krose wrote:Why? Well, because Bashir is a liberal host of a liberal opinion show, and Romney is the conservative candidate. The fact that his religion has additional scriptures that condemn his behavior just adds to the interest level of the "Mitt the Mendacious" point that Martin was making that day. It was obviously used as a "gotcha" point.
If he's only going to use his time to use this tactic against conservative candidates with religions the public is suspicious of, then he is guilty of the exact thing Stewart is attacking for. Saying he's a liberal attack dog doesn't excuse his behavior. It describes it.
This "everyone does it" line of argument doesn't stand up to the evidence.
Obama lies all the time. I'm pretty sure his professed religion generally condemns that sort of thing. Bearing false witness and all that.
To address another point in your first post that I didn't, the your defense of Schweitzer's comments wasn't the greatest either.
He's the one bringing up Romney's Mexican polygamist associations because he's acting as a Democratic surrogate trying to inject that into the media conversation because people are uncomfortable with it. That it's true Romney would prefer to not address it isn't relevant to the fact that it's a relatively irrelevant piece of information Schweitzer wants people to think about because it is politically damaging. Stewart, rightfully, mocks that.
Your defense of this is akin to Republicans trying to defend the deplorable practice of calling Obama Barrack HUSSEIN Obama by pointing out that this technically is his middle name. They're clearly playing on people's fears and bigotry associated with that middle name even though he doesn't use the first, middle, last naming convention anymore than I do. "What?! What I'm saying is true!" does not excuse this behavior. And it doesn't absolve Schweitzer's game playing either.