Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Hot on Facebook
Uproar After NC State Agent 'Fixes' Girl's Lunch Preschooler has to eat chicken nuggets instead of mom's meal »

Stewart: So Much for 60 Votes

Daily Show rips Democrats for public option failure.

By Kevin Spak,  Newser Staff

Posted Oct 1, 2009 10:20 AM CDT

(Newser) – When Democrats took over Congress in 2006, they did… well, basically nothing. But all that was supposed to change when they got their unstoppable 60-vote "super majority," right? Jon Stewart sure thought so. “They’d be like a bear with chainsaws instead of paws!” he cried. So why did two attempts to get a public option out of the Senate Finance Committee fail?

“A bear with chainsaws for paws can’t get a bill out of the finance committee?” the Daily Show host marveled. Declaring Republican arguments “nonsense,” he concluded, “Democrats couldn’t get laid in a house whose sole purpose is to have consequence and disease-free sex with legislators on finance committees.”

A snarky graphic is seen in this Daily Show screenshot.
A snarky graphic is seen in this Daily Show screenshot.
In this Oct. 8, 2008, file photo, host Jon Stewart gestures during a taping of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart  in New York.
In this Oct. 8, 2008, file photo, host Jon Stewart gestures during a taping of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" in New York.   (AP Photo/Evan Agostini, file)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
Jon Stewart rips the Democrats for poor use of a Super Majority.   (Comedy Central)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next »

They’re countering your arguments with nonsense and crushing you! - Jon Stewart

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
A snapshot of the day's best news stories.
 
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 25 comments
Szi
Oct 27, 2009 1:28 AM CDT
I have a question (not sure if this is the place for it). I've noticed that when it comes to the U.S. healthcare discussion, the term "socialist" is bandied about relatively frequently (usually with negative connotation). When I read articles on the government bailouts to financial institutions, I have yet to see the term "socialist / socialism" used. Anyone know why that is? They appear to me to be suspiciously similar, so maybe I'm missing out on some key details. Help me out?
bewilderbeast
Oct 21, 2009 11:40 AM CDT
A third party would have its problems, too. What you need to do is vote the issues, not the party. Stay independent and insist your representative does too (call him out when he just follows party line).
bewilderbeast
Oct 21, 2009 11:37 AM CDT
Like Mad said.

More Newser Stories

Stewart Floored By Fox's Rape Apologist

Hulu, Netflix Launch Original Programs

Stewart: Really? Santorum 's the Frontrunner?

Soul Train's Don Cornelius Found Dead

Stewart Rips Mitt's Tax Rate


NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   Betty Confidential   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Fark   |   Timelines   |   The Frisky   |   Geek Sugar   |   NewsOne