Bill Kristol Admits that the Government Can Run a Quality Health Care System

If could only watch one interview from The Daily Show from the first half of 2009, I would recommend that you watch what happened last night between host Jon Stewart and Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

Yes, Stewart's interview with Jim Cramer from back in March was a pretty thorough skewering, but we almost saw that one coming in the weeks leading up to their climactic interview. This segment with Kristol came out of nowhere and resulted in a very revealing interview. Take a look:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bill Kristol Extended Interview
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

The conversation about health care is the most revealing aspect of this interview as the first section is typical Kristol supporting Sarah Palin and other (neo)Conservatives and their talking points. It is interesting to look at what happens when we get into the discussion on health-care and Kristol's Republican talking points begin to run into each other and end up (once again) revealing him as an ideologue who refuses to view the world from outside of his politicized fantasy-land.

Besides Kristol's ludicrous claims that insurance companies don't get in the way of the decisions of health-care providers, that health care costs are going up primarily because of current government-run programs and the insistence that health-care reform needs to be killed (while offering no alternative solutions), I found the following exchange interesting:

STEWART: So, no public option - even though that's good enough for the military, not good enough for the people of America.

KRISTOL: Well, the military has a different system than the rest of Americans...

STEWART: It's a public system though, no?

KRISTOL: Yeah, they don't have an option, they are all enrolled in military health care.

STEWART: Why don't we go with that?

KRISTOL: I don't know, is military health care really what you...well first of all it's expensive and they deserve it, the military...I'm not sure...

STEWART: but the American public do not

KRISTOL: No, the American public do not deserve the same quality of health care as soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve, and they need all sorts of things that the rest of us don't need.

STEWART: Well, no they can have that level of care, but are you saying that the American public shouldn't have access to the same quality health care that we give to our better citizens

KRISTOL: Yes. To our soldiers? Absolutely. American public...

STEWART: Really?

[...]

STEWART: So you just said, I just want to get this on the record, Bill Kristol just said that the government can run a first-class health care system...

KRISTOL: Sure it can

STEWART: ...and that a government-run health care system is better than the private health care system.

KRISTOL: I don't, I don't know if it's better...

STEWART: You just said that

KRISTOL: I don't know if it is better

STEWART: You just said it was better, you said it was the best that it's a little more expensive but it's better.

Whoops! Kristol's rampant support for the military and his "support the troops at all costs" line of thought just ran smack into his "government-run health care is bad for us all" talking point. The result? Kristol gets backed into a corner where he admits that the troops have a superior health-care system than do Americans and cannot justify why all Americans shouldn't be under such care except to say that normal Americans "don't deserve" as good of care as the military (and even this still acknowledges that the government-run system is better than one of private insurance). Stewart even pushes him and says that the military has the "best health care system money can buy" and Kristol responds by saying, "That could be, I hope they do...". "They are not going to let you back at the Weekly Standard" Stewart quips, "I feel like this is a way for people to bring down the Presidency than to do what is right for the American people."

Bingo! Stewart hits the nail on the head with that point toward the end of the interview. Kristol made obvious that this isn't about what is good for the American people, he is simply out to gain political points and oppose anything and everything that President Obama suggests without offering constructive revisions or criticism of the plan. Earlier in the interview Stewart even encourages Kristol to go to Washington and offer some ideas and suggestions instead of just killing the bill, but Kristol is insistent that you have to just "kill the bad idea" and then come up with something else. Translation: kill what is proposed by Obama, run on that opposition in 2010 and 2012, and then reform nothing so that the private insurance companies will keep funding the candidates that oppose limiting their profit-making capabilities.

Jim Cramer Resurfaces on the Today Show

Jim Cramer re-emerged this morning on the Today Show, his first appearance on the program since his now infamous interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. Host Meredith Viera asked Cramer about his interview with Stewart and this is how Cramer responded:



Apparently, Cramer is now ready to try and defend his network and despite agreeing with Stewart on many points throughout the Daily Show interview, now feels that the whole thing is "naive" and "misleading". In fact, Cramer dismisses the whole conversation by saying that Stewart didn't really have a point about any of his criticisms of the media. "We weren't behind this," Cramer said. Well, of course not and no one was ever claiming that the media or CNBC were behind this economic crisis...that is ridiculous. Cramer continued, "...are you gonna compare the media to AIG?"

No Jim, no one is comparing CNBC or the media to AIG and I am sad to see that he missed the whole point of Stewart's criticism (or perhaps he is just defending the people who sign his paycheck). It is about journalists acting like journalists. You know, challenging what people tell them, holding leaders to account, and doing additional research to provide greater context and truth. That is the critique of Cramer and CNBC, not creating the economic meltdown. Back to business as usual it appears.

Jon Stewart Skewers Jim Cramer

Last night was the much anticipated climax to the brewing tension between host of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart and host of CNBC's "Mad Money", Jim Cramer. I have written about each stage of this feud as it has progressed and last night's culmination of events did not disappoint.

Just for some brief background (that you can also access through the links above), Jon Stewart initially aired a piece which was critical of CNBC and a wide variety of their hosts who advised viewers to make bad decisions in regard to the stock market. Stewart was also critical of the lack of journalism that was displayed by the network and showed video clips of CNBC hosts lobbing softball questions to CEOs of these corporations. One of these hosts, Jim Cramer, took exception to Stewart's piece and voiced his discontent, claiming that Stewart took the pieces out of context. Stewart returned the next night with a piece that focused solely on Cramer and showed more video clips of Cramer advising viewers to buy and hold onto stock that ended up crashing in value only weeks later.

By this point, Cramer not only inserted himself into a situation that was not initially about him, but was clearly doing all he could to keep his head above water. This is when Cramer went on The Today Show and MSNBC's "Morning Joe" to attempt to defend himself. He called Jon Stewart a "comedian" with a "variety show" to attempt to discredit Stewart, but his response only ended up adding fuel to the fire. Stewart ran another piece the same day as Cramer appeared on these programs and expanded his range of criticism from Cramer to the NBC network for "protecting" one of their own.

All of this built up to last night when Jim Cramer was scheduled to be Jon Stewart's guest on The Daily Show. The interview had to be considerably edited down for the program, but Comedy Central posted the full length version of the interview on their website today. Below is the interview in three parts. Part 2 is the longest and if you only have time to view one, view part 2:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

It is quite obvious that Jim Cramer looked absolutely defenseless while fielding Stewart's questions and responding to the criticisms. Cramer was confronted with tough questions and his own words, both damning evidence that supported Stewart's case.


I think it is important to take a look at why Jon Stewart had such beef with the network in the first place while also recognizing that this problem is not unique to CNBC. Stewart's initial critique is that the network acted irresponsibly by telling people to hang onto shares of stock when that strategy may not have been the brightest idea. He also articulates that it has become evident that two markets exist, the first is the market that is presented to the public by the journalists and anchors on CNBC. The second market, is the one behind the scenes where these same figures know the system, have powerful connections on Wall Street, and end up manipulating the system by selling the public a different perspective on the market.


Part of the evidence that Stewart confronts Cramer with, is an interview which Cramer did on TheStreet.com in 2007 where he admits spreading rumors about certain stocks, gaming the system, and doing things because the SEC isn't smart enough to catch on. After the first clip, Cramer initially tries to defend himself by saying that he wasn't saying that he himself took part in practices like this, but Stewart quickly rolled another clip which rendered Cramer's defense moot. Stewart rightly points out that it looks like he knows the game and is deliberately feeding the public a different perception.


Cramer then makes the claim that he is trying his best to hold people to account and that the regulators can go after these people if they want to. Stewart jumps in and asks Cramer why the financial networks don't act as a "powerful tool of illumination" instead of making noise about how wrong they are after the fact. The following exchange really sums up the heart of Stewart's argument:

STEWART: This thing was 10 years in the making . . . . The idea that you could have on the guys from Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch and guys that had leveraged 35-1 and then blame mortgage holders, that's insane. . . .

CRAMER: I always wish that people would come in and swear themselves in before they come on the show. I had a lot of CEOs lie to me on the show. It's very painful. I don't have subpoena power. . .
.
STEWART: You knew what the banks were doing and were touting it for months and months. The entire network was.

CRAMER: But Dick Fuld, who ran Lehman Brothers, called me in - he called me in when the stock was at 40 -- because I was saying: "look, I thought the stock was wrong, thought it was in the wrong place" - he brings me in and lies to me, lies to me, lies to me.

STEWART [feigning shock]: The CEO of a company lied to you?

CRAMER: Shocking.

STEWART: But isn't that financial reporting? What do you think is the role of CNBC? . . . .

CRAMER: I didn't think that Bear Stearns would evaporate overnight. I knew the people who ran it. I thought they were honest. That was my mistake. I really did. I thought they were honest. Did I get taken in because I knew them before? Maybe, to some degree. . . . It's difficult to have a reporter say: "I just came from an interview with Hank Paulson and he lied his darn-fool head off." It's difficult. I think it challenges the boundaries.

STEWART: But what is the responsibility of the people who cover Wall Street? . . . . I'm under the assumption, and maybe this is purely ridiculous, but I'm under the assumption that you don't just take their word at face value. That you actually then go around and try to figure it out (applause).

After I heard this exchange, I couldn't help but think of the coverage in the lead-up to the Iraq War. This morning I was pleased to see Glenn Greenwald draw this same parallel. In both of these cases it is the failure of journalists to critically examine the information that they are told. Then, when the information turns out to be false, they feign surprise that they were not told the truth. There is no greater evidence that the corporate media mainly acts as stenographers to power as opposed to an independent check on the power structure. Too often is it an accepted view that the media simply report what they are told with little examination of the validity of the information. It is interesting to see Jon Stewart, the host of a satirical comedy show, fulfilling the role of a critical journalist by simply holding people to account when they try to feed the public lies. This type of behavior should be the norm, not the exception.



I am in agreement that Stewart's interview should be praised and that it was correct and appropriate to go after CNBC and Jim Cramer, but this will only prove useful if society learns from this encounter. Jim Cramer is shocked that he has been lied to by powerful people that have an interest in feeding the media misleading information. When items like this come as a shock to journalists, it should underscore that the media in this country are in trouble. Critical journalism should not be confined to Comedy Central, but should percolate into every major media network. We have seen uncritical reporting assist in making the case for war and now shielding us from some of the truths about the financial crisis. A critical and independent media is fundamental to a healthy democracy. We can only hope that instances like this can awaken us into demanding a better and more critical media.

And the Hits Just Keep on Coming...

To avoid some redundancy, I avoided titling this entry: "Jon Stewart - 3 Jim Cramer and CNBC - 0", but that title would apply just as well.

If you have been following the Jon Stewart on-air battle with Jim Cramer and CNBC over the last few days and enjoyed Stewart's pummeling of the network with...well, truth, then you will equally enjoy this clip from last night's Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish '09

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

You can find the first two segments that Stewart references here for Part 1 and here for Part 2. Stay tuned for more because on Thursday, Jim Cramer is slated to be Stewart's guest on the Daily Show. Should be interesting to say the least!

Jon Stewart - 2 CNBC and Jim Cramer - 0

You may recall Jon Stewart's recent segment on the Daily Show regarding CNBC and how the hosts of their shows encouraged viewers to hang onto stocks that ended up plummeting. Jim Cramer is host of CNBC's "Mad Money" and apparently took issue with Stewart's segment. Cramer claimed that Stewart took him out of context and so Jon Stewart responded:




Following the segment above, Cramer appeared on the Today Show this morning for a response:



Cramer's defense to put it mildly...is weak. Stewart simply pointed out the contradictions of Cramer and Cramer whines that Stewart is merely a comedian with a "variety show". Call me crazy, but I don't really feel bad for Cramer or CNBC...but that's just me.