On Cramer, “The Daily Show,” and Stewart’s Great Pedestal

I am going to go against the grain here, open myself up to some harsh criticism, and defend Jim Cramer a little bit concerning his appearance on the “Daily Show.” Before I get into this though, I must say I am really not a fan of either of them, which was all the more reason to tune in. John Stewart’s program I don’t enjoy because of his copy and paste style editing through which he attempts to make everyone he has ideological differences with comic fodder and an object of ridicule. Though he isn’t always off the mark, contextual references are hardly included and whatever the program, news article or any various medium which attempts to do this, I immediately switch off, for it is a contorting of a persons words in order to vilify rather than represent fact. Yet, admittedly he is a comedy show so he gets a lot more leeway than say a true news show, but when you take clips from the news or quote people you suppose a responsibility to do it accurately and fully. When it is not it is simply beyond excuse.

Cramer is quite a different matter. I don’t enjoy his program because he is simply just annoying. I don’t like how he plays with dolls and dances around all the time. It just doesn’t instill in me a confidence to put any trust in him concerning what the markets are going to do or where I am going to place my money. However, sometimes a person’s demeanor when they are confronted can change a viewer’s perception and though I still would never have any inkling into placing my trust in Cramer, I still consider him the better man when compared with Stewart.

Stewart of course just laced into Cramer, who I wish stood up for himself a little bit more, but who took it civilly nonetheless. I kind of felt bad for Cramer and felt Stewart was overstepping his bounds by attacking the wrong person. Cramer has unfairly become the poster child of the bad economy, but it is not his fault really. In fact, if Stewart really felt like attacking those responsible, he would be attacking those who share in his ideology and messed up, but God forbid he do that. No, Stewart would much rather go after a messenger or someone who by his very job description has to make calls on the future as a commentator, than have to attack those who are truly responsible. That is not to say people outside of Stewart’s ideology aren’t to blame either, but I am positive he has no problem raising issue with these people.

Now, there is the big difference between Stewart and Cramer, which made Cramer’s treatment so unfair to me. Cramer does economic commentary and attempts to make picks on stocks. If anyone knows anything about stocks, they know that it is always a gamble, no matter whose advice you follow. Stocks are not based in fact, but rather on statistical data and probability, so errors are going to inevitably occur. Though Cramer said he was an expert, to think this means he is going to get everything right 100% of the time is an unfair expectation. Furthermore, if you base your stock picks on someone on TV alone, you are taking a huge risk and if you feel there is no risk, you should have no business buying stocks. Cramer goes out there night after night making calls on the future and weighing probability, not fact, for no fact can be determined from the market. Add in the one fact we do know, the huge text that appears on the screen on his show saying essentially, “Don’t take this advice to be gospel,” and you have the responsibility going to the viewer who should not have put all their security and money on the words of a mere journalist and commentator. If you do the fault is just as much your own as with anything else.

Stewart on the other hand doesn’t have to put his neck out and make calls on the future. No, he is a comedian and criticizes and critiques the past. Now I ask you, which one is more uncertain in its outcome and which one is taking more of the risk? All the risk falls on Cramer and for Stewart to sit back and attack him in such a way when he offers nothing except critiques and criticisms on that which has already occurred is unreasonable. It is nice to be able to sit behind a comfy desk and insult and spit at people when offering nothing of yourself to criticism. Stewart has the ability to call anyone stupid who disagrees with him and insult whoever when he is questioned. He offers nothing, but comedy and insults, while real news people have to put their butt on the line every night.

Stewart’s family apparently lost money listening to Cramer and the CNBC network, and while I can be sensitive to that, the fact remains where was Stewart? Why didn’t he with his omniscient knowledge and wisdom bestow this deep intelligence towards his own mother or viewers, if he knew so much? Why did he sit on his butt? It is because he didn’t know anymore then the rest of us did and now is reaching for straws to attack and tear apart anyone he can, including news commentators, who do real news and have a responsibility to call what may happen tomorrow by the positions they have. All economic commentators are asked to do this, but one needs to weigh their words with what they truly believe and if they believe a commentator and engage in stocks on those very words alone, then the fault does not lie with the commentator, but rather those who took their words as complete truth.

People make mistakes, even people in the news. Every time you turn on the TV you should always remember to carry a handful of salt to sprinkle about because nothing you see is guaranteed to represent what has really happened, is happening, or going to happen. This you need to figure out for yourself concerning all evidence and if you need someone to tell you what to believe and how to act then the fault really lies with you. Cramer sure had nothing to gain out of being wrong. He had his viewership on the line, his reputation, his career and his respect. What did Stewart have? Nothing whatsoever and if he knows so much then he should have at very least told his mother not to invest according to Cramer, but he didn’t so where does the fault lie? It is only in the sleep of reason that people like Cramer, who merely comment and make calls on the markets, are held to account and judged, while those people who actually affected the markets walk away scot free. This is just another example of the misplaced power we put in our television personalities and our willingness to overlook those really responsible.

On My Current Subscription to The McCain/Palin Ticket

What a week it has been. It has been no secret that in prior weeks the economy has been in a downward spiral, however this week it has gone into a complete uncontrollable tailspin. It occurred to me that because of these events, it would be a great opportunity for me to focus on the candidates to see how they both react in a crisis, and after careful review I have decided to support John McCain for president.

Yes, yes, I was pretty much leaning McCain already, but for some reason I had this urge to give Obama the benefit of the doubt week after week, but after this week and his lack of manifesting strong leadership capability, my vote now goes to the McCain/Palin ticket. In case anyone cares (I won’t blame you if you don’t) I will mention a few reasons why.

Monday, after the feces hit the prop concerning AIG, McCain quickly responded to the nation wide financial peril by saying: “You know that there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street. And people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times. And I promise you, we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street. We will reform government."

When Obama jumped right away on this statement, taking McCain completely out of context, I thought that perhaps McCain might have really truly said something completely stupid, but then as I thought about it more objectively I realized that McCain was acting as any leader should during a time of financial crisis. He was reassuring the country about the economy. He came out on the stump declaring that though things looked bad that there was still room for hope and pride in the economy of this great nation. Such statements are needed by our leaders in times of trouble; that we the public may rise up from the ashes of disaster with an optimistic motivation so we may strive ahead to accomplish any task that needs to be completed to better society as a whole. It is extremely important and if we look at it in the context of history; a necessity.

Obama did not do this, but decided his time was better spent attacking McCain on his words and statements in his past, which I feel is counterproductive to what thoughts and feelings a leader should inspire within those who look to him for guidance in times of trouble. Indeed, the only outcome I see when one tries to pass the buck and play the blame game is that we end up focusing on the past when one should be looking to the future in order to find the appropriate solutions in such a volatile situation. I, of course, blame it all on the illuminati though. Mark my words, they have their hand in everything, from the Knights Templar, to my cable going out last night, that spoiled milk in the fridge and Hannah Montana. Sneaky scheming bastards. There is nothing we can really do though, they are too powerful and we might as well just sit back and watch Miley Cyrus usher in the New World Order.

Anyways, it is true that in such an intense, sudden and possibly explosive situation, one may tend to misspeak or draw false conclusions, especially concerning the miniscule amount of information that is available to the candidates. When juxtaposed with the current president, they certainly don’t have nearly as much incoming information, but at the same time, are held to a higher degree of scrutiny than the prevailing commander-in-chief. Therefore, I felt it was only fair to give both candidates some degree of leniency concerning their initial judgments.

However, today McCain came out articulating rather specifically a way to deal with the situation, while Obama said he would wait to hear the plan from the White House before saying anything. When I heard that I couldn’t help but think he wanted to wait on McCain and Bush for two reasons. First, that he could jump all over their plans and attack them on their words, which would benefit him while not really obligating him to offer any real plans of his own. Second, that he could somehow take the credit for any appropriate action proposed by the Republican’s and attempt to connect it to himself.

This may seem unfair, but it hit me that this is a large component of why Obama is so successful. Not only is he extremely articulate, but he has the unique ability to be extremely vague at the same time. This gives him two huge advantages: one, he can interject a subjective interpretation of his own words anytime into a comment made by the opposing party and relate them to one another as long as it pertains to the same topic. By stretching his words to fit that mold he can then claim that his opponents are merely following his lead. Throw in the statement, “I have consistently said…” and it becomes an extremely brilliant, effective tool.

Secondly, Obama will never say anything unless there is a backdoor to the statement. This is a way to retreat from what he has said in case he is ever challenged. This is why you will never hear the words “yes,” or “no” come out of Obama’s mouth, unlike McCain who frequently answers in such ways. Obama knows that if he says “yes” or “no” then his statements become concrete and he cannot dance around them, which he is quite skillful at doing I may add. These tactics have been extremely evident recently when he speaks about foreign relations and the economy. Another trick he utilizes, as do I at times, occurs when he is asked a question which he really has no answer for. He simply changes the subject to one he knows more about. Tangents and attacks are truly his friends, as we saw today when he took questions about the economy; he decided to swerve around the question and speak on education and health care. Important issues yes, but in the middle of a national panic, not a relevant topic to visit.

I have noticed McCain do similar things, but with less frequency and with what has happened the last few days within the stock market, I believe McCain showed himself to be a stronger, more capable leader and one that we will truly need in days like these. He has also showed himself to be polarized to the Bush administration and I felt truly inspired by his words. We need leaders that inspire, that are willing to stand before the people and bring them hope despite difficult circumstances and not someone who throws his arms in the air and says, “We are done for! By the way; it was his fault.” I am not willing to concede, as of yet, that Obama is incapable of this and he may make a great president further on down the line, but concerning my own observations during the past two weeks; he is not ready to lead.

"That's it man! Game over man! Game over!"


This is not the first time Obama has displayed this either. If you recall a few months ago before hurricane season peaked, Obama wanted to dip into the Strategic Oil Reserves to relieve some of the consumers pain at the pump. If he was in charge and all that oil was released into the market then there would have been no help for those caught in the devastation caused by hurricanes Gustav and Ike. However, I always try to remember that with our politicians no effort can be made without shortcomings, yet McCain consistently seems to come out ahead in terms of presidential leadership and that is why, as of now, the McCain/Palin ticket will have my vote this November. You don’t need to agree with me, that’s cool. In fact, I really do welcome civil, intelligent debate no matter who you are. I above all else would just like to encourage anyone who reads these silly words to register to vote this year. What should always be remembered is that an election doesn’t really reflect the true condition, ideals and needs of country as we might think, but rather just the condition, ideals and needs of those who cast their ballots. Many states, if not all, offer online voter registration. I could have found every state website for you all and posted the links, but its just so much easier to try and persuade you to Google it.

I’m just sayin…