WASHINGTON — This high-stakes debate had some props that even the presidential candidates might want at their own events.
Jon Stewart came prepared with a mechanical pedestal he used to elevate himself, making the height-challenged comedian appear taller than the lanky Bill O’Reilly when he wanted to drive a point home.
“I like you much better that way,” O’Reilly quipped at one point as he gazed up at his ideological foe.
The two celebrity gabbers have claimed their stakes to polar opposite ends of the political spectrum and on Saturday night they tangled in an event dubbed “The Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium.”
The 90-minute exchange between the Fox News anchor and the star of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” saw them banter aggressively but good-naturedly over birth control, President George W. Bush and the “War on Christmas.”
The political feud between the two TV personalities dates back more than a decade. Stewart and O’Reilly love to disagree, but appear to hold nothing against each other afterward. The two have appeared on each other’s programs since 2001, but the face-off at The George Washington University marked their first head-to-head debate.
Appearing presidential in dark jackets under a sign reading “Yum, this banner tastes like freedom,” the two quickly turned to talk of government spending and the 47 percent of Americans that Republican Mitt Romney said in a video are dependent on government.
Stewart, defending government involvement in health care and social programs, said the U.S. from its earliest days has always been an entitlement nation.
“We are a people that went to another country, saw other people on it and said, ‘Yea, we want that,’” Stewart said. “Have you ever seen ‘Oprah’s favorite things’ episode?”
Asked who he’d like to see as president, O’Reilly dead-panned: “I’d have to say Clint Eastwood.”
“Well why don’t we ask him,” said Stewart, mocking the Hollywood actor’s widely panned speech in August at the Republican National Convention by getting out of his chair and staring at it while the crowd erupted in laughter.
In an apparent show of bipartisanship, Stewart even sat on O’Reilly’s lap at one point. “And what would you like for Christmas, little boy?” O’Reilly said.
“The display that you saw tonight is why America is America. Robust, creative, no holds barred,” O’Reilly told reporters after the debate.
Organizers said about 1,500 people attended the event, but the main audience was intended to be online, where the event was live-streamed for $4.95. On Twitter, viewers complained they missed the event when the video servers crashed. Organizers said video will be available for download and that those who experienced problems will be eligible for a refund.
Steward has jokes, but they’re substantive. O’Reilly has jokes that lack any substance and are dismissive as a tactic to avoid discussing the issues.
They both were humorous; o’Reilly as a blow hard and the comic(?) Stewart masquerading as a real newsman (on the Comedy Channel yet!) They have to be seen with both eyes and not with tunnel vision. A liberal sprinkling of salt helps, too…..
Stewart doesn’t pretend to be a newsman. Unlike O’Reilly who does pretend and is terrible at it.
Shirley you jest! I’ve watched the Daily Show on Comedy Central since long before Stewart took over. It was always meant to be a farce of a real news cast with a legit anchorman, and anybody that thinks it’s any more than an old SNL skit is to be pitied. wow
What are you even talking about? Where did I indicate that I think the Daily Show is a news program or that Steward is a serious anchor? No where is the answer.
My point is that though Stewart jokes, there is substance to what he says. That’s not the case for O’Reilly who jokes as a means of dodging.
Then you are unaware, that last time I looked, 40 odd percent of young adults – roughly 18-29 year olds – get their “news” from the Daily show and believe it as true! (“When news breaks, we fix it” used to be the Daily Show’s byline.) Don’t be so naive. The only real difference between them is StewerT has better writers and production values than a live radio show. They are what they are: two people at opposite ends of the political spectrum doing entertainment shows with tongues firmly in cheek. Lighten up and take them for what they’re doing. Entertainment.
As a humorous and opinionated description from someone
besides me, check out this guy’s take on the two. I just found it and it closely mirrors mine:
http://ubgeneration.com/?p=618
They aren’t what you’re describing them to be. One is on a network called “Comedy Central” and the other is on a “news” channel that constantly purports to be “fair and balanced.” There is a huge difference between what they both do and what they present themselves as.
They have gotten together several times on each other’s shows with entertaining attitudes. If they don’t take it seriously, then why should we? that is the ultimate format that we should take it with. Don’t forget, “there’s some truth in every joke”, and as seriously as they may take themselves (like we do ), they have some idea of give and take bipartisanship and are willing to hear and understand the other’s point of view enough to joke about it. People, especially here, are all too willing not to.
Talk about it, ridicule it, find a common ground. Even if it’d mean understanding both points of view…
I am truly sick of this vehement idea that one is the all good and the other is the all bad. Gawd, the candidates both have some of each. Who is the closest one to your ideals to run our Country?
longs as I keeps getting me and my kids welfare checks, these two nobodies who I aint never heard of can yuck it up all they want. The three different daddies of my kids (no checks from them thank you very much) are useless like Mitch Romeny, he hates me and my kids. Obama 2012!