58 votes

Video Update: The Judge on The Daily Show 10/27

Full episode including extended interview (thanks drheyde):


Via Facebook...

Judge Andrew Napolitano
will be on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart this Thursday 11PM ET on Comedy Central to discuss "It's Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong"


I'm sure it will be a good interview. Hope they talk about Dr. Paul!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I was definitely disappointed...

...with the Judge on this one. He's got to calm down and focus. Jon threw so many softballs that the Judge could have hit out of the park. (And what the heck was the "Reggie Jackson" thing? C'mon, Judge!)

I was constantly thinking that this was the moment the Judge could educate Jon enough to swing him into our court.

Alas, not this time.

Youtube version???

International viewers can't watch daily show clips...I know there are a lot of us out there

We can. We just have to go to

We can.
We just have to go to http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclus...

youtubes of the dailyshow will be deleted very quickly...

my Ron Paul video collection:

(4 years RP, over 2300 videos)


Not in the UK anyway

Or anywhere else in Europe I've tried

I'm sorry, that you cannot...

"Or anywhere else in Europe", well you are wrong on that, I am in Austria and I have no problem.
For years I had never problems to see the episodes on the DailyShow-HP, at least in Austria it's like that...

my Ron Paul video collection:

(4 years RP, over 2300 videos)

Ron Paul wins both tallies at GOP pres. straw poll in Iowa

Des Moines, Iowa (CNN) -– Ron Paul has won two separate tallies for the National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll.

Paul won both the Iowa voters-only count at the Saturday convention in Des Moines as well as the tally of non-Iowans who participated.

In the Iowa vote result, Paul took 82%. Following him were Herman Cain with 14.7%, Rick Santorum with 1%, Newt Gingrich with 0.9%, Michele Bachmann with 0.5%, Rick Perry with 0.5%, Gary Johnson with 0.2%, with Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman zero percent.

430 votes were cast in that tally.

In the tally of non-Iowans who voted, Paul won 26 votes followed by Cain at 25, Perry and Santorum tied at 16, Gingrich at 11, Bachmann at 6, Romney at 1 and Huntsman and Johnson with zero votes.

101 votes were cast in that count.

Though Paul won these tallies, the NFRA has not yet officially endorsed a candidate. Delegates to the convention will decide that later Saturday.

Straw Polls Versus the Iowa Caucus

Okay, congratulations on winning another straw poll. Now, can we focus solely on Dr. Paul winning the 2012 Iowa Caucus on January 3rd.

Ron Paul wins NFRA Iowa straw poll - 10/29

Ron Paul wins NFRA Iowa straw poll - 10/29 - updates!

Ron Paul wins both tallies at GOP pres. straw poll in Iowa

Ron Paul @ NFRA
The National Federation of Republican Assemblies is having a “presidential preference convention” in Des Moines today.
Read more: http://okhenderson.com/2011/10/29/ron-paul-nfra/

Ron Paul targets terrorists ... inside U.S. government
'I fear erosion of our liberties, economy more than any foreign adversary'
Read more: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=361829#ixzz1cCFoCOZU

Paul presses campaign themes before mass audience exit Read more:

What are bleeding heart liberals...

They like to save everyone from their mistakes by giving them more chances to make the same mistakes.

Why should American behave this way? You work hard for your money, why would you want to just piss it away by giving it to the poor in spirit for some booze, or drugs.

I have personally seen some people take in burned out bums and losers into their homes attempting to clean them up,(reform them) give them plenty of food and clothing.
Within a couple of days to a week the place is trashed. Why, because those lost souls (burned out with hate and blame) do not have the right attitude about live and living.

They would rather stand in judgement of those that have succeeded in life, then to strive to become a success by giving up the little resentments they have. Until these people change their minds, give up their hating and blaming, they will never going to stand up on their own two feet.

Many of these bleeding hearts really resent these mentally, spiritually and emotionally people, so they give in to feel good about themselves. That is a trap. Don't resent them, pity them. They are lost but by giving in and giving them all you money is wrong. It just cripples them and stunts their growth. They will never grow if you (government) keeps endorsing their state by coming to their rescue..

STOP RESENTINT PEOPLE and you will grow yourself and you will not feel guilty everytime someone holds out their hand for a free bee..

What the poor in spirit need is enlightenment, not a free ride from the government.

Here is how to help them..Go to.. http://www.fhu.com/

Ask for coping strategies..Any type to resentment that has traumatized you, the technique in this CD will help you cope with life.

I too thought Jon Stewart's

I too thought Jon Stewart's concepts were well put. I feel Ron Paul could have easily persuaded the audience of the Libertarian point of view re large gov't and its ineffectiveness and lack of respect for the constitution. Stewart's first concept re taxes and the fire dept is a municipal issue and not to be confused with a federal service which Stewart implied was needed. However Stewart's larger point of gov't controlled utilities is well taken. It has been nothing but a royal rip-off here in Ontario with the privatization of all utilities and the corporatization of municipalities. Ron Paul needs to explain and define what "free markets" are and how they should work. I do not feel that Napolitano answered or convinced anybody in this regard. Is he just trying to sell his book?

C'mon, answering Jon Stewart isn't THAT hard

A rare misstep by the judge. Stewart presented the defining argument of our time and the Judge spoke of law and philosophy instead of math and dollars.

Look folks, the answer to Jon's questions are not that hard, and Ron himself needs to do better. Right now, the debate goes like this...

(1) Libertarian says: The govt has no business telling me what to put in my body, don't need cradle-to-grave govt help, yada yada yada.

(2) Liberal says: So the govt is the enemy and has no role in (insert sweet cause here) helping our kids get an education, the health of its less fortunate, yada, yada.

(3) Libertarian gets obscure, says things that will NEVER sway a non-libertarian: 'You have to understand, Govt is force, govt is coercion, we didn't even have an income tax before 1913, we didn't need The New Deal, pollution is better taken care of by private property laws,' yada yada.

In step (3) the libertarian SHOULD say meat-and-potatoes things like this:
You liked the Clinton years didn't you, so did I. Were those the times of incredible strife, a tattered, social safety net?, no, not at all. But, adjusted for inflation, govt spending here has exploded by 40% since then, and why? Without inflation, govt doubled Jon, and why? Because the left and the right and good-hearted people like you Jon didn't pay attention in 2003 when Medicare D was passed, didn't ask 'can we afford that,' nor when No Child Left Behind doubled the size of the Dept of Education because well, "No Child Left Behind," can't go wrong with a name like that right? "Patriot Act," nothing sounds better than that right?

There is still a huge federal govt under, for example, Ron Paul's plan to cut a trillion dollars. His plan makes govt only moderately smaller than during the Clinton years, but we can't have that debate, no, you're not as interested in talking about the explosion in the size of govt since Clinton, because why, big govt intentions are good? We're broke and our kids and grandkids are screwed Jon, our good intentions aren't going to matter worth a damn to them, let's talk about that."

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

I absolutely LOVE The Judge,

I absolutely LOVE The Judge, and I thought he did not do right, and missed an overwhelming opportunity to knock Jon's sox off. I dunno why he was so seemingly dogmatic and not there with real stuff, but he did not truly hold up his end of the convo at all. Hell, Jon almost convinced me to his side. LOL. He should have asked more "socratic" questions. The audience did not get to think. I was disappointed.
AND PS..Do the American people even KNOW that the vote to start a Dept of education was (something like) 206 to 212? Something like 6 votes in Congress made that department...why doesn't anyone mention THAT?

great feedback from laissez faire

i commend your feedback. i am consolidating feedback as this is so very critical and has not been done before and there is a serious urgency for this.

pls feel free to email similar feedback to t.sha55@yahoo.com

the oppor to seal the deal w/ jon stewart or audiences thru his show so to speak was once again lost.

i have some ideas and would love to hear from others like laissez faire.



Agree on all points. Before 1989 and the Department of Environmental Protection there was 0 tolerance for pollutants in any environmental cleanups. Tidbit I just gleamed from talking with a friend of mine from DEP enforcement.

I also still can't fathom why libertarians never bring up private market solutions. Any "sweet cause" can be handled more efficiently by a private organization where donations are voluntary and those in charge are held accountable to those who donate. I'm sick and tired of being labeled "anti education" or "against the poor" because we don't endorse coercive redistribution of wealth.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

that is

an excellent point.

that being said,

i don't see anything wrong with the discussion between the Judge and Jon Stewart

Anyone know if there is a youtube version?

I can never get the Daily Show player to work on my mac.

Not Good at All

I am pretty disappointed by Napolitano's performance in The Daily Show. He couldn't answer Stewart's questions well at all. For the Judge it seemed that being in the show and trying to be funny (in which he failed badly) was far more important than trying to answer Stewart's questions as well as possible, that is, in a way that liberal based audience of the show would understand him and the libertarian philosophy.

If I would have not known the Judge and his thinking from other sources before-hand and this would have been the first time I saw him, I would have thought "what a annoying mafioso looking guy". I don't think his performance brought many new people to the Liberty Movement and many who already had a negative attitude towards libertarianism got confirmation to their biased attitudes.

Very sad.
On a more positive note I would say that this interview should be used as a learning material for future interviews and debates with progressives on the role of government. For the left wingers one needs to use other kind of language and emphasize different things than to right wing audience. He should have told in which issues people like Kucinich, Nader, etc. are completely on the same page with him. Or say that there is actually many left anarchists (Bakunin, Kropotkin as the extreme cases) who also understood the federal government as a brutal force. So the Judge's performance is great example what NOT to do with a liberal based audience.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

It was not as bad as you make it sound.

Nobody is going to change the world with a ten minute interview on a comedy show. What made it a tough interview for the Judge was that he refused to take the position of an anarcho-capitalist and argued as a minarchist. When you make the (correct)argument that government is inherently evil, you cannot then make a coherent argument for limited government.

The Daily Show has a huge

The Daily Show has a huge following. When Jon Stewart interviews you for 5 minutes it has more impact than being on Fox News 50 times. For a BIG chunk of under 30s, the Daily Show and to a lesser extent Colbert is their *only* source political of news.

Agree 100%

I found it very disappointing as well. Stewart brought up some very valid points that we (the liberty movement) need to take a lesson from to better prepare ourselves for these line of questions.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Good Comment

I would say The Judge did try to win over some listeners by praising Occupy Wall Street. But then he turns around and says things like "Selfishness is a virtue." You and I probably agree with him and understand what he's saying as libertarians, but like you said, Stewart's audience is coming from a different place and in the end the Judge probably confused or irritated more listeners than anything. I think before the interview he already decided no one was going to listen to him so his goal was just to have fun and clown around!

Don't be so hard on Mr. Stewart..

I have read allot of grumblings on Mr. Stewart's questioning or interview of Judge Napolitano. Some of these grumblings seem to infer that Mr. Stewart is or was trying to undermine the libertarian philosophy or discredit it. I don't know what Mr. Stewart's true motivations are or were because I do not know him personally or have had any conversation with him.

What I saw was a very respectful interview that Mr. Stewart gave, if anyone was paying attention, that has given some insight to the non corrupt progressive state of mind and the challenges of trying to get each side to understand each other. Try getting an interview with Cris Matthews or Bill O'Reilly to be this respectful of another persons point of view and to allow them to express their point of view without them shoving what they thing or want their viewer to think down your throat.

One of the biggest points was that the progressives don't trust the free market anymore because they don't understand that what we are going through is not a product of a free market but an outcome of government crony capitalism.

The progressive put a blind naive faith in the government to not be corrupt and for the moneys that it collects to not be wasted or mismanaged and to prosecute fraud. They also put a blind faith into the voters to stop voting the criminals into office. Eons of time has proven this to be not true.

Remember Mr. Stewart threw Ron Paul a bone after the Ames straw poll blackout. Why are some of those here so quick to throw Mr. Stewart under a bus because he has some respectful critical questions about libertarians. Is this not what some of this is about respectful critical thinking and questions.

P.S Judge Napolitano future supreme court nominee! This would be a good sight to see!

hope for the best

Very good points gimick!

Very good points gimick! Excellent post!

Response to The Judge on The Daily Show

I am a fan of both The Judge and Jon Stewart. Libertarians do such a bad job of explaining their position when they are on The Daily Show. The Judge could have done a much better job presenting liberty to Jon Stewart's young, leftist audience. I was so interested by this interview, I wrote a blog about it and those of you looking to understand and refute Jon Stewart's arguments may find a starting place with this article.


Great blog, and I sure agree

Great blog, and I sure agree with you. I am not a Libertarian. I hold some of their beliefs but am more of a traditional Republican. I feel the same way about both people as you do. I swear the things the Judge said actually turned me MORE off Libertarianism. It was what he said and how he said it. Oh well..You would have done much better than he.

Thanks for your blog article.

Thanks for your blog article. I was surprised when read it that how much it was like a expanded version of my comment.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

great blog

really enjoyed reading it!

stewart's questions

reminded me of mike wallace's when he interviewed ayn rand:


the part where they debate about labor unions. around 4:10 in the video...her answers are fantastic.

not that the judge wasn't awesome, cause he was as always. i find the parallel interesting. that after all these years and where we are now, the debate between individualism and collectivism should still be around.

Jon Stewart always acts as if

Jon Stewart always acts as if any reducing of government means that libertarians must want no governmnent at all. He cannot seem to respond to the idea of reducing government but always assumes that any attempt at reduction means total elimination. I wish somebody would set him straight on that. He has been very helpful and respectful of Ron Paul and libertarians for the most part.