I was reading an interview with Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and he had some interesting things to say.

On the current politics: "It feels like the right is trying to take us back to a sort of nostalgic world that actually never existed in the first place. It's sort of this dream that they had of what the world was like, and they're trying to make everyone go back there, not realizing that--when was that? The Forties, when we dropped an atomic bomb? The Fifties, McCarthy? They forget. There was no golden age. People were still gay in the Forties and Fifties. And the left is trying to take us to sort of this utopian world that would be not only impossible to live in but unbearable."

Hmmm...interesting point of view. I think he might be onto something.

On cable news channels: "Pundits should no longer be allowed on these stations. People who have an advocacy group should be cut out of the loop. Because they are not advancing the discussion, they're advancing their cause. News organizations should be discriminating enough to go, 'No, lady from Pro-Families for Working America Flag Tasty Food Group, you're not coming on our show because you don't think. You're dogma. You're a knee-jerk whatever-it-is to your cause, and you are not important to this discourse 'cause you're not about understanding, you're just about getting your way.'"

I shy away from absolutes, but in general I agree that pundits should be left out of political round-table type discussions. I mean, have you ever listened to these people? Well, you shouldn't because they'd never bother to listen to you.

On leadership in face of adversity: "In many respects, it's easier, because you're dealing with an issue you care so deeply about and is much more relevant to the rest of the country. I once got to interview Giuliani after the 9/11 thing, and I said, 'As horrible as that was, was it easier to be mayor then?' And he said, 'Yeah.' And I completely believe it. I'll have to give it to Bush, the speech he gave to Congress after 9/11--it was the only thing I've ever seen him do where I couldn't see the politics behind it. Where you couldn't see the stagecraft... 'Cause he dropped all the bulls**t. You realize what happens when people drop the bulls**t? Drop the politics and you drop the bulls**t and you know what's left? Leadership! ...What page is that in the Churchill biography? 214? Whatever people think of in Giuliani's mayoralty, he handled that event magnificently. Politics went out the window, and he just led. It was great. Why is that so hard? In a non-vomiting situation? Why is it that we need a bomb?"

I share his frustration. Leadership without all the posturing is so refreshing and so rare. However, over the years, my optimism has gone hiding in the closet and I'm afraid that "just leadership" is a near impossibility is today's political world. But I guess that doesn't mean we can't dream that one day it might be a possibility.

On stridency: "I think it's too easy to shout your outrage, because what happens is everybody who even mildly disagrees with you goes away."

Amen! This is why I have respect for people who can quietly present their views and carefully explain them. The shouting matches CNN/FoxNews call discussions are meaningless and only demonstrate how little people know about what they're speaking of. They speak in such a manner to drive off all but the most ardent supporters so that there's no one left to make them logically defend what they're saying.

On the United States of America: "With all that, this is still the greatest government that has ever been tried. In sum total, the good that this government has brought to the world far outweighs the bad. The accomplishment merits great amazement. If any place can hack it, it's this one."

'Nuff said.