There was the false equivalency issue at his rally to "restore sanity," and recently he poked fun at the media for asking whether there was a possible similarity between the situation in Egypt and the one in Wisconsin (and other states). First of all, as a teacher, it's important not to dismiss the use of the comparison. If used correctly, it helps students understand differences as well as similarities, and it can help them think more critically. For example, why did the American Revolution succeed with much less violence than the failed Revolution in France, which occurred just several years later? And why did theirs end with a dictatorship and an eventual restoration, whereas ours ended with a Constitutional settlement?
In the case of the Republican governors and other officials in the Midwest, what have we seen lately? An attempt to divide people, the use of police to force people to do a governor's political bidding, cutting off access to a web page to prevent people who opposed a governor from communicating, statements about shooting at peaceful protesters, and a taped conversation in which a governor demonstrates that he is not negotiating in good faith, nor does his explanation make any sense (that is, the collective bargaining rights are not related to the deficit he claims is his focus and raison d'etre). What else? The polls show that these people do not have the support of the majority of citizens.
Thus, what we have here is an attempt to begin to set up a Mubarak-like system, whether they even realize it or not. Stewart, however, should know better. He clearly follows the news, and not just what CNN decides to show. Just because these right wingers may not be successful doesn't mean that they don't want to attain what Mubarak had in Egypt. And even if they are successful, and don't go quite as far as Mubarak, that does not mean that a comparison is ridiculous. It's time for Stewart to take a good look at himself and his own bias, as difficult as that often is for people.
EDIT: It seems as though the idea is that a "serious" person would never think to compare two things that are not very similar, but that is illogical, because then it would be self-evident to the non-deluded. The point of comparing two things is to note the similarities as well as the differences. This is what I was taught in the various schools I attended and this is what I've taught students for years. Another way to consider it is in terms of classic Weberian-style sociology. Thus, there are either similar "social structures" present (or attempts at attaining them) or there are not. If not, so be it, but there is no reason to refrain from discussing it. The fact that so many in the "mainstream media" mentioned it demonstrates that it is not simply the realm of the insane.
EDIT #2: The same day I hear the news that Gadhafi claims that "his people" support him so much that they would die for him (2/28/11), I also hear (on CNN) the governor of New Jersey say that the poll showing strong support for collective bargaining (for state employees), and little support to end that right, must not be accurate because it must have been worded poorly (another major poll showed the same thing, though he didn't even acknowledge its existence). Thus, for me, another point of comparison is the unwillingness to accept undeniable reality. He could have said that he thinks he is right, but instead he chose to deny reality. That is frightening, and consistent with the mentality of a dictator (though of course this does not mean he would become just like Gadhafi if he had that much power). I think the problem here, for some people, is that they are thinking in terms of absolutes rather than degrees, and if that is the case, I can understand why they find this approach incompressible. However, reality is what it is, and the abstract concepts you hold cannot change reality.