Jim Cramer responds to WH, Stewart and Rich.

[Ignignokt]

If it is true of what he said, it only confirms the suspicion of the WH team of being too thin skinned, and of the sorry political hackery (if such a word) that is Jon Stewart, who passes out propaganda under the guise of his show being a comedy gag.

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-takes-white-house-frank-rich-and-jon-stewart?page=4



Posted March 09, 2009 Cramer Takes on the White House, Frank Rich and Jon Stewart
By Jim Cramer
Suddenly, bloggers, opinion people, columnists and, yes, pundits who haven't paid attention to anything I have been saying or writing for the past 18 months are all over me. Suddenly, I find myself in the center of a firestorm over Obama's economic policies, taking enfilading fire from the "liberal" media (from serious columnist Frank Rich to entertainer Jon Stewart) while being defended by Rush Limbaugh, the standard-bearer for the Republicans.

I'm uncomfortable being in the crosshairs of columnists and comedians I enjoy, and I find the embrace of Rush Limbaugh most certainly strange if not antithetical to many of my viewpoints.


So, why after toiling in the cable wilderness for four years with Mad Money am I the target of the wrath of the Obama clan, and the darling, albeit surely momentary, of the Obama-critics? After all, my criticism of Obama's handling of the economic crisis is a lot less pointed than my withering August 2007 "They Know Nothing" meltdown against the previous regime's handling of the economic crisis. Then, I advocated a swift slashing of interest rates by the Federal Reserve and a concomitant policy for potential widespread banking failures that were sure to come because of the Republican administration's pernicious laissez-faire attitude toward Wall Street.

The answer lies in the way the two adminis




When Paulson and Geithner wrongly euthanized Lehman Brothers, the consequences pretty much spelled the end of finance as we know it. Saving Lehman was well within their capacity, even though they refuse to admit it or say it was even a mistake. The markets have never recovered.

Their hands-off policies ended after Lehman. Two days later, when worries about moral hazard went out the window, they did a total about-face and began what is now an endless bailout of AIG (Stock Quote: AIG).


Nevertheless, they never questioned their beliefs and therefore never answered to anyone -- Congress, the press or the pundits -- so sure were they that everything was fine and things would work out well in the end.

President Obama's team, unlike Bush's team, demonstrates a thinness of skin that shocks me. When I somewhat obviously and empirically judged that the populist Obama administration is exacerbating the crisis with its budget and policies, as evidenced by the incredible decline in the averages since his inauguration, I was met immediately with condescension and ridicule rather than constructive debate or even just benign dismissal. I said to myself, "What the heck? Are they really that blind to the Great Wealth Destruction they are causing with their decisions to demonize the bankers, raise taxes for the wealthy, advocate draconian cap-and-trade policies and upend the health care system? Do they really believe that only the rich own stocks? What do they think we have our retirement accounts in, CDs? Where did they think that the money saved for college went, our mattresses? Do they think the great middle class banks at the First National Bank of Sealy and only the wealthiest traffic in the Standard & Poor's 500?"



They exacerbated their insensitivity when President Obama proclaimed that he wasn't worried about the averages, dismissing them as traffic polls that go up and down in the short term. Ah, if only they went up occasionally and not down endlessly then I would believe the President's logic.

Don't get me wrong, Obama was dealt a terrible hand by the previous croupier. But this administration's handling of the banking crisis, something that has brought Citigroup (Stock Quote: C), Bank of America (Stock Quote: BAC), Wells Fargo (Stock Quote: WFC) and even JPMorgan Chase (Stock Quote: JPM) to their knees, has been devastating. The indecision of Geithner, who has floated to the media every single idea in his head, only to announce none orally, has created a vacuum that has allowed short-sellers to dictate policy.


As someone who just wants to help people preserve capital and help it appreciate when the time comes when it is not too risky to do so, I am appalled at the attack and badly want to engage in the issues and tone down the rhetoric. What's the point? The country's in crisis. We need to stop the lurching nationalization of banks, something that's come about because the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have not been able to regain control of the banking system from the short-sellers who seek to wipe out the common equity and "win" by placing all banks in receivership.

The pundits won't engage in the merits of, say, favoring Tier 1 capital for the banks vs. common equity, or forbearing on the banks to work the situation out over time because the banks can be profitable if we have some patience. They just attack me.

[Ignignokt]

Take Frank Rich and Jon Stewart. Both seize on the urban legend that I recommended Bear Stearns the week before it collapsed, even though I was saying that I thought it could be worthless as soon as the following week. I did tell an emailer that his deposit in his account at Bear Stearns was safe, but through a clever sound bite, Stewart, and subsequently Rich -- neither of whom have bothered to listen to the context of the pulled quote -- pass off the notion of account safety as an out-and-out buy recommendation. The absurdity astounds me. If you called Mad Money and asked me about Citigroup, I would tell you that the common stock might be worthless, but I would never tell you to pull your money out of the bank because I was worried about its solvency. Your money is safe in Citi as I said it was in Bear. The fact that I was right rankles me even more. I never said the same thing about Lehman, where your accounts weren't safe. I expect a skewering from the comedian Stewart. I was shocked, however, that the rigorous Rich wouldn't investigate further and relied on the show's truncation of the truth. After all, how many times were the pull quotes from reviews by Rich used against him when he may have been panning a play in his former role as entertainment critic?


Rich also chastises me for endorsing Wachovia's stock after then-CEO Bob Steel came on Mad Money and spoke positively about the bank. Was I taken in? Yes, and I made a mistake. I apologized both on Mad Money and on the Today Show for believing in Steel. But others say I have been too hard on myself given that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Steel's appearance on my show for truthfulness. I chalk it up to something different: Sometimes you just get had.



After the White House briefing, Rush Limbaugh defended me as a wayward leftist who has seen the light. I am always glad to have any allies and defenders, but I do favor almost all of Obama's agenda, right down to having the rich pay more of their freight in this great country. It's just not the right time. We need to declare a war on unemployment and solve it before we let it get out of hand. We need to stop house-price depreciation. Neither the pork-laden stimulus plan nor the confusing mortgage proposal put forward by Obama will defeat either enemy. When Obama trounces both unemployment and house-price depreciation, he will have the power to enact anything he wants. But all the initiatives he wants to rush, like tax hikes, changes in health care, tinkering with the mortgage deduction -- good grief, right now in the midst of the worst housing downturn ever -- and the tough cap-and-trade rules, will derail any chance we have of turning this economy around. Instead, they put the Second Great Depression smack on the nation's table. The markets thought he could stop it; hence the giant relief rally when he was elected. But in fewer than 50 days of his ascendancy, the markets' hopes were totally dashed and the averages are now forecasting the worst decline since the Great Depression. As someone who listens to what the averages are screaming, I think they are accurately predicting the future.


I welcome any serious exchange with the administration on the issues that are not beyond my ken: fixing house price depreciation, stopping the destruction of wealth as demonstrated by the stock market's plunge, and solving the banking crisis before we nationalize every bank


(Oh, and memo to Bill Maher: Stop insulting my faux great-great-uncle Vlad Lenin. I am using him to dramatize the point of a failed nationalization and confiscation of the banks at the hands of the people. It is funny how the right is certainly very civil as my old friends and new allies as of last week, Fred Barnes and Sean Hannity, don't hold my left wing social view against me when they talk about my criticism of the president! I always love anyone from Fox on the team because they are fierce in their defense with much less gratuitous slamming.)


It's time to get serious. It's time to take the issue from the pundits and from the left and right, and put it where it belongs: serious non-ideological debate to put out the real firestorm, the collapse of the economy from Wall Street to Main Street and the ensuing Great Wealth Destruction for all.

But if it stays ad hominem, we will all be betrayed and the train wreck will become inevitable.

[MiamiHeat]

i forgot how to read 1/3 of the way in.

[Ignignokt]

i forgot how to read 1/3 of the way in.

That's ok, take a break. Dip your head in some ice bowl and let it cool down. and read the bolded part on my second post.

[Bartleby]

:sleep

[ChumpDumper]

He is, of course, not as wrong as others say he is and not as right as he says he is.

I don't know why he built a strawman about banks in the Soviet Union at the end there, and there is no reason to stop the depreciation of housing in most areas - it was overvalued in the first place.

[RandomGuy]

Of course Stewart replied last night and admitted he was wrong about the exact timing of Cramer's buy recommendation.

He then pulled out an interview clip from about 7 weeks prior to the collapse in which Cramer very clearly and very clearly in context recommended the hell out of the stock.

Oops.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-attacks-cramer-again-2009-3

:lmao

Stewart doesn't seem to harbor much love for CNBC.

Let the smack-a-thon continue. This shit is entertaining.

[Ignignokt]

Of course Stewart replied last night and admitted he was wrong about the exact timing of Cramer's buy recommendation.

He then pulled out an interview clip from about 7 weeks prior to the collapse in which Cramer very clearly and very clearly in context recommended the hell out of the stock.

Oops.

So again, another cheap shot, we don't know the situation the weeks that's two months in advance, things went down pretty quick.

All stewart did was issue a false apology, damn the truth or the situation, SCOREBOARD!

[Winehole23]

So again, another cheap shot, we don't know the situation the weeks that's two months in advance, things went down pretty quick.Orly?


Bear Stearns: Timeline to disaster (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article3554822.ece)

Peter Stiff




June 14, 2007 – Bear Stearns reports second quarter profits down 10 per cent to $486 million.



June 22, 2007 - Bear Stearns pledges up to $3.2 billion in loans to bail out two hedge funds hit by subprime losses and investor redemptions.



July 19, 2007 – Bear Stearns writes to clients informing them that two of its hedge funds now contain “very little” or “effectively no value” for investors.



August 1, 2007 – Two Bear Stearns hedge funds file for bankruptcy and another has its assets frozen following mortgage-related losses.



September 20, 2007 – Bear Stearns reports third quarter profit down 61 per cent to $171 million



October 4, 2007 – James Cayne, chief executive at Bear Stearns, said: “Most of our businesses are beginning to rebound."



Alan Schwartz, president at Bear Stearns said: "The market is in the “very early stages” of a recovery."



October 22, 2007 - Bear Stearns secures an agreement with CITIC, the state-owned Chinese lender, under which both will invest $1 billion in each other. The Wall Street bank agrees to buy $1 billion of debt in CITIC.
In turn, CITIC will gain a 6 per cent stake in Bear Stearns for the Chinese group's $1 billion investment with an option to buy a further 3.9 per cent share of the US investment bank.



November 28, 2007 – Bear Stearns announces it will cut 650 jobs, or 4 per cent of its global work force.



December 20, 2007 – Bear Stearns posts fourth quarter loss of $854 million after mortgage related writedowns of $1.9 billion. It is the first quarterly loss in its 85-year history.



December 20, 2007 - Barclays sues Bear Stearns for allegedly misleading the UK bank over the performance of two collapsed hedge funds that were used as collateral for a $400 million loan.



December 28, 2007 – Mr Cayne sells $15.4 million of the bank’s stock over the month.



January 9, 2008 – Mr Cayne resigns as chief executive of the company, but stays as chairman, and Mr Schwartz takes over.



March 10, 2008 – Bear Stearns stated that there is absolutely no truth to the rumours of liquidity problems that circulated today in the market.
Mr Schwartz said: "Bear Stearns' balance sheet, liquidity and capital remain strong."



March 12, 2008 – Mr Schwartz said: “We don’t see any pressure on our liquidity, let alone a liquidity crisis.



"We are in constant dialogue with all the major dealers, and I have not been made aware of anybody not taking our credit. None of that speculation is true.”



March 14, 2008 - Bear Stearns confirms it has secured a funding agreement JP Morgan Chase and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

[Winehole23]

Reconsider, Iggy?

[Ignignokt]

Reconsider, Iggy?


yeah, totally wrong. agree.

Now to random guy's post.

Cramer's first qoute taken out of context was about telling the guy that his funds in his accounts were safe.

So stewart had the timing and the context incorrect.

I guess the lesson is Cramer is a bad prognosticator, and Stewart is still a hack.

second.


In Defense Of Jim Cramer
By Hamilton Nolan, 10:15 AM on Mon Mar 17 2008, 12,864 views
"Bear Stearns is not in trouble!" Jim Cramer, CNBC's bug-eyed "Mad Money" host who is to finance what Carrot Top is to comedy, shouted last Tuesday. "Don't move your money from Bear! That's just being silly." The immediate reaction to seeing his advice in the wake of Bear's collapse is: what an idiot. But really, his advice was not bad! Cramer—a famously bad prognosticator—noted that Bear would, at worst, be taken over, meaning those who had money with the firm would have their investments guaranteed by a more deep-pocketed buyer. Which is exactly what happened when JPMorgan bought Bear over the weekend. Note that he was not speaking about Bear's stock price [last Tuesday: over $60. Now: toilet paper]. What have we learned? Only Wild Jim Cramer can stop the collapse of the American economy. Click to watch the crazy savant's ill-fated harangue. [via WJNO]

Read More: Mad Money, Bear Stearns, Cnbc, Doom, INvestors, Jim Cramer, Recession, Top, Wall Street


http://gawker.com/368610/investors-ignore-jim-cramer-suffer-consequences

[RandomGuy]

So again, another cheap shot, we don't know the situation the weeks that's two months in advance, things went down pretty quick.

All stewart did was issue a false apology, damn the truth or the situation, SCOREBOARD!

You didn't actually watch the daily show clip did you?

Stewart played almost a full minute of the interview in which Cramer recommended the hell out of the stock itself.

That was fully in context.

The collapse itself did happen fairly quickly, but as the timeline pointed out rather clearly, it should not have been entirely unexpected, given the data from the previous year or two.

There is a reason that financial stocks have taken a massive hit, and the warning signs were there.

Don't get me wrong, no one should expect any expert to be right 100% of the time.

Was it a bit of cheap shot? I tend to think so. It was a bit unfair.

But Stewart does have a point about the cheerleaders like Cramer who should have known better.

Populist, perhaps. Cheap, probably. Inaccurate satire? Not at all.

[RandomGuy]

yeah, totally wrong. agree.

Now to random guy's post.

Cramer's first qoute taken out of context was about telling the guy that his funds in his accounts were safe.

So stewart had the timing and the context incorrect.

I guess the lesson is Cramer is a bad prognosticator, and Stewart is still a hack.

second.




http://gawker.com/368610/investors-ignore-jim-cramer-suffer-consequences

Stewart admitted he initially got the bit wrong. That is definitely NOT hack behavior is it?

The distinction was between saying that you shouldn't gank your cash out of bear stearns accounts, as they were insured and probably would end up getting some backing from whoever bought out stearns and the recommendation of the stock itself.

I would have agreed that ganking your money out was not really necessary, but no fucking way would I have said to invest in any institution holding mortgage backed securities to any large extent.

[ploto]

Cramer is making Stewart's job so easy by getting all offended by him.

[ploto]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220510&title=basic-cable-personality-clash

[balli]

Jon Stewart, who passes out propaganda under the guise of his show being a comedy gag.
I don't watch or like his show, but what Jon Stewart does isn't propagandize. He fucking eviscerates people with their own hypocrisy. I'm not going to say that he isn't out to shape or influence people's political beliefs, but he never lies when he's doing it. And usually the thing he's railing against is so obviously egregious, that truly context doesn't matter. Though the Cramer intervoew was contextual.

In any event, neverminding that Stewart's been dead on about him, WTF would you go out of your way to defend Jim fucking Cramer's honor? He's a hack cnbc stock analyst who spends his days screaming and banging buttons on a soundboard? You couldn't spend your energy on anything better than defending a guy like that.

[Destro]

Jon Stewart is on a network called COMEDY CENTRAL, why are "news" people caring so much about it. He has a parody newscast

[Nbadan]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220510&title=basic-cable-personality-clash

Comedy gold!


:lmao

[Bartleby]

Jon Stewart is the proverbial tar baby. The more you try to hit him the worse you make it for yourself.

[DarrinS]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220510&title=basic-cable-personality-clash


I gotta admit, that was fucking hilarious.

[boutons_]

Busted: CNBC Sleaze Jim Cramer Blabs on How He Shorted Stocks and Manipulated Markets



By Julie Satow , Huffington Post
Posted on March 12, 2009, Printed on March 12, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.huffingtonpost.com//131334/

In light of the current economic crisis, and with the hullabaloo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/10/jon-stewart-slams-jim-cra_n_173738.html)ignited recently by Jon Stewart over the accuracy of CNBC's reporting, we thought it might be useful to revisit this shocking 2006 interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVmlxhk-tU) Jim Cramer gave to TheStreet.com's Aaron Task.

In it, the host of Mad Money (http://www.cnbc.com/id/29615944/)says he regularly manipulated the market when he ran his hedge fund. He calls it "a fun game, and it's a lucrative game." He suggests all hedge fund managers do the same. "No one else in the world would ever admit that, but I could care. I am not going to say it on TV," he quips in the video.

He also calls Wall Street Journal reporters "bozos" and says behaving illegally is okay because the SEC doesn't understand it anyway.

Here are some gems:

-On manipulating the market: "A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund, and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity before hand that could drive the futures,"

-On falsely creating the impression a stock is down (what he calls "fomenting"): "You can't foment. That's a violation... But you do it anyway because the SEC doesn't understand it." He adds, "When you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment."

-On the truth: "What's important when you are in that hedge fund mode is to not be doing anything that is remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view - it is important to create a new truth to develop a fiction," Cramer advises. "You can't take any chances."
Watch it:

( follow the link below to see video)

Editor's Update: Former Virginia Representative Tom Davis apparently wants Cramer "looked at" for market manipulation: (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/GOP_Rep._wants_Cramer_to_testify_0312.html)
"I think he's become a poster child for why hedge funds need more regulation and transparency," former Virginia Representative Tom Davis told CNN on Thursday.

Davis's remarks were sparked by a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVmlxhk-tU) from 2006, which has now gone viral, in which Mad Money host Cramer explained on his own website how he could influence stock prices as a hedge fund manager.

"You take a bunch of stocks and make sure that they're higher," Cramer suggests in the video. "Maybe commit five billion in capital to it. ... No one else in the world would ever admit that, but I don't care."

When asked, "Is any of this illegal?" Davis replied, "It wasn't, but it should be."

"He may well have crossed the line," Davis continued. "I think that's something somebody ought to be looking at. I think the tragedy is, over the last few years, nobody's been looking at this at all"

Davis, a moderate Republican, served as chairman of the House Government Reform Committee from 2003 to 2007, when it was known (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/20/congress_reduces_its_oversight_role/) for exercising almost no oversight of the Bush administration.

CNBC declined to comment on Davis's remarks, but CNN obtained a statement from Cramer saying, "No one knows and respects the securities laws more than I do. ... When I was a hedge fund trader in the 1990's, I played fair and I did nothing that violated those laws."
© 2009 Huffington Post All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.huffingtonpost.com//131334/

[MannyIsGod]

I'm watching him on the Daily Show right now and its absolutely pathetic. Say what you will about Jon Stewart, but if the fucking regular news channels would be doing this job he woudln't have to. This is really fucking sad. Cramer should be the poster child of how these fuckers are too short sighted to operate without regulation.

[MannyIsGod]

B96vUHKN_I4

[ChumpDumper]

Man, that was brutal. Cramer lost the second he appeared with his sleeves rolled up to his shoulders.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah the truth is we all lost though. That interview pissed me off more than anything else I've read or seen about this whole fucking mess because it put a FACE to it for me. He's the fucking poster child for these short sighted assholes that allowed this to happen.

[MannyIsGod]

God and he strikes me as a fucking weasel. He's just a slimeball trying to squirm his way out of this by saying whatever it takes to make Jon Stewart happy. He's not going to change. He's going to keep doing his shit after this blows over and people forget.

[MannyIsGod]

God I need to stop watching it. It really does make me fucking angry to watch those old clips of his. If you're not fucking outraged watching this guy then I'm not sure what its going to take.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Jesus... that was painful

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Honestly... why would anyone put themselves through shit like that? Did he not remember what he had said? Was he not aware that TDS diggs up old clips to make their points? and if you're a weasel (which Cramer definately looks like one) wouldn't you prefer to skip going on the show? I mean, couldn't he have ignored the whole thing given that it is "just a comedy show"?

All I'm saying is, the dude, on top of being a weasel... is not a very smart one.

[MannyIsGod]

Why did it take Stewart to eviscirate this guy? MSNBC has this fucker on their shoes all the fucking time speaking with authority. No other network could at least do it under the guise attacking NBC? Jesus Christ, instead of blaming Bush or Obama people need to wake up and start blaming the assholes actually running these scams. He admits to criminal behaviour and didn't care because the SEC couldn't stop him.

So fucking outrageous but we have no time for this shit because we need to find out what OctoMom is wearing today.

[MannyIsGod]

Honestly... why would anyone put themselves through shit like that? Did he not remember what he had said? Was he not aware that TDS diggs up old clips to make their points? and if you're a weasel (which Cramer definately looks like one) wouldn't you prefer to skip going on the show? I mean, couldn't he have ignored the whole thing given that it is "just a comedy show"?

All I'm saying is, the dude, on top of being a weasel... is not a very smart one.

He reminds me of a low life criminal doing his best to get a plea deal. And actually, thats exactly what he was doing. Look at him trying to make a deal with Stewart. I'll get you the big fish! Just trust me!

Worthless. I'm pretty sure that if Jim Cramer was on fire I woudln't waste the piss to put him out. He's just as bad as Madoff.

[Melmart1]

I read that the interview was much longer, like eight minutes longer, and that the full unedited interview will be up on the daily show site sometime early this morning. Should be interesting.

[Nbadan]

....glad you guys finally get it.........

Nbadan on Cramer..

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103361&highlight=cramer

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76249&highlight=cramer

[PhoenixSpursFan]

Where is BDog?:downspin:

[PixelPusher]

I didn't expect I'd come away with a substantially worse opinion of Kramer before this interview came on. I just thought he was another asshat TV pundit with a disarming off-the-wall schtick (big buttons, sound effects, running around the set like a tweeker), I didn't realize what a douche he really is.

[PhoenixSpursFan]

these dudes need to talk to b-dog about politics....he'll set em str8:bking

[smeagol]

Pathetic.

I'm amazed that this kind of shit goes on the the most sophisticated financial market in the world. Imagine what goes on in emerging markets' stock markets . . .

[johnsmith]

....glad you guys finally get it.........

Nbadan on Cramer..

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103361&highlight=cramer

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76249&highlight=cramer

If only anyone gave a flying fuck about what you think.

[DarrinS]

As someone who lost over a third of my 401k in a 3-month period last year, I can appreciate Manny's comments. However, to be fair, the people that listen to Cramer are probably casual day traders. I do think the entire interview was more or less an ambush. Cramer comes on his show and what happens? Stewart has an army of interns that poor through archival video and they play a clip of Cramer from 2006? The whole thing was just AWWWKWAARD. I could even sense that the audience was getting uncomfortable. If it was Stewart's mission to publicly humiliate Cramer and possibly end his career then all I can say is -- MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. But, was it funny? Not to me. Anyway, I guess the lesson learned is: Don't fuck with Jon Stewart.

[InK]

Anyway, I guess the lesson learned is: Don't fuck with Jon Stewart.

Specially if you are wrong in the first place and think you can win a debate just by having your entire network to back you up and slime the opposition. This whole thing started with Stewart's piece on that Santinelli prick ( or whatever he s called) and instead of those assholes at MSNBC just beeing quiet and taking the well deserved hit, they ganged up on Stewart thinking it was a good idea.

So when Cramer is asking how did this happen, look at the jerks in your own newsgroup and thank them. Fox and other networks just used the piece as any competition would....they either get a hit on Stewart or MSNBC, either way its a good day in the office.

[smeagol]

As someone who lost over a third of my 401k in a 3-month period last year, I can appreciate Manny's comments. However, to be fair, the people that listen to Cramer are probably casual day traders. I do think the entire interview was more or less an ambush. Cramer comes on his show and what happens? Stewart has an army of interns that poor through archival video and they play a clip of Cramer from 2006? The whole thing was just AWWWKWAARD. I could even sense that the audience was getting uncomfortable. If it was Stewart's mission to publicly humiliate Cramer and possibly end his career then all I can say is -- MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. But, was it funny? Not to me. Anyway, I guess the lesson learned is: Don't fuck with Jon Stewart.

It was a clear ambush. But I enjoyed it. Cramer was an idiot back in '98 when he appeard on Squawk Box as commentator from TheStreet.com, and is more of an asshole now.

[InK]

It was a clear ambush. But I enjoyed it. Cramer was an idiot back in '98 when he appeard on Squawk Box as commentator from TheStreet.com, and is more of an asshole now.

Cramer was prepared to grovel......why else would he want to be on the show in the first place. The suprising thing is that Stewart didn't let the guy off the hook, roll 2-10 2-12 he wasn't going to miss the oppurtunity to expose what this brand of people (not just Cramer in particular) are all about. "It's not a game......you all know whats going on", devastating stuff....

[DarrinS]

I'm kinda curious how they got Cramer to appear on the show. I wonder what Stewart's producers said to Cramer to persuade him to be a guest. Had he known what was going to happen, do you really think he would've agreed? Reminds me of that teenage girl in Florida that was invited over to a "friends" house to get her ass kicked for a Youtube video.

[clambake]

I'm kinda curious how they got Cramer to appear on the show. I wonder what Stewart's producers said to Cramer to persuade him to be a guest. Had he known what was going to happen, do you really think he would've agreed? Reminds me of that teenage girl in Florida that was invited over to a "friends" house to get her ass kicked for a Youtube video.

cramer's ratings were dropping from this while stewarts were going up.

cramer had no choice. he had to accept the appearance.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Wow. That was painful. Not as entertaining as I'd hoped. I actually used to like watching Cramer from time to time, just because he's on speed or something. But now, I can't help but hate his guts.

Just....wow.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm kinda curious how they got Cramer to appear on the show. I wonder what Stewart's producers said to Cramer to persuade him to be a guest. Had he known what was going to happen, do you really think he would've agreed? Reminds me of that teenage girl in Florida that was invited over to a "friends" house to get her ass kicked for a Youtube video.

Oh please. Cramer isn't the smallest bit of a victim here so please stop trying to paint him as such.

Poor fucking Cramer. Poor criminal ass sleezy weasel of a man. Poor Poor Cramer.

[DarrinS]

Oh please. Cramer isn't the smallest bit of a victim here so please stop trying to paint him as such.

Poor fucking Cramer. Poor criminal ass sleezy weasel of a man. Poor Poor Cramer.


Ok, whatever, but I agree with CBF that it wasn't entertaining.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Oh please. Cramer isn't the smallest bit of a victim here so please stop trying to paint him as such.

Poor fucking Cramer. Poor criminal ass sleezy weasel of a man. Poor Poor Cramer.

But he has a point, something I was wondering myself. Leading up to this interview, when I heard Cramer would be on his show, I instantly said to myself "Oh they planned this whole fued thing, gay"

Why would Cramer come on? He didn't even look prepared to do anything to save face.

[clambake]

mannys right, darrins. what do you have to gain by pretending cramers behaviour is acceptable?

[DarrinS]

mannys right, darrins. what do you have to gain by pretending cramers behaviour is acceptable?


I'm not defending Cramer's behavior, I just didn't enjoy the way the whole thing was produced. The guy was cornered and had no way to defend himself. Even if you hate the guy, the whole thing just felt wrong. It looked to me like Cramer was really caught off guard and wasn't expecting it.

If Stewart ever does this to a more popular person, it could really backfire.

[DarrinS]

Why would Cramer come on? He didn't even look prepared to do anything to save face.


Because he got suckered.

[clambake]

popularity will not trump exposure.

[InK]

Why would Cramer come on? He didn't even look prepared to do anything to save face.

It was just damage control, the whole thing was getting out of hand-- the whole left jumped on him, with Rush and the right defending him--not ideal of circumstances for a left oriented news organization; But saying that, he probably didnt expect and was obviously not prepared to see Stewart coming out with guns blazing; Fast Money is due to be canceled for sure now.

[InK]

Because he got suckered.

He didnt have any other option dude. What do you think TDS offered him, candy and a ride to the amusement park?

[DarrinS]

He didnt have any other option dude. What do you think TDS offered him, candy and a ride to the amusement park?


So, you think Cramer knew that Stewart was going to go prosecutor on him and start rifling through 3 year old video clips?


If he knew that and still went on than he's fuckin retarded.

[clambake]

cramer had no defense, and no other option but to appear.

he should have keep his mouth shut and take the ratings drop.

[PixelPusher]

So, you think Cramer knew that Stewart was going to go prosecutor on him and start rifling through 3 year old video clips?


If he knew that and still went on than he's fuckin retarded.
Being hopelessly addicted to being on TV makes people do retarded things.

[MannyIsGod]

So, you think Cramer knew that Stewart was going to go prosecutor on him and start rifling through 3 year old video clips?


If he knew that and still went on than he's fuckin retarded.

EVERYONE HERE knew thats what was going to happen. How the hell could Cramer not expect it? Did you not see him gorveling? Of course it was sad. Look what I wrote above as I watched it. It was fairly pathetic, but not because I felt sorry or pity for Cramer because he's pure scum who self admitidly broke laws and didn't care because the SEC couldn't figure it out.

Who the fuck goes on bragging like that and doesn't get nailed to the cross? Doesn't it piss you off that it took years and the fucking Daily Show to spur investigations into this shit?

[MannyIsGod]

Dude the closest comparison I can come up with is simply that Jon Stewart just went Chris Hanson all over Cramer and I know I sure as hell never felt sorry for those pedos.

[DarrinS]

Dude the closest comparison I can come up with is simply that Jon Stewart just went Chris Hanson all over Cramer and I know I sure as hell never felt sorry for those pedos.


Who in the hell is Chris Hanson?

[Crookshanks]

But the thing to remember in all this is that none of it would've happened had Cramer not criticized the Messiah's policies.

Moral of the Story: keep your mouth shut and refrain from telling people the Emperor has no clothes!

[balli]

You fucking cunt. Die crookshanks.

[DarrinS]

You fucking cunt. Die crookshanks.

Turrets?

[MannyIsGod]

But the thing to remember in all this is that none of it would've happened had Cramer not criticized the Messiah's policies.

Moral of the Story: keep your mouth shut and refrain from telling people the Emperor has no clothes!

So the moral isn't don't undertake illegal stock dealings?

WOW.

[DarrinS]

So the moral isn't don't undertake illegal stock dealings?

WOW.


So, Cramer is under arrest now?

[balli]

Should be.

[InK]

So, you think Cramer knew that Stewart was going to go prosecutor on him and start rifling through 3 year old video clips?


Im sure he knew it was possible something like that could happen, but to go as far as to say he knew Stewart is going to hang him by the balls, no i wouldn't say that.

Cramer didn't play it out well with trying to distance himself from all the bullshit that he has done, talking shit about how he tried to expose the frauds....He even had the guts to repeatidly use the word shananigans, as if it we are talking about some harmless kiddie prank....People loosing everything, haha, good joke....

What he should have done, is emphasing the fact that he was just trying to do best by his clients/viewers, make them money, but like so many others made the mistake in assessing the situation. If he is to blame for that, then so be it, but all that he was saying was to his knowledge to the benefit of his clients/viewers. He should have just repeated this like a mantra, and he would have been fine.

Instead he decided he wants to look good on TV, showing himself like some just crusader surrounded by a swarm of parasitic vermin and Stewart wanted to hear nothing of that. Fuck you Cramer.

[DarrinS]

Im sure he knew it was possible something like that could happen, but to go as far as to say he knew Stewart is going to hang him by the balls, no i wouldn't say that.

Cramer didn't play it out well with trying to distance himself from all the bullshit that he has done, talking shit about how he tried to expose the frauds....He even had the guts to repeatidly use the word shananigans, as if it we are talking about some harmless kiddie prank....People loosing everything, haha, good joke....

What he should have done, is emphasing the fact that he was just trying to do best by his clients/viewers, make them money, but like so many others made the mistake in assessing the situation. If he is to blame for that, then so be it, but all that he was saying was to his knowledge to the benefit of his clients/viewers. He should have just repeated this like a mantra, and he would have been fine.

Instead he decided he wants to look good on TV, showing himself like some just crusader surrounded by a swarm of parasitic vermin and Stewart wanted to hear nothing of that. Fuck you Cramer.



Fair enough.

[MannyIsGod]

So, Cramer is under arrest now?

You realize he admitted to breaking the law in that video right? Whether or not he's under arrest is a pure red herring. The guy said he broke the law but the SEC can't do shit about it.

THIS is who you are defending above. Congrats.

[InK]

But the thing to remember in all this is that none of it would've happened had Cramer not criticized the Messiah's policies.

Moral of the Story: keep your mouth shut and refrain from telling people the Emperor has no clothes!

Yes lets simplify, thats what beeing republican is all about anways.

[MannyIsGod]

1qxdJ3FdRZM

[RandomGuy]

But the thing to remember in all this is that none of it would've happened had Cramer not criticized the Messiah's policies.

Moral of the Story: keep your mouth shut and refrain from telling people the Emperor has no clothes!

That is simply incorrect.

A "vast left wing conspiracy" out to get Obama critics is fashionable thinking right now in conservative land, because blaming others for failures over simply taking responsibility is just human nature.

If someone says something stupid and get called to the mat for it, that MUST mean that the only reason to point out the stupid thing is political. It couldn't possibly be because pointing out when somebody says something stupid or harmful is the right thing to do.

The whole conservative "blame the media" schtick is getting old.

"Boo hoo, we didn't win because of the liberal media" makes you feel better than
"Boo hoo, we didn't win because we really didn't have any decent ideas, and selected an idiot to represent our party for 8 years."

God forbid Republicans should actually take a sober look at the state of their ideology/party. THAT would be sooo counter-productive.

Better:

Blame the liberal media.

That's ok, as a Democrat, I don't mind if you and so many Republicans want to play the blame the media card, because it keeps you from actualy fixing the problems in your party. Your denial is our gain. :tu

[RandomGuy]

Another outgrowth of the "blame the media" schtick:

For a good while it made mainstream media, which was fairly neutral by any objective measurement, really tiptoe around issues and balance, and they went out of their way to give voice to every moronic strawman attack that the right mounted on anything they didn't like in the effort to appear fair.

The problem is that a lot of "the media" have realized that no matter how fair they are in reality, if they are anywhere left of attilla the Hun on the poltical spectrum (such as actually being neutral) they will be charactorized as "liberal media".

I would guess a lot of media people are kind of tired of being shit on after bending over backwards to please people who could never by satisfied.

Sorry, but the timer is up on that shtick. It is backfiring on your dumb asses.

That's ok, again, as a Democrat, it suits me that you are shitting on centrists, because that means the Democratic party gets to capture that segment of the population.

[DarrinS]

Another outgrowth of the "blame the media" schtick:

For a good while it made mainstream media, which was fairly neutral by any objective measurement, really tiptoe around issues and balance, and they went out of their way to give voice to every moronic strawman attack that the right mounted on anything they didn't like in the effort to appear fair.

The problem is that a lot of "the media" have realized that no matter how fair they are in reality, if they are anywhere left of attilla the Hun on the poltical spectrum (such as actually being neutral) they will be charactorized as "liberal media".

I would guess a lot of media people are kind of tired of being shit on after bending over backwards to please people who could never by satisfied.

Sorry, but the timer is up on that shtick. It is backfiring on your dumb asses.

That's ok, again, as a Democrat, it suits me that you are shitting on centrists, because that means the Democratic party gets to capture that segment of the population.


Who are you addressing with this?

You do realize that Stewart is an admitted liberal and that Cramer is a lifelong Democrat, right?

[DarrinS]

You realize he admitted to breaking the law in that video right? Whether or not he's under arrest is a pure red herring. The guy said he broke the law but the SEC can't do shit about it.

THIS is who you are defending above. Congrats.



I'm not defending him.


No lo estoy defendiendo.

[InK]

Who are you addressing with this?

You do realize that Stewart is an admitted liberal and that Cramer is a lifelong Democrat, right?

He was responding to this poor bastard i think.


But the thing to remember in all this is that none of it would've happened had Cramer not criticized the Messiah's policies.

Moral of the Story: keep your mouth shut and refrain from telling people the Emperor has no clothes!

[DarrinS]

I guess my main issue with this is that I don't want hard-hitting investigative journalism in the venue of satirical comedy. Stewart said both he and Cramer were "Snake Oil salesmen", but that The Daily Show is labeled as such. I think Stewart is short selling himself. This interview took on a darker tone than your typical good-natured satire skit. Instead of laughing, I found myself grimacing and thinking, "wow, this guy is really fucked".


Manny. I'm still NOT defending Cramer.

[PixelPusher]

I guess my main issue with this is that I don't want hard-hitting investigative journalism in the venue of satirical comedy. Stewart said both he and Cramer were "Snake Oil salesmen", but that The Daily Show is labeled as such. I think Stewart is short selling himself. This interview took on a darker tone than your typical good-natured satire skit. Instead of laughing, I found myself grimacing and thinking, "wow, this guy is really fucked".


Then the question you should concerned with is not "why is Comedy Show Guy the one doing this kind of expose?", but "why isn't anyone else in the television media doing this kind of expose?"

[DarrinS]

Then the question you should concerned with is not "why is Comedy Show Guy the one doing this kind of expose?", but "why isn't anyone else in the television media doing this kind of expose?"


That's a good question.

[InK]

That's a good question.

Any idea what the answer could be?

[DarkReign]

Any idea what the answer could be?

Should he? Darrin is at least being honest with his opinion and assertions.

Thats a lot more than some could say around here (not you in particular, Ink).

[MannyIsGod]

Then the question you should concerned with is not "why is Comedy Show Guy the one doing this kind of expose?", but "why isn't anyone else in the television media doing this kind of expose?"

Exactly. And if thats Darrin's concern then I share it as I stated in my first posts. Its sad.

[smeagol]

He was responding to this poor bastard i think.

I think she is a bastardette . . .

[CuckingFunt]

I'm not defending Cramer's behavior, I just didn't enjoy the way the whole thing was produced. The guy was cornered and had no way to defend himself. Even if you hate the guy, the whole thing just felt wrong. It looked to me like Cramer was really caught off guard and wasn't expecting it.

If Stewart ever does this to a more popular person, it could really backfire.

If Cramer was caught off guard he's a fucking idiot.

It was 100% clear to me watching the interview that he never had a clue what Stewart's actual argument was. Not even a little bit. I think that he genuinely thought it was all about what he before Bear Sterns tanked and that, therefore, all he'd have to do to rectify the situation is make nice for a few minutes, joke around with Jon Stewart, assert his sincere wish to do right, and offer a few empty apologies for making a mistake.

[Crookshanks]

I could care less about Jim Cramer and I think Stewart is an idiot. What I was saying is that nobody really cared about Jim Cramer - you either liked him or you didn't. It wasn't until he publicly criticized Obama's economic policies that these people went after him.

I think Cramer was surprised because he thinks of himself as "one of them" and couldn't believe a fellow democrat would turn on him so viciously.

[Kermit]

If Cramer was caught off guard he's a fucking idiot.

It was 100% clear to me watching the interview that he never had a clue what Stewart's actual argument was. Not even a little bit. I think that he genuinely thought it was all about what he before Bear Sterns tanked and that, therefore, all he'd have to do to rectify the situation is make nice for a few minutes, joke around with Jon Stewart, assert his sincere wish to do right, and offer a few empty apologies for making a mistake.

:tu

Cramer: Me, Me, Me, Me

Stewart: It's not about you, you fucking moron. Roll 212.

[Kermit]

I could care less about Jim Cramer and I think Stewart is an idiot. What I was saying is that nobody really cared about Jim Cramer - you either liked him or you didn't. It wasn't until he publicly criticized Obama's economic policies that these people went after him.

I think Cramer was surprised because he thinks of himself as "one of them" and couldn't believe a fellow democrat would turn on him so viciously.

TDS didn't go after Cramer. It was a critique on CNBC. That egotistical bastard couldn't let some criticism go and created this whole shitstorm involving himself.

[InK]

I could care less about Jim Cramer and I think Stewart is an idiot. What I was saying is that nobody really cared about Jim Cramer - you either liked him or you didn't. It wasn't until he publicly criticized Obama's economic policies that these people went after him.


Stewart didn't go for him initially, if u watched the show it would be clear. He was just the dumb fuck standing up and objecting after Stewart did a bit about his entire network. What prompted the first assault was a guy named Santinelli ( or something like that)-who works for the same network Cramer does- calling people loosers for getting caught in the realestate collapse. Stewart just showed what the people inside the network were saying months before the implosion, and Cramer was one of those people that was featured.

[Ignignokt]

Then the question you should concerned with is not "why is Comedy Show Guy the one doing this kind of expose?", but "why isn't anyone else in the television media doing this kind of expose?"

Wether Cramer is a criminal or not, but when did people decide to actually care about Cramer's violation?

It's an honest awnser.

[Ignignokt]

Stewart didn't go for him initially, if u watched the show it would be clear. He was just the dumb fuck standing up and objecting after Stewart did a bit about his entire network. What prompted the first assault was a guy named Santinelli ( or something like that)-who works for the same network Cramer does- calling people loosers for getting caught in the realestate collapse. Stewart just showed what the people inside the network were saying months before the implosion, and Cramer was one of those people that was featured.

Stewarts attack was two pronged, he say's that CNBC was too pessimistic and contributed to the situation we're in, and then he said they were too optimistic.

I only watch clips from the show, can anyone fill me in what was the whole argument.

[InK]

Wether Cramer is a criminal or not, but when did people decide to actually care about Cramer's violation?

It's an honest awnser.

Something that ends with "?" probably doesnt classify as an answer. But if i try to answer your answer, people don't give a fuck, never did, never really will. It was just pleasing to see him exposed as an acna that he is, that's all.

[InK]

Stewarts attack was two pronged, he say's that CNBC was too pessimistic and contributed to the situation we're in, and then he said they were too optimistic.

I only watch clips from the show, can anyone fill me in what was the whole argument.

The pesimism piece was in another segment, dont know if it was the same show ( not sure). It was a response to the Obama criticism, that he was too pesimistic when he talked about the economic situation and its prospects.

Stewart just showed a few networks (that were accusing Obama of beeing too bleak and therefore bad for Wall street, etc..) serving their audience the same pesimistic bs.

The point was hardly, be less pesimistic and lie to us (like Cramer was arguably doing)---it was, this is how things are now, that's all. If the networks want to accuse Obama of pesimism, let them at least not spread it themselfs.

[Ignignokt]

:lol
Something that ends with "?" probably doesnt classify as an answer. But if i try to answer your answer, people don't give a fuck, never did, never really will. It was just pleasing to see him exposed as an acna that he is, that's all.
:lol i meant question.

[InK]

:lol
:lol i meant question.

Sorry to jump on a typo then.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

On NPR tonight they talked about this. They focused on whether or not the business media really slacked in informing us about the dangers of what was going on, and what is going on as it develops. They played clips. But it was ironic how they played only the clips of Stewart saying CNBC pretends to do enlighten people with its shows, and actually doesn't do that. The irony comes in where they totally ignore and did not play the clips where Cramer said he was breaking rules and where Stewart burns him on that.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Man, the more I watch that interview the more I cringe. I'm convinced the dude had absolutely no clue what was going to happen to him...

[ploto]

I guess we live in a world where people continue to defend the guy for being unprepared. Cramer is supposed to be the expert, and he just sat there dumb-founded, having assumed that Stewart was an ignorant buffoon. As one commentary said- the comedian was more of a journalist than the supposed journalist. Basically, Cramer was like all bullies- he backed down when confronted.

[Ignignokt]

*the comedian has a writing staff which do all the research.

[ChumpDumper]

Cramer has people too. That's who got him on the Martha Stewart show.

[Ignignokt]

Cramer has people too. That's who got him on the Martha Stewart show.

Are they writers of his show and do they conduct all the info gathering, Stewart has a 3 man writing team. I don't know if you consider booking people to the equivalent of stewarts team.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm pretty sure he has producers and researchers on his show too, though I could be wrong. Bottom line is if Cramer didn't know what he was in for, that's on him.

[InK]

Cramer has people too. That's who got him on the Martha Stewart show.

Why are you arguing this stuff, dont get it. He is just a person who got caught lying, got caught on TV doing it, do you think if he had more staff/ writers he could somehow change that fact?

[ChumpDumper]

No. He just seemed sadly ill-prepared for this -- moreso than would be expected from a former reporter and lawyer and investment banker who has had his own TV show for the better part of a decade. Add to that any handlers that would be expected for such a person, and it's even weirder. I guess I was expecting more spin than actually occurred. In that respect it was refreshing.

[boutons_]

Cramer CNBC are corporate employees, are entertainers, not journalists.

All of their fake news is only to sell ads to other corps, NOT to expose themselves and corps as frauds and crooks.

Follow the money, and TV's money comes from ads sold. Ain't nothing pro bono, no independent crusaders and investigators.

Cramer ain't no singular bad apple. The system, democracy, is corrupt and totally controlled by corporations and capitalists.

[smeagol]

The system, democracy, is corrupt and totally controlled by corporations and capitalists.

So the US should move to next level, with regards to politics?

What is that, boutons_?

Come clean. For once in your life.

[boutons_]

Smegma, what's the "next level" and GFY

[AntiChrist]

Cramer CNBC are corporate employees, are entertainers, not journalists.

All of their fake news is only to sell ads to other corps, NOT to expose themselves and corps as frauds and crooks.

Follow the money, and TV's money comes from ads sold. Ain't nothing pro bono, no independent crusaders and investigators.

Cramer ain't no singular bad apple. The system, democracy, is corrupt and totally controlled by corporations and capitalists.


I agree with you _boutons. It would be much better if the government controlled all media. I will make that happen. Just another part of my war against corporations and eeeevill capitalists.

[boutons_]

"much better if the government controlled all media"

interesting idea. Pull it out your ass or is that a Repug "principle"?

[Ignignokt]

boutons...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Missed you man!

[cool hand]

jon stewart is a show killer


ever wonder what happened to crossfire?

....goodbye mad money.

[boutons_]

CNBC and Mad Money audience meters both dropped in the "highly valued" 25-49 segment.

If either one had been predicting this financial disaster like Nouriel Roubini and a couple others did with great accuracy, they would have gained credibility and audience, but they were nothing but, we should assume knowledgeable, cheerleaders for the financial sector, so they are, as Stewart pointed out, as guilty as the financial sector.

[ploto]

The most interesting part of what Cramer said was basically that not only are all these guys his friends, but also to some he owes his early employment in the financial sector. And so he never really examined their claims or investigated anything they said. He claims he just assumed they would all tell him the truth.

[Ignignokt]

Cramer is not clean hear.

But what happened here was a classic case of attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Santellini and Cramer spoke out against the administration, boom Rich and Stewart attacked.

[Ignignokt]

Here's Cramer warning of the economic collapse and warning bernanke.
HR4q-X3rX-w


Here's CNBC playing cheerleader..<sarcasm>

NUbiOEB5Ql0

[Ignignokt]

Jim Cramer even here saying that people should be put to prison for the collapse, before Stewart takes claim for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXhv8-PE-1k

[LnGrrrR]

Any idea what the answer could be?

The court jester usually gets away with alot more than royal advisors.

[InK]

Santellini and Cramer spoke out against the administration, boom Rich and Stewart attacked.

Santellini and ( Cramer to a lesser extend) got attacked for specific statements they made, which had little/ nothing to do with the policy's of Obama administration. If you want to say that the reason behind the attacks is their critic of the Obama camp, that's fine, but that is your unfounded opinion, not some kind of fact, as you try to present it. Boom.

[RandomGuy]

If one googles the words "real estate bubble" one can see the progression of the idea that housing prices went on an unsustainable path.

It starts in one real estate periodical in 2005 or so, then progressed into a few more trade journals, then progressed to some of the business press, and got picked up by the mainstream press in early 2007ish.

I kinda thought it was unsustainable starting around in 2006, when some in the business press started asking some rather important questions.

The more I found out, the more alarmed I was.

I think that some kind of nastiness was around the corner was obvious to a lot of people, just not to the people who could have acted to prevent it.

I would refer to a really good article in the Economist about efficient markets:

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13240822

Basically, the market can be irrational, and can outlast one's ability to keep one's job, if that person was contrarian and a CEO. Any CEO that didn't buy into the fad, was thought to have been an underperforming wussy.

[Winehole23]

Basically, the market can be irrational, and can outlast one's ability to keep one's jobOn the downside it also can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Caveat emptor.

[DarrinS]

Evidently, Cramer has a sense of humor.


http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=297633

[RandomGuy]

Evidently, Cramer has a sense of humor.


http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=297633

Kramer is a decent guy.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not defending Cramer's behavior, I just didn't enjoy the way the whole thing was produced. The guy was cornered and had no way to defend himself. Even if you hate the guy, the whole thing just felt wrong. It looked to me like Cramer was really caught off guard and wasn't expecting it.

If Stewart ever does this to a more popular person, it could really backfire.

Good. These fuckers are issuing advice to thousands, maybe millions of people. If it gets people on TV to actually THINK about what they're saying, I'm happy.

Oh my god! Poor Cramer, who's made millions. Poor Cramer, who gave advice to people who subsequently lost millions.

Maybe next time, an on-air personality will actually double-check the bullshit he's spewing.

[LnGrrrR]

If one googles the words "real estate bubble" one can see the progression of the idea that housing prices went on an unsustainable path.

It starts in one real estate periodical in 2005 or so, then progressed into a few more trade journals, then progressed to some of the business press, and got picked up by the mainstream press in early 2007ish.

I kinda thought it was unsustainable starting around in 2006, when some in the business press started asking some rather important questions.

The more I found out, the more alarmed I was.

I think that some kind of nastiness was around the corner was obvious to a lot of people, just not to the people who could have acted to prevent it.

I would refer to a really good article in the Economist about efficient markets:

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13240822

Basically, the market can be irrational, and can outlast one's ability to keep one's job, if that person was contrarian and a CEO. Any CEO that didn't buy into the fad, was thought to have been an underperforming wussy.

When I started seeing the "Flip your House" shows I knew the market was screwed. It's not like housing is some brand new technology. What, no one realized you could just flip houses before 2005, and houses would automatically gain value and you'd always be able to sell your house? Get the f out of town.

[LnGrrrR]

You know, after watching the interview, I give credit to Cramer for going on the show. But he can't get past the fact that he was pulling those same tricks earlier. It's tough to proclaim yourself as a public defender when you were involved in those same games.

Edit: Also, why are/were so many economic people retarded? What, wealth always increases? Really? Honestly?

[PixelPusher]

it's tough to proclaim yourself as a public defender when you were involved in those same games.


+1

[Ignignokt]

Santellini and ( Cramer to a lesser extend) got attacked for specific statements they made, which had little/ nothing to do with the policy's of Obama administration. If you want to say that the reason behind the attacks is their critic of the Obama camp, that's fine, but that is your unfounded opinion, not some kind of fact, as you try to present it. Boom.

oh, you mean to say the timing was coincidental. Cramer and santinelli made remarks about Obama's economic plan. Stewart and Co, digged up and cherry picked financial news on CNBC that helped their premise in this whole red herring.

Red Herring = "hey, dude you shouldn't eat that pizza at this time of night." other guy responds with "Oh yeah, didn't you use to do delivery for dominos during graveyard"

Not only that, but stewart was insuch a rush to bring down cramer he used a video out of context and didn't do sound journalism.<yeah i know it's a comedy show, but if he's going to be serious in his segments, then go at it 100%)

Cramer has said on his show that his advice is not for those investing for security but is for those with discretionary income, but that doesn't matter to Stewart who is a big pompous ass and tries to make this all about "Finance is not a game". By that point Cramer was too intimidated infront of the kangaroo zombie court of the Daily show to defend himself infront of those who probably didn't know that CNBC existed.

Stewart never watched Cramer's show, he just did what his crackpot team of writers told him to say, and he could care less, because he spews propaganda disguised as comedy. Propaganda doesn't have to come from a serious outfit, it was used in cartoons in WW2. And if Stewart wants to operate out of the "clown nose on, Clown nose off" scenario, that's fine. But he should know that he's a part of the problem despite the network he works for.

[ChumpDumper]

Comedy Central.

[boutons_]

Stewart uses humor to great effect, mocking the mockable, skewering the skewerable, saying the stuff the corporate sanitized, vetted "news" "journalists" absolutely refuse to touch.

To dimiish TDS as comedy is not to pay attention.

[LnGrrrR]

Not only that, but stewart was insuch a rush to bring down cramer he used a video out of context and didn't do sound journalism.<yeah i know it's a comedy show, but if he's going to be serious in his segments, then go at it 100%)

You know Jon Stewart already apologized for this, right? If so, then what's the point of bringing it up?



Cramer has said on his show that his advice is not for those investing for security but is for those with discretionary income, but that doesn't matter to Stewart who is a big pompous ass and tries to make this all about "Finance is not a game". By that point Cramer was too intimidated infront of the kangaroo zombie court of the Daily show to defend himself infront of those who probably didn't know that CNBC existed.

If it's such a 'game' for people with 'disposable income' then why does Cramer seem so outraged by the fact that 'everyday people' are losing money too? Do you think that the mom and pops who took his advice had disposable income?

Honestly Ig, who is that show generated for? High profile business owners with lots of cash on hand? Or the middle to upperclass family who wants to know where to place their cash to build their nest egg?


Stewart never watched Cramer's show, he just did what his crackpot team of writers told him to say, and he could care less, because he spews propaganda disguised as comedy. Propaganda doesn't have to come from a serious outfit, it was used in cartoons in WW2. And if Stewart wants to operate out of the "clown nose on, Clown nose off" scenario, that's fine. But he should know that he's a part of the problem despite the network he works for

Praytell, why would Stewart want to take down CNBC/Cramer, hm? Because it will get him ratings? You don't think there's a wide variety of other targets he could've chosen?

It was a 5 minute skit, and if CNBC/Cramer had left it alone, then no biggie. They CHOSE to make a battle of this. Stop enabling Ig.

[InK]

oh, you mean to say the timing was coincidental.

I reserve my opinion about what prompted Stewart to attack those two guys. It could very well be because they spoke against Obama, but it could just as likely ( probably even more so) be something else.

If person X (Cramer) claims "A"(Obama is fucking up), and also claims "B"( i never said buy Bearsterns) , then person Y (Stewart) finds footage of person X sayin "non-B"(buy Bearsterns) at another occasion, its a wild assumption to assert that person's Y alterior motives for exposing person X as non consistent on the "B" statement is becasue he claims "A" as well. If one is to propose an idea like that, it would be a good idea to use something more then "timing" as its sole argumentation.

Lots of things time-coincide, i don't see you arguing all of them. How come if the timing fits the crime? Does Stewart attack the credibility of everyone ( high profiled enough) who speak against the current administration for example may be a good thing to try to establish. Might be hard to do so though, since he himself was at times ( allthought rarely, i admit) critical towards the Obama camp.

It's also a fallacy to assume that the truth value of statement "A" decreases just because of person "X" inconsistency regarding statement "B"( not that you dont know that), allthought it arguably strips Cramer of authority/credibility ( to give such analysis) two fold. First for lying (or not remembering what he said), and secondly because of his assessment of the economic situation as the selfapointed financial expert was so blatently wrong.

You also completely neglect the chronological order of events, suggesting that Cramer got picked off as the target off the bat, when it was obvious to every sane person that he got mixed in this all by himself with his accusation that Stewart's comedy piece portrayed him inaccurately. That's when the whole thing seized to be a gag, and a serious conversation took place at TDS. If you want to call it "nose on, nose off", go right ahead, all that Stewart did is protect the integrity of his own show, when it needed protection. The people who made this into a serious matter, aren't employeed by The Daily Show and Comedy Central, so if you have a problem with this becoming semi -ideological, then go find em voice your concerns to them.


In the land of opinions, in which you forced this conversation, its a lot more plausible to assume that Cramer got attacked for lying, that this mess started becasue CNBC didn't take to kindly to the piece that Stewart did on their network, that Santinelli simply just got called out for beeing a complete dick, all of them far more reasonable then your propaganda based view; they spoke against Obama, they must be punished. But in the end its for Stewart and his staff to know, and the rest of us to speculate.

[RandomGuy]

I reserve my opinion about what prompted Stewart to attack those two guys. It could very well be because they spoke against Obama, but it could just as likely ( probably even more so) be something else.

He didn't really "attack" them specifically, he was simply taking a rather satirical look at the cheerleaders of bubble-capitalism in general.

When they responded and took it personally, that is when it got specific.

Stewart in his original peice obviously intended the criticism to be rather general.

The right though, keeping to its "liberal media conspiracy" myth, found something that fit their confirmation bias, and ran with that, unsurprisingly.

[Ignignokt]

He didn't really "attack" them specifically, he was simply taking a rather satirical look at the cheerleaders of bubble-capitalism in general.

When they responded and took it personally, that is when it got specific.

Stewart in his original peice obviously intended the criticism to be rather general.

The right though, keeping to its "liberal media conspiracy" myth, found something that fit their confirmation bias, and ran with that, unsurprisingly.

What matters more is the sequence of events, cramer and santellini spoke out against the economic plan of the WH. Stewart cherry picked videos in an effort to paint CNBC as cheerleaders for the bubble, yet CNBC has many voices and is not monolithic, CNBC did have warnings about the economic bubble crashing, but instead Stewart tried to destroy the credibility of people who spoke out and picked only a few videos in an effort to slime a network, he probably does not watch.

[ChumpDumper]

CNBC got butthurt about being made fun of on a comedy program.

They made it worse on themselves.

[LnGrrrR]

What matters more is the sequence of events, cramer and santellini spoke out against the economic plan of the WH. Stewart cherry picked videos in an effort to paint CNBC as cheerleaders for the bubble, yet CNBC has many voices and is not monolithic, CNBC did have warnings about the economic bubble crashing, but instead Stewart tried to destroy the credibility of people who spoke out and picked only a few videos in an effort to slime a network, he probably does not watch.

If CNBC isn't presenting one overarching vision of why the economy is the way it is, what's the use of it as a network? Is it like finding your favorite movie critic? Do you pick the anchor whose opinions most match yours and run with his predictions?

[RandomGuy]

If CNBC isn't presenting one overarching vision of why the economy is the way it is, what's the use of it as a network? Is it like finding your favorite movie critic? Do you pick the anchor whose opinions most match yours and run with his predictions?

Heh, that is the way conservatives pick who to believe anyways.

The funny thing is that kind of thinking will get you a big crowd mentality, and large $$$ losses.

That standard lack of critical thinking skills on the part of conservatives like Ignocktwhatthefuckever is sad when it comes to thinking about public policy and politics, but ironically funny when it bites them in the ass financially when the confirmation bias leads them to follow the herd just like they do in politics.

" my favorite commentator says profits are irrelevant, here you go dot.com company, have my money" :lmao

[gtownspur]

Heh, that is the way conservatives pick who to believe anyways.

The funny thing is that kind of thinking will get you a big crowd mentality, and large $$$ losses.

That standard lack of critical thinking skills on the part of conservatives like Ignocktwhatthefuckever is sad when it comes to thinking about public policy and politics, but ironically funny when it bites them in the ass financially when the confirmation bias leads them to follow the herd just like they do in politics.

" my favorite commentator says profits are irrelevant, here you go dot.com company, have my money" :lmao

Do you really believe What LNGRRrrr said, do you understand the fallacy he proposed, that news networks have a duty to have an overarching philosophy into every subject.

Do you honestly believe that?

So you're basically saying that MSNBC should have an overarching view on politicial and financial or that Fox should have an overarching view.

I'm sorry, i thought everyone else wanted more reporting of what goes on and the facts coupled with balanced viewpoints rather than a monolith.

If this is how far you'll bend around and twist to play "red state vs blue state", then that says alot about you.

Furthermore, when presented to this board to you that the fact that CNBC aired multiple viewpoints on the economy and not one, making it false that they were cheerleaders towards the economy, you come up with this attack?

seriously?

Do you all truly believe that news is supposed to be more about advocacy rather than objective reporting?

Make up your mind, advocacy will carry bias with it, hell even pro lifers commit advocacy, are we going to decide which advocacy is good and which is bad?

Does your shitty logic and comatose brain really buy Stewarts argument? Do you even have a clue about journalism, the way news is ran, the diffirence between front page objective news and the editorials, standards, or anything?

Did you actually watch CNBC for 2 straight years and then come up with this conclusion, or was it just a brand new revelation to you after Stewart did his mud flinging on people in a network who spoke out against the WH? Let's see here, some people on a network complained about the WH economic vision, So Stewart decides to slime a whole network and cherry pick videos to help his broadstroke generalization, and on top of that, wether he was right or not, he malicously took a qoute out of context. You're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone that stewart wasn't trying to fling mud. I can't believe you guys. Because you know what?

I don't buy this whole hissy fit of from many of you as genuine, and i for once would like to see Random Guy be honest with himself rather than play defensive because I'm red and he's blue, and because he's a stewart fanboy.

I will ask of you again.

Do you really believe your own bullshit?

[Yonivore]

If CNBC isn't presenting one overarching vision of why the economy is the way it is, what's the use of it as a network?
Okay, #1) To make money for the Network's investors; #2) To do so in an entertaining fashion so as to draw viewers who draw advertisers who pay money to be on your network during a popular (not necessarily informative) show; and a distant #3) To impart whatever value the network claims to be in business to impart, new, weather, entertainment, financial news, sports...etc...

Next question.

[Winehole23]

Cramer got spit-roasted by Stewart. JS can be nasty, and he was nasty, but I thought the humor was on target. I watch CNBC some, and I'd say it's spot-on.

[Yonivore]

Cramer got spit-roasted by Stewart. JS can be nasty, and he was nasty, but I thought the humor was on target. I watch CNBC some, and I'd say it's spot-on.
I understand Jon Stewart's brother is one of those slimy Wall Street executives. Has he ever disclosed this and, if so, was he coached by his bro?

[gtownspur]

Cramer got spit-roasted by Stewart. JS can be nasty, and he was nasty, but I thought the humor was on target. I watch CNBC some, and I'd say it's spot-on.


The times you did get to see it, did you only see one voice on the economic situation or was it varied?

honest question.

thanx.

[LnGrrrR]

Do you really believe What LNGRRrrr said, do you understand the fallacy he proposed, that news networks have a duty to have an overarching philosophy into every subject.

Do you all truly believe that news is supposed to be more about advocacy rather than objective reporting?

Honestly, my question was valid. The point of CNBC is to report on business, yes. But a great deal of the show has the underlying implication that if you watch their show, you will make money. Am I wrong in thinking this? Didn't it say, "In Cramer We Trust" on the promos? What is that if not saying that they have specific answers to raise your wealth?

If above is the case, then it sounds like it would be strange if there were just as many people on the channel being 'counterpoints' to Cramer. Are there any? If so, and Cramer is just one 'viewpoint', why the advertising making him out to be a guru?

CNBC is either news-based, meaning they can show both sides of an issue and not make a 'judgment' call, making their advice worthless. Or they can say, "This is what the news really says, buy X stock" and be useful, but not cover 'both' angles.

If I'm wrong, and there's some way they split the middle, I'd love to know

[RandomGuy]

Do you really believe What LNGRRrrr said, do you understand the fallacy he proposed, that news networks have a duty to have an overarching philosophy into every subject.

Do you honestly believe that?

So you're basically saying that MSNBC should have an overarching view on politicial and financial or that Fox should have an overarching view.

I'm sorry, i thought everyone else wanted more reporting of what goes on and the facts coupled with balanced viewpoints rather than a monolith.

If this is how far you'll bend around and twist to play "red state vs blue state", then that says alot about you.

Furthermore, when presented to this board to you that the fact that CNBC aired multiple viewpoints on the economy and not one, making it false that they were cheerleaders towards the economy, you come up with this attack?

seriously?

Do you all truly believe that news is supposed to be more about advocacy rather than objective reporting?

Make up your mind, advocacy will carry bias with it, hell even pro lifers commit advocacy, are we going to decide which advocacy is good and which is bad?

Does your shitty logic and comatose brain really buy Stewarts argument? Do you even have a clue about journalism, the way news is ran, the diffirence between front page objective news and the editorials, standards, or anything?

Did you actually watch CNBC for 2 straight years and then come up with this conclusion, or was it just a brand new revelation to you after Stewart did his mud flinging on people in a network who spoke out against the WH? Let's see here, some people on a network complained about the WH economic vision, So Stewart decides to slime a whole network and cherry pick videos to help his broadstroke generalization, and on top of that, wether he was right or not, he malicously took a qoute out of context. You're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone that stewart wasn't trying to fling mud. I can't believe you guys. Because you know what?

I don't buy this whole hissy fit of from many of you as genuine, and i for once would like to see Random Guy be honest with himself rather than play defensive because I'm red and he's blue, and because he's a stewart fanboy.

I will ask of you again.

Do you really believe your own bullshit?

1) If you are a financial network, you have a responsibility to report on the state of business and finance. In that you have some duty to be comprehensive in your coverage, yes. Not entirely sure what you are talking about here.

2) I am a financial nerd. I come home and I often watch CNBC, Bloomberg etc., and I read the Economist, the Wall Street Journal when I can, and always read the business section of any newspaper near me.

I have long thought that a lot of the talking heads at CNBC have the characteristic of cheerleaders, i.e. "rah rah" types who would rather play up the good in the economy at the expense of a balanced, nuanced approach that recognizes reality.

When Stewart did his initial satire of the network, I thought it was funny, and rather cogent in its analysis.

What *I* think is hilarious is that you have sucked up the narrative that "the liberal media" is out to get any critics of the administration, and any satire or criticism of those critics is somehow motivated by people "out to get" them for their views.

Yet again, you have sucked up the "liberal media" boogeyman as the thing to blame for all the world's problems.

Do you really believe *your* bullshit?

Probably, because that is what you were told to believe by Fox news and the "conservative" media. You could do so much better and think for yourself, but never will. You like the emotional comfort of being told what to think, and you go right out to places like this, and spew forth the stupidity, bad logic, and downright false crap that floats to the surface in the toilet bowl that is the "right wing" media in this country.

Yay you. Someday you will stop being so lazy and learn to think for yourself, but I won't hold my breath.

[Melmart1]

Cramer may have just re-opened this can of worms this morning:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19/cramer-stewart-fued-conti_n_176778.html

[Ignignokt]

1) If you are a financial network, you have a responsibility to report on the state of business and finance. In that you have some duty to be comprehensive in your coverage, yes. Not entirely sure what you are talking about here..

thanks. you do.



2) I am a financial nerd. I come home and I often watch CNBC, Bloomberg etc., and I read the Economist, the Wall Street Journal when I can, and always read the business section of any newspaper near me.

I have long thought that a lot of the talking heads at CNBC have the characteristic of cheerleaders, i.e. "rah rah" types who would rather play up the good in the economy at the expense of a balanced, nuanced approach that recognizes reality.

When Stewart did his initial satire of the network, I thought it was funny, and rather cogent in its analysis.

I really have that hard to believe from you. Especially since a simple youtube search will turn up Cramer and Santinelli warning people about the markets and the collapse, and Cramer going after Bernanke and the Bush WH.

Once again Random Guy either being dishonest or believing the Stewart narrative that CNBC had a monolithic cheerleading voice.



What *I* think is hilarious is that you have sucked up the narrative that "the liberal media" is out to get any critics of the administration, and any satire or criticism of those critics is somehow motivated by people "out to get" them for their views.

Yet again, you have sucked up the "liberal media" boogeyman as the thing to blame for all the world's problems.

Do you really believe *your* bullshit?

Gawd! Still in defense Red Vs Blue mode.

You have no clue what my argument is, which didn't involve the liberal media or boogeymen.

This argument is all about Stewart, if you equated Stewart with being the Liberal Media, then you have you're own problems to deal with.

I'm not going to go into the whole Stewart thing again, Ink gets it, even though he disagrees. You on the other hand still has your arms crossed at the end of the sandbox with a spoiled brat look mad because i won't play nice.

THe Real Liberal Media, MSNBC was silent throughout all this Cramer vs Stewart show.


Probably, because that is what you were told to believe by Fox news and the "conservative" media. You could do so much better and think for yourself, but never will. You like the emotional comfort of being told what to think, and you go right out to places like this, and spew forth the stupidity, bad logic, and downright false crap that floats to the surface in the toilet bowl that is the "right wing" media in this country.

Thank you Random Guy, Maybe had the timing of all the events been so easy to make this narrative, then you could use such tried and true attack of accusing me of getting all my info from the Big Bad Mean Conservative Press.


Yay you. Someday you will stop being so lazy and learn to think for yourself, but I won't hold my breath.

I think you hold your breath whenever you read peoples post and then passout, it makes sense why you hardly ever have a clue about the original topic.:lol

[RandomGuy]

thanks. you do.

I really have that hard to believe from you. Especially since a simple youtube search will turn up Cramer and Santinelli warning people about the markets and the collapse, and Cramer going after Bernanke and the Bush WH.

Once again Random Guy either being dishonest or believing the Stewart narrative that CNBC had a monolithic cheerleading voice.


Gawd! Still in defense Red Vs Blue mode.

You have no clue what my argument is, which didn't involve the liberal media or boogeymen.

This argument is all about Stewart, if you equated Stewart with being the Liberal Media, then you have you're own problems to deal with.

I'm not going to go into the whole Stewart thing again, Ink gets it, even though he disagrees. You on the other hand still has your arms crossed at the end of the sandbox with a spoiled brat look mad because i won't play nice.

THe Real Liberal Media, MSNBC was silent throughout all this Cramer vs Stewart show.
.

Thank you Random Guy, Maybe had the timing of all the events been so easy to make this narrative, then you could use such tried and true attack of accusing me of getting all my info from the Big Bad Mean Conservative Press.

I think you hold your breath whenever you read peoples post and then passout, it makes sense why you hardly ever have a clue about the original topic.:lol

I take it Ignoktwhatthefuckever = gtownspur ??

My statements never indicated that I though CNBC was some monolith. The phrase "a lot of" does not mean "all". Perhaps I should have added the word "generally" to make it more clear to you.

Further, I am smart enough to know that satire is, by definition, an exaggeration. Stingingly accurate sometimes in the thrust of things, but still an exaggeration.

Perhaps the liberal media boogeyman isn't your schtick. You will have to pardon me for making the assumption. People who talk and think like you seem to here, almost always slip into that act at some point.

The rest of it really isn't coherent enough to address.

[Crookshanks]

This is all moot now because Cramer has "seen the light" and is now singing the praises of the Obama administration. He'd rather be liked than right!

[clambake]

well, he wasn't right, so, i guess he wants to be liked.

you should consider that option yourself.

[DarrinS]

Evidently, Stewart is no longer just a comedian, but a journalist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/what-if-jon-stewart-inste_b_175503.html





What If Jon Stewart, Instead of John King, Interviewed Dick Cheney

Jon Stewart's Jim Cramer interview was a pivotal moment -- not just for Stewart, Cramer, and CNBC but also for journalism. It was a bracing reminder of what great research and a journalist more committed to getting to the truth than to landing the big get -- and keeping the big get happy, and ensuring future big gets -- can accomplish.

Stewart kept popping into my head as I watched John King interview Dick Cheney on Sunday. Each time King let Cheney get away with spouting gross inaccuracies and revisionist history, I kept thinking how different things would have been had Stewart been asking the questions. Stewart without the comedy and without the outrage -- just armed with the facts and the willingness to ask tough questions.

King opened the interview by showing clips of President Obama saying that his administration had "inherited an economic crisis" and "inherited a big mess." He then asked Cheney: "Did you leave him a mess?"

"I don't think you can blame the Bush administration for the creation of those circumstances," responded Cheney. "It's a global financial problem... So I think the notion that you can just sort of throw it off on the prior administration, that's interesting rhetoric but I don't think anybody really cares a lot about that."

"You are pretending that you are a dew-eyed innocent," Stewart might have said, as he did to Cramer. But even without Stewartesque flourishes, shouldn't King have challenged Cheney's ludicrous claim with some facts about how the fervor for financial deregulation championed by the Bush administration fueled the economic meltdown? Instead, King let Cheney off the hook: "We may get back to how we got here. But let's talk about where we are."

But what's the point of having one of the architects of how we got here on your show if you're not willing to ask them questions about it?

Is there any sentient human being -- other than Bush apologists -- disputing that the Bush administration left Obama a mess? And that for 8 years, the Bush administration promoted the financial deregulation that led to the meltdown? Indeed, as recently as last spring, Hank Paulson was calling for less supervision of Wall Street.

What if King had asked Cheney to respond to the way the SEC was dismantled under his watch, citing quotes about SEC chair Chris Cox from former SEC officials. Here are three King could have picked from: "[Cox] in many ways worked to dismantle the SEC"; "It was like someone poured molasses on the enforcement division"; "Cox worshiped at the same altar of deregulation as the rest of the Bush administration worshiped at."

After all, even Cox, testifying in front of the Senate Banking Committee in September, admitted that deregulation was the cause of the crisis.

But we got none of that from King. Instead, Cheney was allowed to deliver the fully discredited GOP talking points that try to pin the blame for the economic crisis on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "As best I can tell," Cheney told King, "from looking at the evidence, the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was one of the key ingredients that caused the subsequent financial problem and economic recession... and I think the collapse of those two institutions, as much as anything, contributed to the financial difficulties we've been living with since."

I could just hear Stewart saying: "But Fannie and Freddie were specifically prohibited from the kind of subprime lending that was at the heart of the meltdown. In fact, Fannie and Freddie could only buy mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their incomes, which is the exact opposite of a subprime loan. So, could you tell us exactly what 'evidence' you have been 'looking at' that would lead you to say they 'caused' the financial crisis?"

Instead, King again let Cheney off the hook, saying he wanted "to move on to other issues." And even when King did bring out data to refute Cheney's spin, he repeatedly undercut the impact by distancing himself from the hard, cold facts that he was quoting. Check out this master's class in how an "objective" journalist can act as if there is no objective reality (mealy-mouthed qualifiers in bold):



"There are people..." "They would say..." "And they have some numbers to back up their case."

These are not some numbers that belong to some people being trotted to make their case. These numbers are actual data -- empirical evidence. It would be as if King were interviewing a flat-earther and asked him: "There are people on this planet, watching this interview right now, who would say that the earth is round. And they have some pictures taken from outer space to back up their case. So what would you say to someone out there who is saying that?"



King's desperate attempt to distance himself from the question would be laughable if it weren't so repellent. It's not him asking Cheney why we should listen to him. It's not him putting forward objective data. It's some strawman viewers, so please don't hold it against him. And please, please come back. And tell your friends.

This is the problem with King and too many in the Pontius Pilate traditional media: They are so caught up in the obsolete notion that the truth always lies in the middle, they have to pretend that there are two sides to every issue -- and even two sides to straightforward data.

Someone needs to kidnap King and take him to a deprogramming center -- preferably one run by Jon Stewart and his team.

That way, the next time a denier of truth or an apologist for the broken status quo -- whether Republican or Democrat -- sits across from him, King can skip the qualifiers and do what journalists are supposed to do: hold public figures' feet to the fire. If it will help, he can even crib a line or two from Stewart's Cramer interview:



KING: Mr. Cheney, these Wall Street guys were on a Sherman's March through their companies financed by our 401ks and all the incentives of their companies were for short-term profit. And they burned the fucking house down with our money and walked away rich as hell and you guys knew that that was going on.



Okay, King could have dropped the "fucking" -- but how much would you have paid to watch Cheney's response to that one?

Until the Jon Stewart Journalism Deprogramming Center opens for business, all TV interviewers should ask themselves a simple question right before the camera goes on: What would Jon Stewart do?

[LnGrrrR]

Here's a thought for you Igniknot: If Cramer DID think the market was about to tank, do you think he would tell his viewers the honest answer, to take money out of the stock market and put it into valuables like gold?

Or would he try to find 'smart buys' in the stock market, because doing the above would probably tank his show/make it unwatchable?

Would he do the latter, even if the chances of him finding said 'miracle' stock were slim?

[Ignignokt]

Here's a thought for you Igniknot: If Cramer DID think the market was about to tank, do you think he would tell his viewers the honest answer, to take money out of the stock market and put it into valuables like gold?

Or would he try to find 'smart buys' in the stock market, because doing the above would probably tank his show/make it unwatchable?

Would he do the latter, even if the chances of him finding said 'miracle' stock were slim?


This is why i take people like winehole who has yet to respond as a joke and dishonest one at that.

A simple youtube search found this.

be74I42NAQQ

[Winehole23]

The times you did get to see it, did you only see one voice on the economic situation or was it varied?

honest question.

thanx.There's always been contrarians in the mix. Time was, for the point and laugh factor. Now they get a respectful hearing. I don't really see how it's unfair or even controversial to say CNBC reported on, believed in and promoted the bubble economy.

Puzzled,

WH23

[Winehole23]

This is why i take people like winehole who has yet to respond as a joke and dishonest one at that.To respond to what, please?

[ploto]

Cramer may have just re-opened this can of worms this morning.

No- he's old news already but NBC is still trying to get him into the spotlight after he looked so awful on TDS. Like I said before: Cramer showed what a bully he is. He talked tough on other shows and put his tail between his legs when confronted face-to-face.