June 9, 2009
"Top 10 Highlights of Sarah Palin's Trip to New York."
According to Drudge — "developing" — Palin has responded by calling Letterman "pathetic."
I thought it was good-natured fun, and the audience was surprisingly sympathetic to Palin. (Am I reading the "oohs" accurately? They might have been sympathetic to rats... and slutty stewardesses.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
171 comments:
Well, here's a simple test: substitute Michelle Obama for Sarah Palin (adjusting the regional jokes, e.g. moose jerky, to suit) and consider how people might react.
Letterman is pathetic, and has been for 20+ years already. It's something about that "Look! I'm laughing now!!!11!!" smile that denotes disingenuousness a mile wide. And an inch deep.
That Regis guy has the same "hand in an electrical socket" smile. Both complete wankers, regardless of their wealth.
As for Palin, I saw the clip from Hannideeze interview about 40 times in the past 24 hours on various Fox broadcasts. She's credible until the whole "oh yes, socialism!" nonsense begins. For better or worse, that tact is "insta-loon" in the playbook, so if the Republicans hope to capture back any credibility, they'll have to find a better way of phrasing this sentiment. She was off to a decent beginning there, for a minute. She oughtta build on that, rather than going to the tired, worn cupboard o' cliche's for more "socialism" talk.
As anyone who's watched at a minimum the 2008 election knows, the truth of a statement has nothing to do with anything anymore.
Really, it's only the "slutty flight attendant" line that's remotely controversial. Even the joke about crack is more a slam about NYC itself and a play off of her debate performance.
But the "oohs" from the audience after the slutty reference just prove that much of the audience is of better stock than the host.
Mcg had it right with his "Michelle substitution" test
I know that Palin's public figure, but there appear to be different standards applied to folks based on their politics.
Palin naturally seems to push nearly every cultural button that sets off big city libs. However, even this NYC audience thought Letterman's slut "joke" went way over the line.
Looking forward to the day when Bush Derangement Syndrome is changed to Palin Derangement Syndrome.
veni,
Obama has the government owning two of the big three automakers, personally fired the CEO of GM, has a "salary tsar" setting compensation for the largest banks in the country, and wants to manage the entire health and energy sectors of the economy. Only a loon could think he was a socialist. That is exactly what he is.
Palin was right in the election. All of the "smart set" were dead wrong. All of the self appointed smart conservatives convinced themselves, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Obama was something besides a hard leftist. Palin wasn't fooled and they were. Yet, she is the idiot. Uh huh
haven't heard the clip but i will say this. i often go "oooooh" not to express disapproval, but simply as a way of noting that it was a pretty harsh joke.
its like exclaiming "that's gonna leave a mark."
I picked up that habit in PA, so it might be a yankee thing, but don't quote me on that.
(And when i say Yankee, i am being ironic. I may have a southern accent and i appreciate some things in the southern culture i have lived in for over a decade, i know i am and always will be a yankee.)
Oh Burt, please.
This blog could accurately be renamed Obama Derangement Syndrome Headquarters.
There is so much ODS here that it could keep the country's psychiatrists busy for a lifetime.
FYI-his audiences in attendance are not big city libs. No one from NYC goes to these things.
They are for people who come visit the city from other parts of the country.
Kind of like the people that go see The Lion King and Mama Mia and The Sex and The City tours.
mcg--hillary clinton would be a more appropriate candidate to substitute for sarah palin. im sure hillary clinton has been roasted by letterman ten times as much as sarah palin with a comparably questionable taste.
I didn't realize that DL's ratings had gone up so much in just the last year: link.
@mcg: Is that a new avi?
Why do people want to be so fowl?
The only one I saw was the one about keying Tina Fey's car, and I thought that was funny. Were the other's mean?
Letterman's old. Time for him to retire.
He's still bitter about getting passed over for the Tonight Show even though Johnny really wanted Dave to replace him. Except it wasn't Johnny's call.
And what does Johnny know. Jay kicked Dave's ass for the last 13 years.
11. Leapt onto the stage at Radio City Music Hall to join in the kick-line.
John said..."...she is the idiot. Uh huh."
I agree.
The woman is an idiot.
mccullough said..."Letterman's old. Time for him to retire."
Just signing a new deal.
Sorry, you'll have to stick with Rush and Hannity for your comedy.
11. Leapt onto the stage at Radio City Music Hall to join in the kick-line..
12. Remarked that the aroma from the fart steam that comes out from the vents around Manhattan smells just like a freshly gutted caribou.
chickenlittle said..."I didn't realize that DL's ratings had gone up so much in just the last year."
That was for a single week on 2008, fool.
Ratings change from week to week, always depending on the counter programming and whether they're new or repeats.
Right now he represents a major profit source for CBS and makes 32 million a year.
Probably about 32 million more than you make.
a word on humor.
i once met a guy from who thought i had a big nose. he didn't tell me that but he thought it was funny to make fun of other people with big noses while i was in his presence. I am not sensitive about my nose. it is not cute. it is not small. It is me. I will not get it aesthetically surgicalized. so what. but that kind of making fun of others with the same attribute and being smirky about it is not good natured fun. It is kinda ridiculous. I make fun of my ugly attributes enough to know what is funny about my nose and not.
Another time this guy who was all pro male this and that, was at lunch with me. now he knew i was pretty much on a very tight budget, but when it came time to get the bill he didn't make a move to pay. wondering what i would do? crap, i paid for it. i guess he was pleased that i didn't expect the guy to pay. Funny think is --i think no guy has ever taken me out on a dinner date and paid. ever. my sister and brother-in-law and parents --yes. a guy... no.(not counting my limited dinner dates with my husband after we were married) Fact is that this one guy was kinda smirky about it under his stone cold face. again not funny.
" Jeremy said...
John said..."...she is the idiot. Uh huh."
I agree.
The woman is an idiot.
4:31 PM"
That may well be but she is still smarter than Obama bin Biden and she doesn't need a teleprompter.
Does anyone actually watch Letterman? He stopped being funny sometime around 1993. As for his contract renewal, CBS hired Couric so Letterman's renewal simply means they could find anyone else who is actually talented and wanted to work for them.
David Letterman is a sap, and most people know it.
Sarah Palin's future is brighter than David Letterman's
Probably about 32 million more than you make.
Still, he's losing his edge, and he knows it.
mccullough said: He's still bitter about getting passed over for the Tonight Show even though Johnny really wanted Dave to replace him. Except it wasn't Johnny's call.
And what does Johnny know. Jay kicked Dave's ass for the last 13 years.
Exactly, Dave hasn't been funny since. However, the suits don't always make the right call; Conan is tanking the Tonight Show.
maybe there is just too much comedy on tv. when johnny carson was on tv he didn't have comedy station, snl, mad tv, three or four other late night shows to compete with. there was j. carson and before that jack parr. now we are flooded with humor and comedy and it is just not funny any more.
it's his fault or our fault as viewers of comedy who have become overweight viewers so much that a simple meal twice a day was not good enough.
face it america we are gluttons in so much of what we eat and take in our minds and bodies.
"I know that Palin's public figure, but there appear to be different standards applied to folks based on their politics."
And based on how hypocritical and stupid they are.
@mcg: Is that a new avi?
Yes, it's MUL's fault :) (Not really, but he knows what I mean.)
Why do people want to be so fowl?
I'm not eggsactly sure.
Bissage just showed he is a way better writer than the folks who are paid to write jokes for Letterman.
Do libs like Letterman ever leave their Manhattan bubble?
Lettermen has become one angry so-called comedian. He now reflexively acts like he has to defend Obama and company.
Well, AJ, to be fair, Bissage only wrote one. And frankly several of the ones Dave used were funny!
Well, here's a simple test: substitute Michelle Obama for Sarah Palin (adjusting the regional jokes, e.g. moose jerky, to suit) and consider how people might react.
Oh, if you made a joke about Barack Obama buying crack on a visit to NYC, they'd still be calling you a racist 20 years from now. And heck, he actually DID cocaine.
"Bissage just showed he is a way better writer than the folks who are paid to write jokes for Letterman."
Maybe you could get a group of politically like-minded cronies to take over (i.e. "socialize") NBC so that instead of letting the market decide who's funny, you can.
I love the authoritarian impulse to control individual opinion.
Looking good, mcg.
David Letterman being a sexist jackass who makes me embarrassed to be a Hoosier is news? Next you'll be telling me that Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations.
Let's see...Obama didn't figure out that:
1) Closing Guantanamo wasn't "easy" like he said it would be
2) Neither Iran nor North Korea were going to stop developing nukes if we just talked to them nicely.
3) That dissing the Queen of England twice isn't "smart diplomacy."
4) Neither is declining a dinner invitation from Nicolas Sarkosy.
5) Neither is snubbing Angela Merkel.
6) Neither is letting one of your cabinet members claim that the 9/11 hijackers came from Canada.
7) That waterboarding isn't torture.
8) That the willy-nilly release of detainee abuse photos might cause place our military in danger.
9) Demanding Israel cease settlement activity would INCREASE settlement activity.
...and so on...
...until after he took office. So based on that list, Palin beats Obama in the smarts department.
She warned the country that:
1) Obama would vastly increase federal spending and the size of government...He did/is/will.
2) Obama's policies would wreck the economy...They have.
...and so on...
So she was smarter than every single person who claimed before the election that she was wrong.
That includes every single one of you detractors here in this thread.
So the "hillbilly" from Alaska was smarter than all of you and you claim she's stupid. I didn't know that you all thought so little of your intelligence, but it's nice to see that you're finally recognizing that you're not exactly the brightest bulbs in the lamp.
And just to illustrate the point, I never found Jay Leno funny. I don't even think he's got much talent. And I don't know anyone who does. But that's just my opinion. Maybe the biggest share of the market disagrees. Maybe he's a good entertainer, a good host, a good showman - what have you - or something where being a good comedian doesn't necessarily matter. Maybe he just happened to make good connections in the business. A kiss ass. Who knows?
Point is, why should I decide that my opinion on that is relevant? Opinions are personal things and I can't speak for those of the largest share of the late-night TeeVee market over the last 15 years or whatever. Should I? Should any one person or small group/clique of persons assume their opinion(s) is/are relevant to how a market functions?
Who are the socialists now?
Although the Russians were right to prefer Levis over any other brand of jeans.
Jim, even a stopped clock is right twice a day - as you and your good buddy Sarah Palin (or as comedian Bill Maher calls her, "Governor Avon Lady") show us.
If you like, I could give a point-by-point rebuttal of your little legal brief there. But of course, you don't want that now. Do you?
BTW, the economy's likely to start recovering by this summer - which is pretty remarkable given the depth of the recession that Mr Bush spent 7 years setting up.
montana -
Go ahead and make a point-by-point refutation. The facts would make you a liar if you tried. What I detailed isn't even a portion of the list, we could go on and on about how many Bush policies and positions that Obama criticized which he has now adopted virtually verbatim. We could go on and on about how much damage his reckless spending is causing the economy, but you don't want to have that discussion either.
You think the economy is going to start recovering this summer? You want to start laying money bets on that? Interest rates are 2% higher than when Obama took office. Oil is up $30 a barrel. Gas prices are up 75 cents a gallon. The true employment rate is 16.4%, and you seriously (seriously?) think the economy is on the verge of recovery?
And you call Palin stupid?
I would think you would have figured out by now that Obama is an inveterate liar. Just because he told you the economy would start recovering this summer doesn't mean it will. He also told you that unemployment wouldn't go over 8% (whoops!). He also said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000. Increasing interest rates to finance his crony spending spree is a tax on every single American who owes anyone money. And you believed him.
I didn't. Palin didn't. You did. Guess which one out of three was the rube? Here's a hint: go find a mirror and take a good long look.
The sophisticated montana urban legend not only didn't know the difference between Greek columns and Andrea Palladio, but he though Palladio was a woman. You see, because "Andrea" is a ladies' name...
Heh.
@montana, I hate to prick your bubble, but if the economy really does begin to recover this summer then it won't be because of the stimulus since hardly any of the stimulus money has been spent yet.
Certainly the One whose shoes you lick has been throwing money at problems like GM and Chrysler, but that is how liberals think, is it not? That one can solve any problem merely by talking nice and throwing money at it. (Feels weird to put "liberals" and "think" adjacent to each other.)
If we have a long, slow "L-shaped recovery" then that's on your man Obama and not my man Bush. Because a long, slow, L-shaped recovery will be due to the government's sucking too much capital out of the markets.
There's nothing wrong with you that learning a little bit about economics wouldn't fix. That and fixing up that silly thing of yours you jokingly call a brain. Try Sudoku puzzles as a way to learn logic.
As for Dave Letterman, do you think the suits at CBS realize the correlation between his ratings being in the tank with his raw meanness to Republicans like McCain and Palin, coupled with his blanket refusal to offer up Obama jokes? Just thought I'd ask.
MUL:
All I said was Letterman's writers suck and that Bissage was way better. He took a single stab and was way funnier and more creative than their ten!
Where did I say I wanted to take over a piece of crap like NBC? Or give you the idea of thought police?
Jeez.
Obama's "protect Democratic donors" decisions to close dealerships is going to put 100,000 people out of work if the courts don't put a stop to it. GM and Chrysler have both announced plans to lay off tens of thousands of workers and shutter more plants as part of Obama administration-designed plan. And when those people are laid off, they will stop spending money and the people who were employed at the places they used to shop will lose their jobs. And not one of those things is factored into the unemployment numbers.
Interest rates are still going up which is going to squeeze more individuals and businesses out of the credit markets which cause more people to lose their jobs. Gas prices are still going up and that's going to cost jobs as transportation costs have to be offset by laying off workers since businesses have no room to increase prices in a down economy. And not one of those things is figured into the current unemployment rate.
But montana, the economics genius, is telling us that he knows the economy will begin recovering within the next month or so.
...but Palin is supposed to be the stupid one. Talk about projection...
The fact that you even assume that things wouldn't have continued getting much worse no matter who took office on January 20th shows just how little you understand the depth of the current crisis - and calls into question any understanding you could possibly have of economics. No need to bother with the details when you make such a fundamental, monumental and (just because you can't make a point without ad hominems) retarded blunder.
The housing bubble wouldn't have popped, prices wouldn't have continued deflating, the market wouldn't have continued making needed corrections if only a man who had never used a computer before and his Avon Lady of a running mate hadn't taken office. Brilliant assumptions all predicated on your view of the market as a betting game. A day at the horse races, as it were. And nothing more complicated than that.
But you go on making your lists. The only connection between any of the items on them in your mind is who endorsed (or predicted) them and who didn't, apparently, and what party they were from. Some of them are political variables, some less so. You go continue your activism, keep being a fortune teller, and keep watching that CNBC. In the meantime, I'll read economists (who don't waste time politicizing their arguments) and you can jerk yourself off to pictures of Avon Lady.
BTW Brainiac. It was Krugman - an ardent critic of Obama, BTW - (and many others) who are pointing to the timing of the recovery that I mention. But that little factoid must make your head spin... or explode. Krugman=liberal=Obama=wrong.
Letterman has been pathetic for the last decade.
In the ADHD-addled minds of some, intelligence and sophistication revolve around how much you know about a 16th century architect. Or I could have just made a typo. Just goes to show how ignorant some people are of the difference between intelligence and knowledge. Which is a much more fundamental error than I can be accused of.
Big Mike - before your Big Head gets any bigger, just accept the possibility that I don't think the stimulus money has done all that much to lead to a recovery. (Not that you'd ever bother to ask). So spare me the rest of your fatuous politicking and ad hominems. I'll spare you the empty pleasure of assuming you had a point to make, or even a conversation to have.
And is Jim still refusing to differentiate between what "I" say and what "economists" say? Oh boy, there's no helping him.
Good natured? Not a chance. Did you catch the snide laugh by Paul what's-his name? If Letterman had ever shown any good will to Gov. Palin, I might consider it good natured. But since Letterman and his gang find her kind completely inferior, no good will is present.
Slutty flight attend look? How about a "good natured" parody of Michelle Obama as a big bicep Ho? That would being a lot of good natured chuckles, right?
LOL I know who made the prediction, but pretending that Krugman is an "ardent critic" of Obama is a laughable assertion.
Paul Krugman is hard-left liberal as any one of his columns readily illustrates. There are plenty of liberals who have criticisms of Obama, but it doesn't make them any less liberal - or any less wrong.
The New York Times is deep in the tank for Obama, and they write his paychecks. He has always toed the party line and always will. Pretending that he's some disinterested third party or resides on the opposite side of the political aisle is disingenuous at best and flat out deception at worst.
I notice how you want to skip over all of Obama's flip-flops where he came around to Palin's way of thinking. I know it's inconvenient to your assertion that she's a dunce, but you can't change the facts. She was right on a whole host of policy prescriptions.
Just one or two and you can get away with calling it lucky or a broken clock being right twice a day. I enumerated nine before I stopped typing, but you and I both know it's a whole lot more than that Palin was right about, that Obama was wrong about, and that YOU were wrong about. I get that your pride is injured, but compounding your error by reiterating your mistake doesn't erase it: it just goes to show that you still haven't "gotten" it yet. Palin "got it" more than eight months ago. So which one of you is the stupid one?
There's a huge difference between policies to ameliorate a financial downturn and putting your foot on the accelerator. There isn't an economist worth his or her salt who hasn't said exactly what I did: Obama's policies have been harmful to the economy, have shown zero benefit for the spending he has done, that his borrowing is increasing interest rates, that he increased the depth and length of the recession, and so on and so on.
But live in your fantasy world where you think you're smarter than that "hillbilly" if that's what it takes to get you through the day. Doesn't make it true, and it doesn't change reality.
Perhaps you'll figure that out one day....
According to Drudge — "developing" — Palin has responded by calling Letterman "pathetic."
You'd think she would have learned from the McCain campaign that it doesn't make sense for a politician to get on Letterman's bad side.
I can pull up transcripts of Krugman making incredibly pointed criticisms of Obama after he was in office. But what would be the point? You believe what you want to believe. The fact that I recognize Palin's a hypocritical idiot who runs a state that takes as much funding from the federal government as it does and ran a city into the ground financially is actually not some kind of indication that I'm a blind partisan. It means I'm a little less offended at the idea of common sense than you are. So find someone else to defend Obama's "flip-flopping". I know how much that would do to help you get your rocks off...
Oh, and you're a hypocrite, too.
montana -
YOU were the one who asserted...and I quote..
the economy's likely to start recovering by this summer
You didn't qualify it by saying that Obama's paid shill, Krugman, said it. You stated it as your own opinion. You only brought up Krugman after I told you not to believe what Obama told you.
So to try to cover for yourself, you want to claim that I don't know the difference between what "economists" say and what "you" say. That's not going to fly, and I'm not going to let you get away with that kind of lie. You've made it perfectly clear in your posts that you have no knowledge of economics, so it would be nigh on impossible to mistake for an ecomist.
I read what you wrote. I responded to what you wrote. You can't go back and claim you qualified your statement by saying that "economists say" or even "one New York Times editorial writer said." You didn't. You stated an opinion, and you don't like being called out on it.
Too bad.
Obama's paid shill, Krugman,...
Huh?!
You must not have read any of his columns about Obama.
So making a critique of Obama in one area automatically puts you on the other side of the political aisle and means that you wouldn't be willing to cover for him in another? Since that includes large swaths of the Democratic party who have criticized Obama for his support of Bush policies he previously criticized or failure to act quickly enough on their pet issues, who would you consider is an Obama supporter? I guess just the starry-eyed believers like yourself who believe that Obama can do no wrong.
And throwing out the ad hominem "you're a hypocrite" is less than meaningless. I haven't said anything hypocritical whereas you are twisting yourself into Gordian knots trying to deny reality in order to support your unblinking belief in all things Obama. If you're going to make the charge, then back it up.
"You must not have read any of his columns about Obama."
The only thing he reads apparently is every little nit-picky word and unmentioned detail of what I said or meant to say based on economists who seem to agree with assessments by Nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman. Whose credibility, BTW, must be worth nothing according to the troglodyte in question. Krugman is clearly a man who must have no intellectual integrity.
No wonder this guy's party's experiencing a huge brain-drain.
And learn the meaning of the word "shill", numbnuts!
before your Big Head gets any bigger, just accept the possibility that I don't think the stimulus money has done all that much to lead to a recovery.
Begging your pardon, but if you don't think that the stimulus money "has done all that much to lead to a recovery" then what's the point of including that paragraph in your 5:45 comment if not to suggest that the recovery was Obama's doing? In the context of your string of comments from 5:11 onward that was a very logical connection to make. Does it not seem reasonable that if the economy begins recovering in the next few months irrespective of the stimulus then (1) we're spending a great deal of money for no good reason, (2) the impact of that spending will be felt downstream in a strongly negative fashion, and (3) the recession couldn't have been that bad after all?
Given his hard-left politics (which he has never bothered to hide), Krugman's recent and fairly mild criticisms of the Obama administration have been quite eye-catching to me and no doubt to others. You really need to pay attention.
BTW, don't dish it out if you can't take it. I learned that approximately 3000 years ago in when I was in grammar school.
"So making a critique of Obama in one area automatically puts you on the other side of the political aisle and means that you wouldn't be willing to cover for him in another?"
No. It means the politics might possibly be irrelevant to the analysis.
Not everyone is as obsessed with political identity and party loyalty as a benchmark for intellectual integrity as your precious Bushies and Palinites are. Or were.
Until you get a clue, you can find someone else to throw strawmen at. This is not about me and it is not about Obama. And it is not about your need to bully people on the internets in order to make yourself feel good or make your party look smart or respectable.
Krugman went full in defending the stimulus plan.
Then he complained it wasn't big enough.
Krugman's criticisms of Obama have been from the left: that he hasn't been sufficiently spendthrift enough.
So let's get this straight: Krugman put his entire reputation on the line to defend the stimulus and even argue that it should have been bigger, and that's supposed to be being a "sharp critic" of the Obama administration?
Really? And Palin is the stupid one? I'm the one who doesn't read Krugman's columns?
Krugman has a vested interest in the success of the stimulus plan, and anyone considers him to be some kind of neutral third party in this discussion?
You guys are really beyond ridiculous in your spin attempts. You can't change facts to suit your reality. They are what they are.
So making a critique of Obama in one area automatically puts you on the other side of the political aisle and means that you wouldn't be willing to cover for him in another?
But he hasn't just criticized Obama in one area. He's hammered Obama mercilessly in multiple areas, notably health care and economic stimulus. Those are pretty important, aren't they? Especially considering that Krugman's specialty is economics.
Complexity, anyone?
"Begging your pardon, but if you don't think that the stimulus money "has done all that much to lead to a recovery" then what's the point of including that paragraph in your 5:45 comment if not to suggest that the recovery was Obama's doing?"
There is a difference between arguing that Obama has or will do a bang-up job on the economy and accepting that he hasn't put it in a much more catastrophic state than the previous administration had.
"In the context of your string of comments from 5:11 onward that was a very logical connection to make. Does it not seem reasonable that if the economy begins recovering in the next few months irrespective of the stimulus then (1) we're spending a great deal of money for no good reason, (2) the impact of that spending will be felt downstream in a strongly negative fashion, and (3) the recession couldn't have been that bad after all?"
Fine. Without even going on to points #2 and #3 (why assist you in your own straw man?) you admit that you drew inferences based on what I said that weren't even a part of anything I said.
"Given his hard-left politics (which he has never bothered to hide), Krugman's recent and fairly mild criticisms of the Obama administration have been quite eye-catching to me and no doubt to others. You really need to pay attention."
I don't even understand what you are trying to say here. But it seems like, at best, a pretty mild criticism of what I said given the context of my remarks and the hard-headedness of the person to whom they had to be directed.
"BTW, don't dish it out if you can't take it. I learned that approximately 3000 years ago in when I was in grammar school."
Again. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you want to have a meaningful discussion let's keep it topical.
No wonder this guy's party's experiencing a huge brain-drain.
Um, who'd we lose? Arlen Specter's party switch unquestionably raised the average IQ on both sides of the aisle. I see that Gregg recovered his integrity in the nick of time.
shill = one who pretends to be just another guy in the crowd but is in fact working with the con artist to trick the audience.
So, in your vernacular, numbnuts montana, the word was used exactly according to its proper meaning given the NYT's cozy relationship with the Democratic party and their policies.
You keep getting angrier and angrier every time facts refute your attempts to deny reality. This sounds like a serious problem for you. Seek help.
Krugman's criticisms of Obama have been from the left...
That doesn't negate the fact that he's far from a "paid shill" for Obama. Attacking someone from their own party's ideological base is a classic way to weaken them politically.
Who wants to bet that Krugman's analyses have been, in toto, much more comprehensive than the two tiny pieces of evidence parsed together by Jim in order to prove him inconsistent?
Jim, you deserve a Nobel Prize.
"Um, who'd we lose?"
Um, voters. The youth. The college-educated. (In terms of percentage if not absolute numbers). And now possibly Hispanics. Read David Brooks and David Frun. Look at the demography. By turning off young voters at a rate and degree that is unprecedented, you are assuring your party's inability to be viable in the future. Again, not entirely my own analysis - something I've read over and over and found acknowledged by enough intelligent people on your side to know I'm not crazy.
Criticizing Obama from the Left is hardly being an "Obama critic" in this regard. Saying the stimulus wasn't big enough is hardly a criticism of the stimulus and its deleterious effect on the economy: Krugman is actually arguing for an even greater negative impact. And this lends him credibility on the subject?
C'mon, guys. This is just about the most intellectually dishonest line of argument you can take on the subject. Try finding a critic of the stimulus who thought it was too big or that shouldn't have taken place at all who thinks the economy is going to recover in the next month or so and we'll have something to discuss. Until then, you're not doing yourselves any favors by constantly trying to claim that Krugman is some kind of non-believer in Obama's Keynesian nightmare.
I don't think that's the worst of Letterman's humor regarding the Palin family. Instapundit has a clip of Dave's monologue, which includes a joke about Alex Rodriguez "knocking up" Palin's daughter.
Classy.
Wasn't Krugman's seminal work in free trade? What a hard-core absolute leftist. What a shill to Old Left party principles.
(This is not to denounce the observation that, on a whole host of things, Krugman could be argued to be quite "liberal". It's just to show that someone's having a hard time figuring out where politics and ulterior motives end and where brains begin).
"Yet, she is the idiot. Uh huh"
@John:
Congratulations on burnishing your conservative credentials with a terrifically thick-necked reading of my post. Your ConservaCred (TM) certificate will arrive shortly, via illegal-immigrant-piloted burro.
Now, I'm not going to disagree with you, since your post was only apparently a sort of throat-clearing harangue without any real purpose. Like two ships Peerless passing through the night, your "response" to my post completely missed the point and sailed past, without the desired impact.
However, congratulations are due you for the form and brevity of your soliloquy. Bravo!
I like to think that the Republican party, whose candidates I have long supported, play the game on the field as it actually exists, not the one in the "Wilderness dreamstate" that too many ideological purists wish to exist. Therefore I pointed out that the idea that a politician will have any credibility anymore, after the past year or so (not to mention the last GOP president's policy implementations of the same period) of media tastemaking with regard to terms like "He's a socialist!" is to be among the faeries and unicorns in Never-Neverland. You don't have to venture very far into the mythical or real center to gauge the reactions of the ordinary non-ideological folks to whom the party should be trying to appeal, in response to uttering statements like "Oh yeah, he's turning us into a socialist nation / Obama is a socialist / Oooohh, evil socialists!" / etc. If you don't believe me, you ought to get out into more ideological heterogeneous environments more frequently than you evidently do.
Is it true, what she's saying? Maybe, maybe not. I'm inclined to be pessimistic that the current administration has any idea of what they're doing when it comes to changing the course back to the traditional American way of economic life, which leaves me thinking this is what they want.
Was she right before, during the election? Yes, and to her misfortune, her top-of-ticket "it's his turn" guy of the year was pretty much on all fours with Obama w/r/t economics. That is, when he could articulate anything credible beyond, "Well, I'm not really knowledgeable about economics, so while the economy crashes and becomes the main event, I'll say that again for the cameras so that no one will ever take me seriously again."
And thus was Obama able to gallavant his way into office on soothing prose and steely gazes into the distant teleprompter horizons.
That and a few novice-missteps by Palin.
Look, if you don't think that the current political/media environment is one where the GOP's candidates must be beyond polished, delivering their message with consistency, exquisitely unobjectionable word-choice, and so forth, you should admit you're not ready for the GOP to come back to power anytime soon.
The idea of waiting for the Dems to screw it up, while it worked for them in 06 and 08 w/r/t the GOP (aided by a fawning media that continues to overlook Dems' shortcomings, on balance), is insufficient. The idea of carping about things that, truth be told, sound very "2008" in their telling/word choice, is equally wanting.
I expected her to start talking about Bill Ayers next, after the socialism. Admit it, John, you'd love for that battle to be refought, wouldn't you?
If the GOP wants to win, it needs to get over the loser-think. The Dems lost in 2002 because they were still trying to convince people that Gore should've been named president. Right or wrong, crybaby loserism is not the way to win back the center. Ideas rule. Clear, novel articulation - even where old but good ideas are concerned (and are any American political ideas really new? The Dem/GOP arguments are as old as the Federalist papers) - is key to making the sale. Palin sounds like a hack when she talks about "socialism", as do all GOP carpers. They need better writers.
Amy Poehler's SNL Palin rap skit was "good natured fun." It was also hilarious, as it caricatured actual things about Palin's persona (hunting, her husband's snowmachining) and made fun of positions taken by McCain-Palin during the campaign.
"All the mavericks in the house, put your hands up!"
"All the plumbers in the house, pull your pants up!"
Now THAT'S good comedy!
Without excusing Letterman's poor taste with this top ten list, it does sadden me to see how low he's sunk in recent years. I used to be a huge fan when he was on NBC and right after he went to CBS. Now I find him unfunny, bitter, and tendentious. I rarely watch him any more.
But there's hope: Craig Ferguson, who follows Dave on CBS (and technically works for him) is a true stand up comedic star. For those of you who haven't watched him, I'd recommend you check him out.
I don't even understand what you are trying to say here. But it seems like, at best, a pretty mild criticism of what I said given the context of my remarks and the hard-headedness of the person to whom they had to be directed.
Oh dear. How can I simplify this enough for you? Particularly since I believe that Krugman's comments about the Obama administration's economic policies are relatively mild and you (and JAC) seem to feel that he's been "hammering" Obama.
Just so you understand, I don't always hammer liberal commenters, even though I don't agree with their politics? Sometimes I even agree with certain of their positions. So the fact that I made a "pretty mild criticism" of your remarks does not consitute an endorsement of them.
The thing I find most reprehensible about liberals, like yourself for example, is this notion that you "own" certain segments of the population and that they are open targets if they dare to stray from the plantation. So Sarah Palin must be trailer trash, and Michele Malkin even worse. So Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom, not to mention Thomas Sowell, the Steele twins, and Michael Steele (no relation) for the sin of thinking for themselves and reaching a different conclusion than what you want them to reach.
So, getting back to Letterman, he's just a vile little man who dumps on Palin because she dares to reach a different conclusion than what women on the plantation are "supposed" to reach. I understand that he was even nastier to Bristol, but I haven't seen the clip yet so I'll reserve judgement.
But he'd best watch it, if Todd happens to get pissed.
The Governor of Alaska still causes 8.5 shocks on the Dems richter scale for enemies they instinctively need to ridicule and to hate. You will never hear of the top ten stupid and scummy things that Huckabee has done or that Romney has done. No need to waste ammunition on the non-players.
Krugman won his Nobel for his fine work in trade theory.
The macro-economics of business cycles is very difficult. You can't fault anyone for being wrong about it. There are really no experts here. Krugman has put out some astute commentary and he's a die-hard Keynesian who will defend Keynes like Barry Bonds fans will defend Bonds.
Keynes is dead.
@montana, we only lost the youth until they start paying taxes on their own. They'll learn, as will the college educated after they see their new tax bills.
The Germans say, "lerne was, so kanst du was? A rough translation is, you've learned everything, but do you know anything?
See, that's where you're wrong, Mikey. I don't "own" anyone. Nor do I feel I should. Palin is perfectly free to try and convince us that her party-line absolutism, proudly ignorant folksiness and picture-perfect image (and personal hypocrisy) entitle her to the White House. But, as veni vidi vici points out, the voters are free to disagree. As am I. So don't project your authoritarian bullshit on me. It's your impulse (and that of your ilk) to think you "own" other people's words, image, thoughts and whatever else. Not mine.
And as far as this "Todd" person goes, I'm not sure I understand what you mean to imply. But whoever he is, I'm sure he's accountable to the laws of the land.
Now, you were saying...
"The Germans say..."
That's right. A good old-fashioned folksy platitude will win back the youth and the college educated much better than a hatred of biology, Charles Darwin and science and knowledge in general ever did.
You're really not listening to veni vidi vici, are you?
"I don't "own" anyone. "
Especially when you try to argue with them.
As for this, if Palin was responding to the top-10 list, she needs to grow some thicker skin.
If she was responding to the gag where Letterman talked about A-rod knocking up her daughter during the 7th inning, then I think her response of 'pathetic' fits.
"Especially when you try to argue with them."
That's right. I let the facts own them.
"Jim, even a stopped clock is right twice a day - as you and your good buddy Sarah Palin"
But one that functions in a way that might be considered proper in some respects but is off by half a day will be precisely wrong all the time. Kind of reminds me of Jeremy, now that you mention it.
"I let the facts own them"
Better that, since clearly you don't own the facts.
Aren't there precisely twelve hours in half a day?
Otherwise, the analogy works.
Palin is perfectly free to try and convince us that her party-line absolutism, proudly ignorant folksiness and picture-perfect image (and personal hypocrisy)...
You "let the facts own them"?
Sigh, you really don't get it, do you?
I get what v3 is saying. Trust me.
"Better that, since clearly you don't own the facts."
No one "owns" facts. Facts are abstract things that simply exist. But authoritarians like to think they could own facts. And they pretend that they do.
The reason they do this has to do with issues of control at the most basic level: Perception of reality.
@v-v-v, short answer. You're right.
"But authoritarians like to think they could own facts. "
Is that a fact?
And just how do you perceive who is an authoritarian and who is not?
Based on the facts I have seen, you miss an awful lot.
And as far as you not owning the facts, I could not agree with you more.
"I get what v3 is saying. Trust me."
You're certainly not convincing this independent voter that you do.
And what don't I get? Yes, my statements about Palin could necessarily be called subjective and opinionated. And at the same time, did she not project an image that "Joe Sixpack" knows better than the pointy-headed intellectuals? Is this not an attitude that she was proud of? Did people not complain that their perception of why she was attacked (Good God! A politician being attacked!) was because she conformed to the picture perfect image of a traditionally-minded woman in a modern society? Was she not in a better position to appeal to the base (instincts) in your party than McCain? What is so wrong with what I said?
"You're certainly not convincing this independent voter"
There is a difference between independents like you and independents like me.
I am independent because I can see the good, and the bad, in each party and know that things are often a lot more complicated than dogma would suggest.
You are because the Democrats are too far to the right.
Don't play centrist. You aren't one. Don't play like you aren't as partisan as they come. You are.
"Is that a fact?"
It's a common observation that dares to be defied.
"And just how do you perceive who is an authoritarian and who is not?"
Someone who would like to control the thoughts, opinions, feelings and consensual actions of others.
"Based on the facts I have seen, you miss an awful lot."
Based on what I have seen (no need to pervert this into "the facts I have seen". what we see is subjective.) you haven't pointed any of these alleged blind spots out.
"And as far as you not owning the facts, I could not agree with you more."
Authoritarians also like to misuse language to make it seem like statements mean the opposite of what they say. If you could be bothered to do so, you might want to read George Orwell on this point.
'According to Drudge — "developing" — Palin has responded by calling Letterman "pathetic."'
You'd think she would have learned from the McCain campaign that it doesn't make sense for a politician to get on Letterman's bad side.
You don't think she's already on Letterman's bad side? A mistake the McCain campaign made was in thinking, because he had been their darling when he ran against Bush in 2000, the media would treat him fairly in 2008. It didn't treat him fairly. No amount of kissing up to the press by McCain/Palin would have changed the tenor of the campaign coverage.
Nor can Palin expect to get on Letterman's good side now by trying to meet him halfway. If she tries, he'll just make her look like a bigger fool. If Charlie doesn't try to kick the football Lucy is powerless. When he does try to kick the ball, Lucy will pull it away every time.
Apparently Letterman made a joke about Palin taking her daughter to the Yankee game, and her daughter subsequently getting "knocked up" by Alex Rodriguez. Letterman I suppose thought he was poking fun at Bristol... it turns out that the daughter who accompanied Palin to the game was Willow, who is 13 or 14 years old.
I think when Palin called him pathetic, it was probably largely in reference to that.
"I am independent because I can see the good, and the bad, in each party and know that things are often a lot more complicated than dogma would suggest."
A forced attempt at "balance" is not the same thing as independence. An independent perspective need not be balanced between two opposing perspectives whatsoever. It can rest closer to one or the other. It can agree with a number of parts of either or with none at all. You are confused.
"Don't play centrist. You aren't one. Don't play like you aren't as partisan as they come. You are."
See above. And for the record, my political instincts are Lockean and have nothing to do with modern political arrangements. But you can say what you want about me if labeling someone you can't argue with (but disagree with) helps you feel more vindicated in your own perspective. It doesn't necessarily make it true or meaningful to anyone but you, perhaps, and anyone who instinctively agrees with you. But perhaps that's all that matters to you.
"It's a common observation"
By who? I am closer to retirement than I am to any other life milestone and I have never heard anyone before you, here in this thread, make that claim.
In fact, you seem to have thought it up yourself, found it clever, and decided to call anyone who disagrees with your nonsense as an authoritarian who thereby is discredited by your clever 'common' observation.
"Someone who would like to control the thoughts, opinions, feelings and consensual actions of others. "
Really. So how does that fit in with this comment: "Bissage just showed he is a way better writer than the folks who are paid to write jokes for Letterman."
Someone offered an opinion of who writes better jokes, and this elicited you saying "I love the authoritarian impulse to control individual opinion." That, as any sentient being would understand (or at least those with an average or better IQ and a modest or better education), does not follow. Critiquing, or expressing the preference for another's humor, is not trying to control an individual opinion.
That's a fact.
Another fact? You cannot read, or are easily confused, or both. You attributed that quotation to mcg despite the fact (stubborn things, they) that mcg did not make, nor quote, that comment. It was AJ Lynch.
Meanwhile, while you are showing your lack of comprehension, let me revisit this-- "Aren't there precisely twelve hours in half a day?" Yes, there are. And when it is 12 PM, as most modern clocks show, being off 12 hours lets on think they are absolutely correct when, in fact, they are about as incorrect as possible.
For some reason, that just seems so apt when having a back and forth with you.
Keep on rocking, confident that we share the understanding that you don't own the facts, the facts own you.
"If she was responding to the gag where Letterman talked about A-rod knocking up her daughter during the 7th inning, then I think her response of 'pathetic' fits."
The top ten list wasn't funny, but meh... not worth mentioning.
Making a joke about her 13 or 14 year old daughter is "pathetic" by any measure and anyone on the "other" side who is willing to tolerate it on the basis of sins of the parent needs to do some serious self examination.
"By who?"
Try John Dean, Nixon's prosecutor, for starters. He goes through extensive evidence documenting the 20% of society that is prone to authoritarian impulses. Check it out and register your disagree with him, if you must.
"Critiquing, or expressing the preference for another's humor, is not trying to control an individual opinion."
One can critique an opinion without implying that there is such a thing as a "correct" or "proper" opinion. That's where issues of control start to come into play.
"You cannot read, or are easily confused, or both. You attributed that quotation to mcg despite the fact (stubborn things, they) that mcg did not make, nor quote, that comment. It was AJ Lynch."
Behold! Irony of ironies. I responded to two (count 'em. Two.) people, separately, in ONE comment. Imagine that! (AJ Lynch could).
"And when it is 12 PM, as most modern clocks show, being off 12 hours lets on think they are absolutely correct when, in fact, they are about as incorrect as possible."
Which is precisely why the clocks would have to be off by some increment other than "half a day" in order to be in agreement with each other.
What an embarrassing misapprehension on your part of what I already, correctly noted.
"the facts own you."
And they own you, as well. Only difference is, I'm not afraid of them. Perhaps for a good reason.
"It doesn't necessarily make it true or meaningful to anyone but you"
Actually, if something is or is not true has noting to do with who believes it to be true.
Truth is. It is not a perception.
You can describe your own politics as being Lockean or whatever other label you think successfully obfuscates things enough to where you can pretend as if you are above it all when, in fact, you are just a typical partisan, down in the mud with the rest of them.
As for balance, I don't care about that one way or another. I care about what works and what is real. When the right is right, that's fine with me. When the left is, that is also fine. That is why I am a legit independent, whereas you are nothing but a tool of one end of the political spectrum.
I quote your entire reply, to let the facts speak for themselves:
""Bissage just showed he is a way better writer than the folks who are paid to write jokes for Letterman."
Maybe you could get a group of politically like-minded cronies to take over (i.e. "socialize") NBC so that instead of letting the market decide who's funny, you can.
I love the authoritarian impulse to control individual opinion.
Looking good, mcg."
Looking good, Jeremy.
MUL,
John Dean was Nixon's White House counsel, not his prosecutor. He helped cover-up Watergate, then eventually outed everyone and went to prison.
If John Dean were really a Goldwater conservative, as he claims, he would not have worked for Tricky Dick, whom Goldwater despised. He also would not have covered up a crime.
So, mul, Obama's daughters are fair game for jokes now?
Because disapproval of humor is controlling and authoritarian?
(Saw the clip now... Letterman is a turd. Also... heard that he married his bastard's mother recently. I wonder why he bothered.)
Yes, I definitely think we should all make jokes about Letterman's little bastard. (Even saying this in jest makes me feel dirty... does he feel dirty making jokes about kids?)
Montana Urban Legend says: "Try John Dean, Nixon's prosecutor, for starters."
Nixon's prosecutor? Huh?
I think it was Mark Twain who said: "Better to remain silent and have people think you a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Thanks for the correction, mccullough.
As for this:
"So, mul, Obama's daughters are fair game for jokes now?
Because disapproval of humor is controlling and authoritarian?"
I haven't checked out the clip. It's possible that Letterman might have made a tasteless gaffe that would have been seen as such by many. But I don't see that as a necessarily political thing. Comedians make gaffes, and not just for the sake of "liberals". I'm thinking of Imus. No need to make a vendetta out of it or claim that he always was a bad, bad person, or whatever.
I multi-tasking right now and haven't yet read EnigmaticCore's response and am not sure if there will be a point to doing so. I suppose I'll find out sometime.
Do such arguments hold up in court, David? A meaningless gaffe on my part means that John Dean has not made a good case for the destructive hold that authoritarianism has had in certain political circles? I am a fool for bringing this up?
Try making a cogent case of your own sometime.
BTW, if Dean worked for the Nixon administration, couldn't he technically be a prosecutor for Nixon, and hence "Nixon's prosecutor"? Or am I a fool for doing something other than remaining silent and having nothing intelligent to say - like you?
Stick to being the unimportant peon that you are and leave the considered commentary to braver men - such as Dean, for instance.
"When the right is right, that's fine with me. When the left is, that is also fine. That is why I am a legit independent, whereas you are nothing but a tool of one end of the political spectrum."
Bullshit. If you can't ever decide that you care for neither party then you are just a tool of the entire political system, and not just one end of the spectrum. Which is probably even worse.
Were/are Dean's motives really so cut-and-dry, mccullough? I'd honestly like to know. You seem to be painting a certain picture of him. Is it possible that his own moral compass was a little more conflicted and less opportunist than you convey it? Or are you just going to play the part of lawyer in this, like "David" does?
"Or am I a fool"
Yes, but doing something other than remaining silent has nothing to do with it.
"You can describe your own politics as being Lockean or whatever other label you think successfully obfuscates things enough to where you can pretend as if you are above it all when, in fact, you are just a typical partisan, down in the mud with the rest of them."
You got me, "EnigmaticCore". I actually have no ideas of my own and just follow the marching orders I retrieve from... well, wherever. I just pretend to have thoughts on any given topic while really mysteriously "obfuscating" my true intentions. So mysterious is my aim. So enigmatic.
Project much?
"Yes, but doing something other than remaining silent has nothing to do with it."
I see you have given up debating facts, ideas and other concepts you find problematic (wise decision) and have retreated to playing games with language.
It's kind of like watching an angry little kid, who can't keep up with the conversation at the adult table, go and masturbate.
Have fun.
Why am I wasting my time with you? Why, after years of shutting up in my presence, have you decided to waste your time with me?
Oh dear GAWD... a gaff?
Because he didn't realize he was talking about the 14 year old? Maybe he just thought he was talking about the 18 year old?
Oh my feaking mother... well, that's OKAY then, isn't it. If he accidentally made a joke about the wrong daughter.
D*mn good thing Palin didn't have Piper with her this trip, eh?
Or maybe he, like, made the whole joke by accident entirely... it just sort of slipped out past his mouth?
Oh, poor poor Letterman... he made a boo boo. *sniff* My heart bleeds.
It bleeds.
School's out, I see.
E Katz: Believe you're correct. Letterman was referring to Willow Palin who is 13 or 14. Pathetic.
"It bleeds."
I don't know, Synova. Perhaps it does. Perhaps you can only view such pseudo-controversies through the lens of emotion, condemnation, etc. But there is a more intelligent way of looking at things. One that involves logic.
For starters, you show me proof that Letterman never made fun of Chelsea Clinton, and I'll grant you the possibility that it was more than an ill-conceived gaffe.
I happen to doubt you'll be able to do that, though.
But what's interesting is the suspicion I have, that you never would have got all up in arms about THAT.
Don't be a hypocrite, ok.
Find the clip before you start making excuses.
There is no possible way the "joke" was an accident. He knew very well he was making a joke about a politician's child.
Letterman is every bit as "public" a figure as Palin... does he feel as dirty making jokes about her children and sex and unplanned pregnancies as I do pretending to make a joke about his out-of-wedlock bastard? Would he feel that *his* child was the legitimate target of such a joke?
Heck, maybe he's just drunk or high, huh?
Hi Theo!
I've been waiting for you to come down from on high!
I've missed you, Good Buddy. The place could use a more competent, (if pretend) authority figure.
I doubt Dave Letterman would care if you made fun of the circumstances of his child's birth. Do you not understand the role of comedian? Do you not understand their motivations?
A "gaffe" is not an accidental joke. A "gaffe" is a joke that, contrary to one's expectations, doesn't go over very well.
What does this have to do with either one of them being politicians or public figures?
*snort*
Hah... it's a "gaff" if he *never* made a joke about Chelsea? If he *did* make a joke about Chelsea then it wasn't a mistake or gaff? He can only be criticized for attacking *this* politicians child if he has a verifiable history of attacking other politicians children? We all KNOW that no one would ever treat different politicians children differently. Sure we do.
You can't *even* express an opinion favoring decency, can you? Not if it has anything to do with Palin. Not if it's some old man making a joke about a 14 year old girl and a notorious ball player.
Nope.
It's *me* being hypocritical to find it all offensive, or to suggest that it is *right* to protect the children of politicians from public scrutiny.
Interesting... living in your world.
"A "gaffe" is a joke that, contrary to one's expectations, doesn't go over very well."
Oh. Dear. God.
I was looking at this from a direction that at least considered you a decent person... that you were trying to find a way to argue that Letterman didn't deliberately do what he did.
My apologies.
You really think it's OKAY to make a joke about a 14 year old having sex with a notorious ball player on national television.
Letterman isn't the only turd in this room.
Synova said..."Yes, I definitely think we should all make jokes about Letterman's little bastard."
Can you say: Bristol?
What does "decency" have to with anything? And no, I'm not very partial to those who use the cover of "decency" as an excuse for not making a rational argument.
Other than that, everything in your first paragraph is backwards - Bizarro World backwards. It's a gaffe if he's of the habit of being able to do something, to applause, to find the same antics backfiring in a specific instance. This has to do with what's considered acceptable, not with what's supposedly "decent" - which is a respectable notion, but *STILL* a matter of opinion.
Being uncomfortable discussing sexual matters generally, for what it's worth, is also a subjective thing. But let's stay away from that for now. Especially since I'm not sharing your apparent predilection for corprophilia.
'According to Drudge — "developing" — Palin has responded by calling Letterman "pathetic."'
And God knows...Drudge is one of Ann's heroes.
Now THAT is "pathetic."
I'd make the suggestion that tomorrow Rush ought to make a JOKE about Obama's children getting knocked up by their Secret Service detail, Har Har Har.... but they couldn't get an abortion because Tiller is dead... Bwa Ha ha...
... except I wouldn't want him to do that, because those girls, just like Willow, have done NOTHING to deserve it.
Of course... it wouldn't be a *gaff* if the people in the audience thought it was funny and laughed like Letterman's audience laughed.
It's entertainment! It's comedy!
*sigh* I must not understand what comedians *do*. Woe is me.
Nice to know who approves, of course.
Jeremy and Montana...
Cuz it's about the Funny.
Hoosier Daddy said..."Letterman has been pathetic for the last decade."
YOU get cable?
Well I'll be a corn on the cobb son-of-a-gun!!
Cable at the Hoosier household.
Synova, why do you think Letterman having a baby out of wedlock is funny, but not Bristol?
Hey, Jeremy... Bristol has at least FIVE years to marry Levi before Letterman can make a joke about her illegitimate child.
That's how long he let *his* little donation float around without a father, after all.
"What does "decency" have to with anything?"
I think that comment stands on it's own.
"Nice to know who approves, of course."
Well, it's nice to know that you approve of all things stupid. You are still incapable of expressing a cogent thought and I STILL have not even seen a clip, listened to the joke or heard enough of your whole context here. Sorry if that fucks with your need to make snap judgments but that's not my concern.
"I'd make the suggestion that tomorrow Rush ought to make a JOKE about Obama's children getting knocked up by their Secret Service detail, Har Har Har.... but they couldn't get an abortion because Tiller is dead... Bwa Ha ha...
... except I wouldn't want him to do that, because those girls, just like Willow, have done NOTHING to deserve it."
And who would be surprised if he did? I wouldn't. Wasn't he on the same bandwagon that lambasted Chelsea Clinton (a teenager at the time she was the first daughter) for not being pretty? For not being attractive? What business does a fat, old lard-cake like Limbaugh have talking about a 13 year-old's supposed sexual attractiveness? And where was your FUCKING OUTRAGE about that? Conspicuously absent, I would suspect. But yes, if a joke is made about a sexual matter in the third person about a 13 year old, that is worse -- it apparently doesn't involve pedophilia tendencies in the same PERSONAL sense that Rush's strange musings about Chelsea Clinton's attractiveness (or lack thereof) would have involved.
You don't even know what you are arguing. Is that a good excuse for being a hypocrite? You tell me.
Synova, You're a fucking moron.
A baby born out of wedlock is a baby born out of wedlock, there's not time limit.
The only difference between Letterman and Bristol and her mother is that he isn't a fucking hypocrite.
Like you...and Sarah.
But at least you can parade around your brain farts under the banner of "DECENCY".... woah I'm like so impressed. Nice cover there.
Synova - "That's how long he let *his* little donation float around without a father, after all."
Are you also saying without a marriage certificate the man can't be the father? Can't behave like a father? Can't accept his responsibilities as a father?
If so, you're a real piece of work.
And BTW, Letterman is not "in this room." On top of everything else, you are hallucinating.
Speaking of Princess Sarah's future:
A USA Today/Gallup poll out Tuesday bears some scary results for GOP leadership: As much as one-third of their constituent Republicans view the party unfavorably.
The poll shows 33 percent of Republicans have soured on the GOP, while 63 percent rated it favorably.
Among Democrats, who control both branches of Congress and the White House, dissatisfaction is practically at an all-time low, just four percent, versus a full 93 percent leaning favorably.
Notice how Synova has disappeared?
Nothing new about that.
All you have to do is ask a direct question.
"And where was your FUCKING OUTRAGE about that? Conspicuously absent, I would suspect."
Typical.
Make up the poor behavior of your opponents and then live down to it.
I absolutely disapprove of Rush's comments about Chelsea and he was roundly condemned for it. Even though his idiotic, vile, comment had nothing at all to do with sexual beauty... you made that up too... unless you like sex with dogs and associate dog references with sex... for all I know you may. He had no business saying what he said about a little girl.
Reminds me of some "feminist" Laura Ingram (I think?) had on her show to interview, who claimed that Laura (or which ever female conservative talk host it was) had *personally* made sexist and vile remarks about her... therefore it was okay to heap it on Miss California... and when called on the accusation, acted like she was trying to be silenced.
Just like YOU just accused ME of something quite specific on no evidence whatsoever in an attempt to justify your own bad behavior.
I even tell people to lay off Michelle... and she's a grown up.
There are less than 10 minutes between my comments and Jeremy declares victory at my "disappearance."
Wow.
Just... wow.
I'm not hanging around though... there is no possibility that I'll convince anyone for whom it was not self-obvious that a child with the last name of Palin didn't deserve what she got.
If she was responding to the gag where Letterman talked about A-rod knocking up her daughter during the 7th inning, then I think her response of 'pathetic' fits..
Letterman said this? I take a back seat to no one in my bewilderment of Palin as national political figure, but if Letterman said that it's seriously fucked up. I lost any respect for the guy after that if true.
Synova - Once again: Are you also saying without a marriage certificate the man can't be the father? Can't behave like a father? Can't accept his responsibilities as a father?
garage mahal - He was referring to Bristol.
You can't possibly this gullible.
"your own bad behavior."
Yes. My behavior. Your hallucinations are causing you to confuse me with David Letterman. Or with Rush Limbaugh. Or with whomever.
If someone makes a comment that one finds objectionable, whether it be about Michelle Obama, or Chelsea Clinton, or the Palin kids, or whoever else, don't you understand that they are making, if anything, a statement about themselves? A statement about their own unhealthy obsessions, perhaps? Why is more harm supposedly done to the person whom they reference? How does the "decency" of condemning a stupid, possibly demeaning statement more effective than just letting the statement stand on its own?
After all, that's the approach you tried to use with me just now.
It's rather funny debating you, Synova. ;-)
My guess: Letterman made the joke about Bristol, but Willow was at the game.
If so, he'll apologize.
Jeremy -
Don't lie. Letterman was talking about Palin attending the game with her daughter and A-Rod knocking her up:
WILLOW WAS THE DAUGHTER WHO ATTENDED THE GAME...NOT BRISTOL.
Don't try to cover for the dirtbag. He's a piece of dirt, and anyone who covers for Letterman making sex jokes about an innocent 13-year old girl (no matter whose daughter it is) is utterly lacking in any sense of human decency whatsoever.
Jim said..."Don't lie. Letterman was talking about Palin attending the game with her daughter and A-Rod knocking her up"
He was talking about Bristol.
Hide and watch.
Synova - Not big on people asking direct questions...are you?
You love to throw it out, but when you're called on it...you disappear.
Gutless.
It is a form of legitimate social commentary to mock the fact that some parents are too irresponsible to do what they should do in order to keep their teenage kids from becoming pregnant.
The reason this makes some people uncomfortable is because they are uncomfortable discussing sex, and therefore sympathize with other parents who, due to their own embarrassment, are too selfish to responsibly discuss sexual matters and responsible sexual behavior with their children.
Their embarrassment at this lack of responsibility is difficult to accept, and they therefore project the insult that has made of them, as irresponsible parents, onto their children. The children are much less responsible for their behavior. But it is not they, the children, who are being mocked. It is the parents who are being mocked. The problem is, you cannot make fun of the parents' irresponsibility without referencing what that lack of responsibility has resulted in - the irresponsible sexual behavior of their children.
Chew on that, self-righteous hypocrites.
I still haven't even viewed, or read a transcript of, the joke in question. But after only so much exposure to the ideas that inform irresponsible parenting, I can get a good idea of what all the commotion is really about.
In some way or another, someone may try to propose that a 16th-century architect is relevant to a discussion of how one promotes responsible sexual behavior among adolescents in 21st-century America.
Synova, when arguing with "Jeremy", it's amusing and slightly less painful when you try to imagine what he sounds like.
Letterman hasn't been very funny in a long time and intolerable when it comes to politics. After his "joke" about Alex Rodriguez raping one of Sarah Palin's daughters I'm done with him. He is a disgusting, pathetic excuse for a human being.
So at least one of our leftward commenters has passed the humanity test: realizing that even if you hate someone's politics, crude sexual remarks about her 14-year-old daughter are, to say the least, kind of iffy.
Others, not so much. The resulting percentage is pretty pathetic itself.
I don't know if anyone caught this above, but the Palin daughter being talked about was Willow (14), not Bristol (18). Gov. Palin brought her younger daughter to the game, not her older one.
That’s right: A state governor went to a baseball game with her 14 year old underage daughter, and a national talk show host made a joke about the girl being sexually assaulted by one of the players.
"For starters, you show me proof that Letterman never made fun of Chelsea Clinton, and I'll grant you the possibility that it was more than an ill-conceived gaffe."
How would one go about doing that?
"garage mahal - He was referring to Bristol.
You can't possibly this gullible."
She wasn't there. The 14 year old was.
"The only difference between Letterman and Bristol and her mother is that he isn't a fucking hypocrite."
How are either hypocrites?
"Synova said..."Yes, I definitely think we should all make jokes about Letterman's little bastard."
Can you say: Bristol?"
You are truly a lowlife piece of shit. How dare the girl have a mother who holds political viewpoints you disagree with.
Kind of reminds me of the posts where you vigorously defended the drugging and raping of a 14 year old girl. The one that "set up" Roman Polankski in your putrid little world. What a freaking asshole you are.
Is Montana Urban Legend also Jeremy? Guess who said this below and ask yourself who it sounds like?
"For starters, you show me proof that Letterman never made fun of Chelsea Clinton, and I'll grant you the possibility that it was more than an ill-conceived gaffe.
I happen to doubt you'll be able to do that, though."
Palladian - can you do a voice analysis of Montana and compare to your Jeremy tape?
Jeremy -
He was very specific that he was talking about the daughter that was at the game. The "joke" makes no sense if he was talking about Bristol since she was in ALASKA not at Yankee Stadium.
You're trying to read something that isn't there in order to cover for one of your liberal compatriots. His plain words were very clear, and no amount of spinning is going to change the clear meaning of what he said.
It's funny how you liberals like to try to search for hidden meanings and "code words" in every word out of a conservative's mouth in order to try to find some imagined offense. But let a liberal clearly say something clearly out of bounds and offensive, and you'll tie yourself into knots trying to convince people that words don't mean exactly what they mean.
You can't spin it. Your best defense was the claim that you didn't care about decency because that's the bottom line. So long as the insult was directed at a conservative, you don't think there's anything such as "going too far." Especially when it concerns uppity women who don't know their place and have the nerve to disagree with you.
The misogyny and evident hatred of all things conservative ooze from every word you type. Every excuse you make for despicable behavior when directed at conservatives makes you an enabler of that behavior and equally as guilty in its commission.
MUL said:
"It is a form of legitimate social commentary to mock the fact that some parents are too irresponsible to do what they should do in order to keep their teenage kids from becoming pregnant. "
Is that why comedians make a living telling nothing but jokes about the 75% out of wedlock birth rate in the black community? Is that why they all joked when someone caled Michelle Obama "baby Mama"? Is that why they killed Jesse Jackson with humorfor his extra-marital offspring? When was the last time you went to a cosktail party and you heard lots of jokes about this subject?
Are you absolutely sure you are not hearing things?
"Palladian - can you do a voice analysis of Montana and compare to your Jeremy tape?"
Done! Very different voices, don't you think?
Too funny. It sounded a bit like Laura Ingraham on speed.
Thanks
montana -
Mock Palin all you want. It's not like you haven't, and that you yourself haven't pushed the bounds of good taste in doing so.
However...Willow is not a public figure. She is a little girl barely entering her teens. Making jokes about her being raped aren't funny. That you would even stoop to defending such a thing says more about your lack of character than it does about Palin or her daughters.
You want to come at me. Bring it. More than once I've shown you to be the fool that you are when you even attempt it. Come after my child, and don't ever think about sleeping again because I would hunt you down. You and can disagree about politics. You can be the scumbag that you evidently are and at the end of the day I don't care. But bring my children into our disagreement, and you've crossed a line from which there is no return.
It is quite obvious that you have no children, nor would you be a fit parent to have one. That you don't understand the difference between going after the parent and the child bespeaks an ignorance of the relationship between and a parent and a child and the inviolate nature of it says the world about how much you still have to learn.
Grow up, you callow child.
There is a line that should not be crossed and once it is crossed, the gloves are off.
The kids including adult childeren (if they are not active in a campaign) should be off limits.
It seems Letterman has abandoned all of his Indiana sensibilities.
"Yes. My behavior. Your hallucinations are causing you to confuse me with David Letterman. Or with Rush Limbaugh. Or with whomever."
If you approve of the use of children of politicians in the media for laughs or otherwise, say so. It's easy enough. Do it or not. It ought to be easy to have the same "rules" for everyone, no matter who her parents are.
I believe that those who felt Chelsea should be off limits were correct... same with Amy Carter... same with the Bush twins... same with Obama's little girls... same with Palin's children... all of them, even into adulthood, until and unless one of them chooses a life in the lime-light of their own free will.
But you were quick enough to accuse me of the horrible crime of approving of Rush's "dog in the White House" joke. That accusation is a slander and it matters that you did it.
And I think it matters even more, that you don't realize that it's wrong to make up the "facts" about people that you prefer.
It looks like Gene Olson Lucky Michael Jeremy Montana Urban Legend went to bed. I assume to at laest a King sized bed. Otherwise, it would be tough to get all those people into one bed. Heh.
Go Magic! Beat LA.
"I still haven't even viewed, or read a transcript of, the joke in question."
Why not? It's not hard to find.
It was this... basically... Letterman sez...
Sarah Palin was made uncomfortable at the ball game (repeat uncomfortable or equivalent a couple of times) when her daughter got knocked-up by Alex Rodriguez in the 7th inning.
Which isn't exact, but close enough for horseshoes.
I wonder how Alex Rodriguez feels about the implication that it would be funny if he "knocked up" a fourteen year old.
High-five to Jim at 11:26 pm.
As for the "slutty flight attendant" look: it could be remotely funny if there were anything that Sarah Palin did or wore that merited such a comparison; however, Gov. Palin wears classy, lovely clothes, modest (though flattering) make-up, and conducts herself with dignity. Letterman and others hate on her because she is gorgeous and doesn't wear a burqa. The woman runs a state (and had to fight for everything she has and has done), but is still a "slutty flight attendant."
What this tells me (and other women, I'm sure) is that we are all targets: there is nothing we can do, say, or wear that shields us from the "slut" label or attacks on our intellect (which is what I believe the "flight attendant" part was aimed at; they didn't even do Gov. Palin the courtesy of calling her some form of librarian). And that's bull.
Too bad Althouse didn't post the other tape. The one that Instapundit ran. If I was Alex Rodriguez, I'd knock Letterman's teeth down his throat.
"For starters, you show me proof that Letterman never made fun of Chelsea Clinton, and I'll grant you the possibility that it was more than an ill-conceived gaffe."
I just watched the complete history of David Letterman (after slipping into my time-warp shoes). There was no example of Letterman making sexually based jokes about Chelsea Clinton.
Now, instead of demanding that people prove a negative, the onus is where it should be-- on you to prove the positive.
If you are correct, then you should be able to find a clip or a contemporaneous account of Letterman making a sexual joke at Chelsea's expense when she was a minor.
Chop, chop.
So joking about statutory rape now counts as "good-natured fun"?
Good to know.
I'm still laughing about Special Nixon Prosecutor John Dean. Did Nixon start the Vietnam War too MUL?
BTW Brainiac. It was Krugman - an ardent critic of Obama, BTW - (and many others) who are pointing to the timing of the recovery that I mention.
“Some of the measures that have been taken to deal with the crisis seem to be predicated on the belief that this is going to be a short, short recession,” Krugman said today. “Everything says that’s wrong, that this is going to be a sustained period of weakness.”
Did Nixon start the Vietnam War too MUL?.
I recall a Chris Matthews interview with John 'Reporting for Doody' Kerry referring to Nam as Nixon's War. Since MUL shows as much intelligence as Kerry, I'd wager he thinks so too.
So joking about statutory rape now counts as "good-natured fun"?.
Only when comitted against children of conservatives.
In this week's episode, Jeremy and Montana Urban Legend get their asses handed to them in the Althouse comments section.
Oh, wait, this is a rerun.
"You'd think she would have learned from the McCain campaign that it doesn't make sense for a politician to get on Letterman's bad side."
You may not have noticed but she's already on his bad side. Its not hard, all it takes is being a Republican.
DAVID LETTERMAN'S HATE, etc. !
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it's Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who've gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It's the ancient Jewish prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that'll outdo even Hitler's by stating that "Judah hath dealt treacherously" and "the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this" and asks "Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?"
Haven't evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and Jewish persons? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin's continuing "crucifixion"!
While David and Sandra are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
The laws of the land protect Letterman's speech. The laws of the land do not protect unhinged individuals like "Jim", who cannot tell the difference between words and blows. When he goes to jail for vigilantism, then he can discuss higher matters, like the aesthetics of good taste, with his cell mates.
Before he grows up he should learn to take seriously the saying "sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
I did not find Letterman's joke funny. So where is the disagreement? You want to debate Letterman's character. Brand him as indecent. So what? Who cares about Letterman's character?
If the joke had a hurtful effect on Bristol Palin's psyche, then you might have a point. But let's be honest. That's not what you care about. You are all wrapped up in this bullshit "honor" crap because you sympathize with Palin and would never dare to criticize her as responsible for the fact that she refused to speak honestly to other daughter and teach her to be a sexually responsible person.
The Palins do not care to teach their children how to be responsible with their sexuality, and that's what you wish to defend. Admit it.
All the other commentary is so beside the point it's not even funny.
AJ, I would not "approve" of someone "targeting" a candidate's kid during a political campaign. (And BTW, why is my or your approval worth anything? Do the laws of the land not matter? Does freedom of speech require some kind of social approval, to sign-off on the appropriateness of any given statement freely made?) But you asked your question, and you got your answer. I do not look kindly on that.
Palin's campaign is over and now she's trying to become the face of the Republican party - based on, in part, her appeal to traditional values. As long as she is going to advocate abstinence-only education, I think it is fair to point out that, by way of her own personal example, she has utterly failed to prove that approach successful.
Now look, I just said what Letterman (or his writers, or his boss) wished they could have said. But I was not "offensive" and I was not over-the-top in "demeaning" Palin's golden little children. I just made the point that Letterman (probably) thought he could have made through humor. He failed. So what? He's a successful comedian. He's probably made tons of jokes that have failed. And tons more that were successful. It goes with the territory and with the personality.
Of course, it is impossible for you to say that I am making an "indecent" point. But that is because I have used the most factual tone of voice possible. You will probably be angry at me for pointing out the obvious and for making a stance that you are sympathetic to look foolish. But we have removed the "decency" and "family bonds" issues from the equation. I have simply stated the case in as intellectual, objective and removed a manner as possible. And I suspect you won't be able to rebut it. But at least you can't go get your outrage on with this tear you went on re: Letterman. People who advocate abstinence-only education and have teenagers who get pregnant are hypocritical about believing that such an approach is an intelligent or successful one.
So you guys are missing the point.
Now, someone brought up out-of-wedlock births among African Americans. This is a red herring. Out of wedlock births occur in the black community because the fathers are out of the picture - and not always because they wouldn't choose to be. But likely because they might have been thrown in jail for some stupid, supposed offense, or otherwise. A victimless crime at times. This is a tragedy.
Bristol Palin's child, on the other hand, is growing up without his father because the Palins are assholes and are intentionally keeping the kid who got her pregnant, Levi Johnston, out of his life for some inexplicable, ridiculous, vindictive reason. They were to marry, and Bristol broke it off. That's bad enough. But to add gratuitous insult to injury, grandma (Sarah Palin) is making sure to either deny Johnston visitation or curtail it to an insane degree; thereby making sure to keep the father out of the picture. The analogy to black Americans is therefore about as bogus as it comes.
Any more false analogies you'd like to make in defense of St. Sarah?
And you know what? Thinking about the Johnston debacle puts this whole thing into even greater perspective for me. Why would Sarah Palin treat him like persona non grata when they were all over him like white on rice during the campaign? I'll tell you why. Having him around reminds them of the fact that they failed. That's right. Sarah and Todd failed as parents. So they take their anger out on Johnston. Much like they take their displaced anger out on Letterman.
This is all starting to make sense.
One thing I've noticed is that the ability of women to have good relationships with men usually has something to do with what kind of father they grew up with. This gives me reason to doubt that the relationship that Todd Palin had with Bristol was a very good one.
But he can feel free to get his outrage on toward a ridiculous, deliberately offensive, and meaningless comedian instead. Maybe that will get his mind off the fact that he fucked up.
I gotta hand it to you right-wingers. You're more machiavellian than I thought humanly possible. Pretending Levi Johnston's part of the family and then dumping him to the side of the curb just like that - all because he stopped being useful to your spectacle of pretending that you care about your family and loved ones and promote kindness, charity and understanding toward others. Very, very indecent. And, despite the obsession that the Bush family had with the virtue, not very loyal.
And you guys wonder why voters were turned off.
Keep making fun of Obama and his wife, though. At least their family's not dysfunctional. And that wouldn't be a crime in itself were it not for how the Palins put their dysfunction on a pedestal and pretended to parade that f'd up family dynamic around as some kind of ideal to aspire to.
You will never win voters back if you keep refusing to figure these things out.
Good luck.
Post a Comment