| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
Well, when Jon Stewart is on, he's on.
Watch the interview (and, if you have time, go and watch the whole thing online, here). I almost feel bad for Dobbs (almost); Stewart opens in the interview with a Mariachi band (literally), and then spends the rest of the time coolly beating the crap out of Dobbs. And, after the Mariachi band, Stewart didn't have to use one cheap shot (speaking of cheap shots, Lou, you may want to look up 'disinterested' and 'uninterested,' because I'm pretty sure 'disinterested' doesn't mean what you think it means...). Here's a representative sample (Transcribed, perhaps poorly, by yours truly):
DOBBS: a[n] aspect of the Obama months is a continued disinterest in representing the American people. [...] What is different this time is an Attorney General who actually started speaking about a few changes to the second amendment, not reflecting the majority view--whether it be health care or cap and trade. I'm not arguing with the principle of the decision, but--
STEWART:--I would even argue those facts: I think a lot of people in this country--some of the polls say a majority, or a large majority--want a public option. There has been no attempt, really, to restrict Second Amendment rights. And if you want to talk about fundamentally changing the character of the country, David Addington--who was in Cheney's office, who advocated the unitary executive, advocated that we could torture--is a more fundamental change in our country's fabric that expanding medicare.
Let's quick put something to rest: it wouldn't matter if the Attorney General wanted to "make a few changes to the Second Amendment," because it's not in his power to change. What's more, gun rights have been upheld consistently by the Supreme Court for years, so I don't really know what that's about. Hell, I wouldn't mind making a few changes to the Second Amendment, but, unfortunately, I hangin' with the framers, so I wasn't given the option. But even with that said, the Second Amendment, in full, reads like this:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The point wasn't that everyone should have a gun so that they can go hunting or even everyone should have a gun so that they can shoot the bad people who are coming after them.
Gun rights were meant to allow for the existence of citizen militias, in a time before large standing armies. Why it is, then, that the originalists are so hell-bent on preserving this is beyond me. At least liberal jurisprudence is honest--it accepts the fact that its "interpretations" can--and should--have policy motivations.
Back to Dobbs: he's a tool.
|