Rick Santorum to be on The Daily Show Monday

[ripdog]

Why? Why would he subject himself to this? Stewart seemed as perplexed as I am when he announced it. A smart-ass host and hostile audience don't seem to add up to a good time for Mr. Santorum. This might be more fun than the Goldberg interview.

[[censored]]

good move by Santorum, this is a no lose for Santorum.

[hetron]

Talk about must see TV.

[ QUOTE ]
good move by Santorum, this is a no lose for Santorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kindly explain this please.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
good move by Santorum, this is a no lose for Santorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's more high risk-high reward than it is a no-lose situation. He's got a tough challenge coming up in 06' against a pro-life Democrat, who's relatively well known in Pennsylvania (his father was a former governor).

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
good move by Santorum, this is a no lose for Santorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kindly explain this please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant to write "him" instead of using "Santorum" just an accidental typo.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
good move by Santorum, this is a no lose for Santorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kindly explain this please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant to write "him" instead of using "Santorum" just an accidental typo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sorry for not understanding. Are you still saying that this is a "no lose" proposition for the Senator? If so, I'm wondering what your reasoning is, because I don't see it that way at all. More like the previous poster said. High risk, high reward.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
good move by Santorum, this is a no lose for Santorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's more high risk-high reward than it is a no-lose situation. He's got a tough challenge coming up in 06' against a pro-life Democrat, who's relatively well known in Pennsylvania (his father was a former governor).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see much risk as the audience will be decidely against him for the most part. He stands very little chance of losing his core and perhaps will be able to come across as less of a [censored].

This is quite similar to liberal politicians going on shows like the O'reiley factor.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
good move by Santorum, this is a no lose for Santorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kindly explain this please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant to write "him" instead of using "Santorum" just an accidental typo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sorry for not understanding. Are you still saying that this is a "no lose" proposition for the Senator? If so, I'm wondering what your reasoning is, because I don't see it that way at all. More like the previous poster said. High risk, high reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I see. Basically I don't see him losing any of the support he has on this show. Instead he may be able to come across as a guy who was willing to go to a hostile show which has made fun of him on numerous occassions. In short he can't come off any worse but may be able to soften his image somewhat.

[[censored]]

btw- I am not saying he is an [censored], only that he is percieved as one by a large number of people right now.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see much risk as the audience will be decidely against him for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the interview goes poorly (ie - Santorum looses his cool or gets angry, gets peppered with tough questions and can't/refuses to answer, or even just comes off stiff and humorless) - the audience will be much larger than the Daily Show audience, because clips will find its way into the news cycle Tuesday and beyond; think of it like Zell Miller trying to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel - you didn't have to be watching Hardball to see it.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see much risk as the audience will be decidely against him for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the interview goes poorly (ie - Santorum looses his cool or gets angry, gets peppered with tough questions and can't/refuses to answer, or even just comes off stiff and humorless) - the audience will be much larger than the Daily Show audience, because clips will find its way into the news cycle Tuesday and beyond; think of it like Zell Miller trying to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel - you didn't have to be watching Hardball to see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I could see perhaps under those conditions. However IMO Santorum is highly unlikely to go off the deep end ala Miller so I would consider that a very small risk. At worst he will get laughed at (not with) but to his supporters it will be spun as Santorum be treated unfaitly by the biased Stewart.

I will stipulate that is there are any challenges to duals, he will be in trouble.

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
btw- I am not saying he is an [censored], only that he is percieved as one by a large number of people right now.


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, then I will say it. Rick Santorum is a sick, twisted [censored].

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw- I am not saying he is an [censored], only that he is percieved as one by a large number of people right now.


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, then I will say it. Rick Santorum is a sick, twisted [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree but he brings this on himself and can now pay the price.

[XxGodJrxX]

The Daily Show obviously has a very liberal audience and a liberal bias. With that said, I think this would be a good move for any conservative to make. Going on the "O'Reilly Factor" or "Hannity and Colmes" will not add voted to a conservative's tally, they would already be voting for him. On the other hand, if Santorum changes just 1% of the minds of the viewers of the Daily Show (which has a massive audience), then it would be very much +EV for the senator to go on the program.

It would take a huge disaster in the interview for the senator to blow it. If anybody can do it, it will be Jon, although I doubt he will be as tough as he could be.

[elwoodblues]

He has nothing to lose...he's out promoting a book. He doesn't care who buys it, just that the largest number of people do.

Sanotrum was on Rush the other day promoting his book "It takes a Family" (obviously a reference to Senator Clinton's "It takes a Village.") One of the points that Santorum tried to make was that the priest sex abuse scandal was caused, in part, by the liberal society in which it occurred (Boston.) Isn't it a tad odd that he's critiquing Clinton's notion that society has a responsibility in shaping lives while in the next breath blaming society for a moral failure? Which is it --- does society have a responsibility or not? If they don't, can you rightly blame them for individual failures (as Santorum tried to do) if they have no duty in the first place?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
He has nothing to lose...he's out promoting a book. He doesn't care who buys it, just that the largest number of people do.

Sanotrum was on Rush the other day promoting his book "It takes a Family" (obviously a reference to Senator Clinton's "It takes a Village.") One of the points that Santorum tried to make was that the priest sex abuse scandal was caused, in part, by the liberal society in which it occurred (Boston.) Isn't it a tad odd that he's critiquing Clinton's notion that society has a responsibility in shaping lives while in the next breath blaming society for a moral failure? Which is it --- does society have a responsibility or not? If they don't, can you rightly blame them for individual failures (as Santorum tried to do) if they have no duty in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood, you're trying to use logic to analyze a moron's illogical positions. It's not worth it.

natedogg

[[censored]]

He's doing fine. While many won't agree with him he is not coming off bad in my opinion.

Also it is clear that Stewart is going out of his way to be well nice.

[KDawgCometh]

complete role reversal on stewarts part in this interview as opposed to the Bernard Goldman interview

[TomCollins]

Amazing how well Sanatorum did. He kept Jon in his place, and took charge.

[slickpoppa]

Did Stewart ask him about "Santorum" meaning the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is a byproduct of anal sex? If not, that was the lamest interview ever.

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing how well Sanatorum did. He kept Jon in his place, and took charge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that Santorum did well, but not because he "took charge". The difference between this interview and the Goldberg (Goldman?) interview is that Santorum did not come on and try to drive the interview. Goldberg came off as an arrogant jerk, Santorum came off as a decent, caring human being. Maybe by not trying so hard to take charge, Santorum took charge. All of his responses left Stewart nowhere to go--he basically agreed with everything Stewart proposed. Score one for the radical right!

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
Goldberg came off as an arrogant jerk,

[/ QUOTE ]

And by all accounts, he really is an arrogant jerk.

[ QUOTE ]
Santorum came off as a decent, caring human being.

[/ QUOTE ]

He did seem decent and human -- but made little progress in debunking the widespread belief that he is stupid.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Goldberg came off as an arrogant jerk,

[/ QUOTE ]

And by all accounts, he really is an arrogant jerk.

[ QUOTE ]
Santorum came off as a decent, caring human being.

[/ QUOTE ]

He did seem decent and human -- but made little progress in debunking the widespread belief that he is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Santorum did a very good job. I cringe often when he speaks, but he did a good job. Jon Stewart wasn't tough enough.

-ptmusic

[ClaytonN]

When has Jon Stewart ever been tough on his own show? This isn't rhetorical btw. I've seen what the man can do, on Crossfire no less.

[FishHooks]

Didn't see the interview, but thank God it wasn't anything like the goldberg interview. John steward is kinda of inmature when talking about serious topic, and how he interrupts people and uses the aduience to his advantage, it works for the shows rating though.