe she could be poisoned, stabbed, shot, and thrown in a river, and she'd survive.

[Disco Pickle]

Well, you could argue the same for MSNBC who would embrace someone like Olympia Snow or Lincoln Chaffee when they have an opportunity.  But I think it is fair to say that Fox News has many more direct connections with the GOP through their paid staff than MSNBC does with the Democratic Party.  So I guess that is where I derive the view of FNC being partisan.  

I dunno, I think it's more the GOP establishment trying to push her out simply because they know she is a guaranteed loser if she became the GOP nominee for 2012.  Otherwise, I think they are glad to have her as a lightning rod.  

I assume you mean paid contributors who are members of the Republican party.  How can you be sure that a majority of paid contributors for CNBC and MSNBC are not members of the Democratic party?  Fox certainly employs more previous primary candidates for commentary, but really the pickings on the Democratic side for commentary were slim IMO.  Howard Dean is on there often enough.

As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians.  They've always rejected her and that will not change.  Say all you want about how small a voice they represent, there are quite a few of them now occupying local seats and chair positions nationwide that in previous years would have gone to Bush Sr and Bill Kristol type republicans.  Whether they're able to hold it and do anything with it is still up in the air.  Breaking that ceiling at the state level has always been a bitch.

[Disco Pickle]

The difference as I see it, is that while partisans often share the same ideology, it's not a requirement of a positive test for partisanship.  Partisans who might disagree on certain ideologies of the party as a whole (national platform) will still "vote a straight ticket" in reflection of their partisan politics.  Ideologues would part from their party in defense of their beliefs.

You kind of contradicted your former statement

Ideologies also do not have to be bigger than reality, even if they often are.  They can be achievable given their persuasiveness.

Ideologies are by definition based on something seen as "Ideal".

Hmm, didn't intend for that to seem contradictory.  I'll see if I can rework it on a break.

I think you may be confusing the word ideology with some other concept.  the root of ideology is "idea" and has to pass several test to be considered true, and nothing to do with being ideal to anyone person or group.

[Thurnez Isa]

Either way your main problem is, well lets take MSNBC for instance is basically owned by Microsoft and General Electric and I dont know how much Comcast owns now. It what I said before... who's driving who here.

[AFK]

Palin is becoming more of a Rasputin figure.  She can influence the gullible masses with twitter and facebook posts, which can shiv shove the argument in a certain direction, but it would be improbable for her to win an election.





Also, I fully believe she could be poisoned, stabbed, shot, and thrown in a river, and she'd survive.

If Palin were to run and if she were to win.....holee fuck....maybe I'm overreacting but that would seem like a canary in the cave moment. 

Or am I being charitable to suggest the canary is still alive?   

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Palin is becoming more of a Rasputin figure.  She can influence the gullible masses with twitter and facebook posts, which can shiv shove the argument in a certain direction, but it would be improbable for her to win an election.





Also, I fully believe she could be poisoned, stabbed, shot, and thrown in a river, and she'd survive.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians.

Utter bullshit.  The battle was begun by the right wing fanatics when they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections.  They started tossing people out/throwing them under the bus based on ideological litmus tests.  They even drove Arlen Specter out of the party, and he's been there since Christ was a corporal.

[Disco Pickle]

As for Palin, she's a war hawk, and the battle within the party was begun by the antiwar, socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarians.

Utter bullshit.  The battle was begun by the right wing fanatics when they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections.  They started tossing people out/throwing them under the bus based on ideological litmus tests.  They even drove Arlen Specter out of the party, and he's been there since Christ was a corporal.

you mean Arlin "Patriot Act signer, guy who added that provision that removed the 120 day limit on interim appointments by the Attorney General, also voted for the ARRA stimulus" Spector?  He quit the Republican party and was subsequently rejected by the Democrats.

I stand by what I said.