Because Nielsen demographics show that the young college crowd hangs on every word Stewart says. He gives them 100% liberal commentary in a humorous vein--and then they turn right around and vote for liberal candidates. It's unfortunate that conservatives don't have something similar: A way to do commentary in a lighthearted and entertaining way. (Though Huckabee comes close on his Fox News show sometimes)

No, Mr. Stewart, SS and Medicare aren't like "good cholesterol." They're drugs we started taking for valid reasons--the end of the extended family meant that children no longer cared for their parents in their old age. But now we can't change or get off the medication, because we're stuck with it. It's a lot like the Vicodin that Dr. Gregory House was taking on the TV show "House MD." He started taking it for a perfectly good reason (pain from a thrombosed leg). But now he can't get off of it.

Obama implied that being a successful businessman *implies* bad character and leads to inequality in society. I read plenty of left-wing blogs, and I have never seen them admire ANY private company for the work it does. Not even Apple Computer. The only businessmen the Left admires are those who back left-wing causes with their money--or who have children who inherit that money and use it to back left-wing causes.

The Left believes it's immoral for some people to be much wealthier than others. They believe that business necessarily leads to inequality. A successful business makes its shareholders and managers--and even many of its workers--wealthy. Those who don't work for that company aren't wealthy.

Not totally true. As candidate in 1992, Clinton had supported the death penalty and had pledged to "end welfare as we know it." And working with Gingrich, he fulfilled that pledge. Clinton was nowhere as far to the Left as Obama and his supporters.

Back in the 1970s when Steve Jobs was working in his garage to build the first Apple computers, he got venture capital from a wealthy investor named Mike Markkula. Markkula dumped $250,000 (which in today's dollars would be over $800,000) into Steve Jobs' little venture. That's what enabled Jobs to finish the design and go into production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Markkula This venture capitalist, Markkula, is the unsung hero of the Apple story. That's how Jobs got the money.

Right now, Uncle Sam is like Terri Schaivo was: A living vegetable, comatose, being kept alive by artificial life support. If the Fed lowered the money supply, our economy would collapse. It's being kept barely alive by $15 trillion in debt. And that's pretty much where the U.S. was in 1937 too, despite FDR's nostrums. It was only his military buildup which really started to put Americans back to work. And of course, once war broke out, drafting 16 million men into the military reduced demand for civilian jobs too.

Which do you think had more effect: Obama's bailouts of public employee unions, or the Federal Reserve pumping over TWO TRILLION DOLLARS of liquidity into the economy? Because there is a good argument to be made that if the Federal Reserve had pumped another $800 billion into the economy, then Obama didn't need to do anything and he could have remained a useless figurehead--a job description that suits him much better than "Commander in Chief."

If they didn't work, then why did Obama agree to extend them? Remember? Last August, you left-wingers were furious that Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for another year. So go argue with him. He's YOUR president, not mine.

He already used that excuse in his speech yesterday. I'm surprised he didn't cite the recent solar eclipse as another reason for our economic troubles.