Sykes Displays No Class: President Laughs
BY: WC WINDBAG
Is any joke out of bounds these days when we are taking about those on the Right?
What if (the non-official, official comedian of the Great Illuminator) Steven Crowder had stood in front of the entire Washington Press elites in 2006 and uttered something about Air America “funny-man” Al Franken being the 20th 9/11 hijacker? Just for yuks, Crowder could have even thrown in some lines how Franken was an oversleeping coke-head. I am sure he would have brought the roof down. Har-dee-har-har!
Oh, sure… there are so many holes in this hypothetical. First, Crowder really had not hit it “big” in 2006, so what would he be doing there? Second, that was the year Steven Colbert was there, and he as we know is a left-of-center comic… the only kind that would be invited to this dinner (sorry Crowder). Third, Franken was not funny in 2006 (if ever).
The performance put on by Wanda Sykes at this years dinner, including the excess drooling over the President, was embarrassing. What counts as humor to Sykes? Besides poor English, how about joking about the White House’s favorite target as a drug addicted terrorist:
A transcript for those who rather not watch:
“Mr. President . . . you’ve had your fair share of critics. … Rush Limbaugh, one of your big critics, boy — Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails. So you’re saying, ‘I hope America fails.’ You’re like, ‘I don’t care about people losing their homes, their jobs or our soldiers in Iraq.’ He just wants our country to fail.
To me, that’s treason. He’s not saying anything differently than Osama bin Laden is saying. You know you might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight
“Too much?
“You’re laughing inside, I know you’re laughing.
“Rush Limbaugh — I hope the country fails. I hope his kidneys fail, how about that?
“He needs a waterboarding, that’s what he needs.”
Treason? Hoping the Presidents capital crippling and debt creating policies fail and hoping America fail are not exactly the same. In fact, to many of us, they are polar opposites. Remember when it was out of bounds to criticize those calling our troops as “killers” or rooting against America in the Global War On Terror Overseas Contingency Operation, let alone refer to it as “treason”?
What else is funny? How about continuing to make fun of Sarah Palin’s daughter:
“Gov. Palin, she’s not here tonight, she pulled out at the last minute. Somebody should tell her, that’s not really how you practice abstinence.”
All of this compared to the very tame jokes hurled the President’s way. A sample:
“People love you — even the media. You guys have been favorable towards the president. You know, it’s funny to me that they never caught you smoking, but they always catch you with your shirt off.”
–
“Now, I know you’re into this transparency thing, but, uh, I don’t need to see your nipples.”
–
“Now, I know you’re into this transparency thing, but, uh, I don’t need to see your nipples.”“How dare you people give [Michelle Obama] grief about showing her arms. The country’s broke! Sleeves cost money! She has beautiful arms. Some of the previous first ladies — they needed the sleeves. Some of them needed the ponchos. [Audience hoots.] I didn’t name any names! But you do no need to keep your arms to yourself sometimes. You went over to London, touching the queen. You can’t do that! You’re over there patting the queen on the back like she just slid into home plate. ‘Way to go, Queen!’”
–
“You just hang out. I think you hang out too much. What was that, you and Joe Biden out getting a hamburger? The two of you can’t hang out together. I mean, whose idea was that, Nancy Pelosi’s: ‘Hey, Why don’t you boys go out and get a bite?’”
How does this compare to inappropriate criticisms of Democrats? Look no further than CBS Golf Analyst David Feherty. Sampled from the hyper-partisan, GOP waterboy website of Fox News:
CBS Sports golf analyst David Feherty apologized Sunday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for a morbid joke that went bad in a Dallas magazine.
“From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this though,” Feherty wrote toward the end of his column.
“Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death.”
CBS Sports distanced itself from Feherty’s writing, saying it was “an unacceptable attempt at humor and is not in any way condoned, endorsed or approved” by the network. The PGA Tour also criticized him for an attempt at humor that “went over the line.”
Was the reaction of CBS appropriate? You bet it was. Feherty is an employee of CBS and a public figure. Anything he says and does can be attributed to CBS, so he needs to be careful what he says and writes.
President Obama might have just been being polite to Sykes by smiling and laughing during these inappropriate comments, but it would have been nice if his reaction at the time reflected that of his Press Secretary’s more thoughtful response expressed in his morning briefing:
“I don’t know how the guests get booked,” Gibbs said, adding that he hadn’t “talked specifically” with Obama about Sykes’ crack.
“I think there are a lot of topics that are better left for serious reflection rather than comedy. I think there’s no doubt 9/11 is part of that,” Gibbs continued.
President Obama may not see a reason to apologize for Sykes, but finds it necessary to continue apologizing over and over again for alleged wrongs allegedly committed against petty dictators and totalitarians by United States.
For those of you who noticed, I did not criticize the President’s WHCD comments, because it is a tradition for the sitting President to give a hard time to all around him in this setting. His comments can be seen here, some of which is very funny.
- If Socialized Healthcare Is So Great... - February 2nd, 2010
- Brown Victory: Irony and Reason Lost on Some Dems - January 21st, 2010
- Comments Come Alive - January 16th, 2010
- Transparency Illusion; UPDATE: CNN's Cafferty Losses His Obama-Fevah ...; UPDATE2: Dem Congressman "We aren't transparent." - January 7th, 2010
- Global Warming Freezes Planet - January 5th, 2010
I guess Rush will never be able to distance himself from the mess he made saying he wishes the country fails. I can tell you what Rush should have said, but didn’t. Everyone on the right was high-five on the country failing.
And the Hannity stuff – right on girl !
Cheer up, it ain’t the end of the world. There will be other jokes on Rush in the future.
Hmmmm….I don’t think that Rush indicated anything regarding wishing the country fails. I’ve included the entire video below for your reference.
The point, as outlined in the video, is that the ideas that our Far-Left President is proposing will plunge the country further into the rat hole. Heck, I’m all for Obama failing if it means he doesn’t inact all of his ideas. Jokes aside, that’s the real meaning of the words uttered by Rush in that Hannity interview.
I think the entire world knows the full context of Rush’s statement (at around 6:35 in part 1).
No one ever went around saying I hope Bush fails in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or fails at recovering the economy. Yet smart old Rush says he wants Obama to fail. It is a fine line between the “country fails” and “Obama fails”, I’ll grant the nuance.
The conservative right is at pains to point out that the Obama program is taking us down a socialist path. Facts say otherwise,
- TARP bailout was a Bush initiative. Obviously Bush wasn’t taking us down a socialist path. Banks need cash reserves to function and given their leveraged positions failure of assets adds up quickly.
- TARP and all of these bailouts, combine with equity positions, are designed to insure that tax payers retain control of the assets they are holding up.
- It is hardly the intent of Bush, and of Obama, to transform America into a long term society run by the government.
- Had Obama intended to transform America into a socialist state, he would have nationalized the banks – which he didn’t do.
- American’s pay an incredible tax in the form of failed Medical coverage. I wish all of us could work together to solve these problems so we wind up with the best program.
- The right snipes but doesn’t contribute; the center snipes back. For all of the oh-so-funny democRats and other jokes, this is what we’ve become – the snipe society.
Want to transform the dialog? Start here. Change the tone.
Quote: “Want to transform the dialog? Start here. Change the tone.”
It’s just not worth it. Anyone who doesn’t agree with Obama is to be insulted, mocked and shut up. When hundreds of thousands of people protested the stimulus bailout they were called racist and worse. The jokes about “teabagging” were obscene, and any white person, red necks, mid westerners became a target to mock about. A beauty pageant contestant answers a question candidly, truthfully and because she doesn’t give the politically correct answer she’s called a b*tch and a c*unt. When a feminist in a news programs made fun of Miss California’s breasts, I knew that dissent was to be shut up no matter what. How about that? A feminist had become a sexist pig for political expedience. Unbelievable…
Mike, I think it is really clear that Limbaugh was talking policy. He said over and over again that he is looking for President Obama’s agenda to fail, and that agenda being turning this country away from the policies Limbaugh thinks this has created a unprecedented boom for the USA for 25+ years (technology advances, military superiority, cultural dominance, etc.). Saying that you want someone’s policies to fail might mean success for the country. Whether you like Hillarycare (from the 1990’s) or not, its failure may or may not have prevented a worse situation.
You said “it is a fine line between the ‘country fails’ and ‘Obama fails’”, but that depends on what policy he is implementing. If it is our country’s safety, then of course his failure is our failure. If you are talking about success in implementing a Fairness Doctrine or Cap and Trade, well I would argue, as would a large percentage of the population, that his failure to implement is NOT our country’s failure, but rather our success!
But this is just a side bar to the real subject at hand, which is why it is OK for Liberals to make inappropriate jokes about 9/11 (forget Limbaugh’s drug problem, that is fair game IMHO since he is a public figure). Sykes was out of line, and the President should not have been giggling along. It was over the line, and that’s about it.
Your other points about Bush starting TARP are interesting and debatable, but we will wait for another post about such issues.
Amen Gina! Liberals make an industry about being offended, and go out of their way to put their offense on display for all to see. The Rush comment is just another example of taking words out of context and being offended by them.
On the other hand, if a liberal makes fun of a conservative, it is fair game. Whether it is their looks (like Miss California), their job and position in life (like Joe the Plumber), or just every day citizens (like the Tea Parties), liberals delight in petty and disgusting insults.
Changing the tone might include not commenting on Miss California’s boobs, or not conducting an unauthorized probe of Joe the Plumbers tax records. I have no problem being partisan and having appropriate, harmless partisan comments towards public figures, but rank hypocrisy needs to stop.
Oh, get off it! What I see are two posts that whine about being victimized and offended. Not lost is posting “for all to see” to complaint about liberals “put their offense on display for all to see.” Rest assured that the irony of these posts has not been lost on me.
It’s pretty clear that jokes, comedy, being insulting, being offended, and being insensitive is not just the monopoly of the left, or the right. I hear it from all sides.
Your post alone claiming that Liberals are hypocrites (actually you said rank hypocrisy), while presumably conservatives are not is in itself hypocritical. There are no saints in this debate.
Claiming “On the other hand, if a liberal makes fun of a conservative, it is fair game” is acting like a victim. Conservatives have fallen all over themselves to call budgets “prokulus” and other not so nice. It was fair game for conservatives, who should not and cannot now complain about liberals.
It is also untrue. There are many liberals who never make fun of conservatives (or Cs who likewise don’t make fun of Ls).
From your writings, you express the world in stark polarized terms: Liberals (all, most) are one way, Conservatives (all , most) are another. It is a one-dimensional way of looking at the political spectrum. Another one-dimensional way is the emphasis on the “They” are always after you, or always are after Cs.
To whom do Cs complaining about Ls? They complain to other Cs. When an L hears a C complaining they’ll just laugh (with good reason). The exact same dynamic works when Ls complain about Cs.
The result is that these groups are just talking to themselves. They aren’t talking to anyone else. There is no dialog.
To get out of that, Cs and Ls who aren’t so polarized that they can’t speak with each other (I have hope for both you and Gina on this one) can discuss the merits of any proposal, any idea, any goal. This requires a willingness to see the merits of each others proposal.
Personally, I am not offended. Besides finding edgy comics like Colbert, Stewart, and Gutfeld funny, I have a pretty thick skin. I point out hypocrisy, because that is what it is. Again, you can take any comment to an extreme, but I never use the hard and fast rule that there are no exceptions. There are always exceptions to the rule. Ann Coulter is a perfect example of a right-winger who says outrageous things, although I find her funny as well.
Lefties do tend to be more offended than righties. There are thousands of examples. I named several in my last response:
1) Joe the Plumber dared to question the “spread the wealth around” policies suggested by the President, and the media, Democratic machine, and Hollywood all started attacking little old Joe. Next thing we know, national politicians are making fun of him, late night comedians are ripping into him, and Ohio government officials probed his state records looking for dirt. Outrage over a question!
2) Miss California Carrie Prejean answers Perez Hilton’s question (in a clumsy manner) in which her position that supports the 5,000+ year society norm of marriage between opposite sexes, which is the same as President Obama’s, and the next thing we know she is being called a “hater”, pictures of her turn up suddenly, she is called an idiot and her body is insulted, lefties are looking for her crown to be stripped, and offense is being taken like mad.
3) American citizens take to the street to protest higher spending by the government. The Left takes aim: MSNBC throws bombs, such as charges of racism, the movement is derided as a disgusting sexual act by the left wing media, and by several Democrat politicians (NOT all of them). The accusations are inappropriate. No one calls out the movement on its merits, but instead insults are hurled and offense is taken.
You are right that this goes two ways. There are conservatives who are hypersensitive as well when they are called four letter words, or referred to as baby killers.
I do not see the equivalent though in your example. Referring to the bill as “Porkulus” is hardly the same as a personal attack. If a Democrat, Liberal, or lefty takes offense to that, it proves my point that they are hypersensitive.
On the other hand, if someone standing next to Mitch McConnell or other prominent GOP politician stated that because of their high spending policies, Democrats are the same as Nazi guards throwing Jews into pits and gunning them down, and McConnell laughed, then I think that you would have a case.
So, according to you, it’s still a no on the dialog question.
Your argument went from “the rank hypocrisy has to stop” to “lefties do tend to be more offended than righties.” Actually, I’d argue you feel this way because of the commentators and opinion shows you listen to more than because of reality.
You have no way to measure whom on the left or right are offended and by what, or to listen to every joke ever said about a conservative or about a liberal and then draw a conclusion.
What you do hear about are comments by conservative media commentators. The examples and arguments you gave are straight out of right media. According to them, it’s all about how the right is victimized. Who’s hypersensitive now?
There are by far many more righty commentators out there than there are left ones. Do we count every utterance or just every thought, because either way right wing talk centers on, is consumed by, cannot get out of its way by talk of the right being victimized by tea-bag jokes or Palin can’t read a newspaper stories.
People who want to move on from this hyper focus on media victimization move on to NPR and leave right-radio, and it’s flawed characters, behind. They have changed the dial.
To the contrary. We keep having a back and forth dialogue. I can not see how we are saying no. Have you not posted dozens of time on this site and received a response from the blog authors?
I do not see any inconsistencies in my argument. In fact, the two points complement each other well. I have never spoke in absolutes as you have accused me of, but rather I have utilized generalizations (beginning, not the end of wisdom) to prove my points. There are always exceptions, and that is the way life is. Rank hypocrisy has to stop, regardless who it is… AND… I do believe that lefties are offended more often than righties. I have provided examples of this, and could go on and on. There are very few examples where righties are outraged that they lash out in four-letter words and then coordinate attacks to destroy private citizens.
Regarding my sources of news, you have me wrong. I do not watch opinion shows because they are boring and predictable. The last time I watched O’Reilly was for a specific interview back about 12 months ago, nor have I ever sat through a Hannity show. I enjoy news programs with balance, although that is hard to come by because almost no reporter can divorce themselves from their opinion, and the copy often contains language that betrays them. Bottom line, all sources of news have bias, including the left-leaning NPR news. The best recipe is to include all of them into the mix, which is what you often see as our blog source material via links.
You are absolutely correct. I have viewed no empirical data showing this conclusion. Instead, I have used life experience and my interactions with people, coupled with what is reported and opined on to draw my conclusion. There are righties that can be offended or dish it out, but I have found that lefties tend to monopolize both of these. I have provided examples in previous responses, and you provided Porkulus, so I think my case is a little more solid. My opinion: people who are conservative seem to have thicker skin. Liberals seem to be looking for racism or sexism under ever nook and crannie. Again, a generalization, but it is my humble opinion. To ironically quote the silly line used by Greg Gutfeld most nights on his show, “but if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.”
I certainly am not hypersensitive. As I said in my last response, “Personally, I am not offended. Besides finding edgy comics like Colbert, Stewart, and Gutfeld funny, I have a pretty thick skin. I point out hypocrisy, because that is what it is.”
You pointing to the right-wing media is again is an assumption/conclusion I do not accept.
Again, I disagree with you assumption that there are more righty commentators. I would state that there are more honest righty commentators with shows. In other words, they are bias, they claim to be bias, and they put up front that they are bias. On the other hand, we have lefty cheerleaders in the media, like Helen Thomas, Gwen Ifill, Bill Moyers, Susan Roesgen, Jeff Zeleny, and their kind who pretend to be a non-bias, no-partisan, when they are nothing of the kind. When 90% of the White House Press Corps claim to have voted Democratic, there is no way to hide the bias. Time for these “reporters” to come out of the closet and admit what they are.
Also, if you really believe that the tiny Cindy Sheehan anti-war protests, which were given a ton of press and treated with respect by not only the press, but President Bush himself, were treated the same as the tea parties coverage, I would like to see that justified. The media lampooned and lambasted the tea parties, but stated that no one had the right to question Cindy Sheehan.
More righty commentators… let’s get serious.
Stats do no back you up on this. Right-wing media (talk shows, and Fox News) ratings are going through the roof. That could be because there are more racist, homophobes tuning in for the first time, as Janene Garafolo might say, but I would argue that it is more likely a result of the center moving back again. Some people are turning away from the GOP and others from the Democrats. That is constant as people change opinions and move from one part of the spectrum to the other.
Your point has been evolving, and I applaud the change. It started with a blank assertion that the “rank hypocrisy” of the left has to change. It has now moved to “Rank hypocrisy has to stop, regardless who it is…”
To me, any argument from any party that starts “they” are more this than that is DOA from the start.
As a general rule, you don’t hear the left crying about how they are victimized by the right. You hear that constantly from the right, including right here on this blog. That point has been established over and over.
The playbook for demagoguery has always been to create an enemy and rally against it; create a fortress mentality among your followers; view everything in the world, anything and everything regardless of the facts as proof that “they” are after you.
Demagoguery is not the exclusive purview of the right, but that does not absolve the right when it rallies against entire whole classes of people such as the media or the left. (It is no more right for the left to rally against “corporations” or “the rich”).
But in your blog, your polarized view is always the right against the left. It is a rally not of facts but about generalized rules that on close examination fail to meet any standard.
I see your generalizations about the “left” as demagoguery. I doubt you invented it; I hear it on talk radio, on commentators, on right wing blogs. I do not think you necessarily listen to right radio, but you do absorb a great deal of right blogs, especially Michelle Malkin.
The invite to dialog was not an invite to point and counterpoint on this blog. It’s an invite to move away from the view that “they” are after you and be much less demagoguery. It is not “they” v “us”, it is “we”.
Like the other entry, this is my last comment, but feel free to reply.
Again, I don’t see an evolution in my point. If you do and that makes you applaud, then there we go.
You say that this should not be about they vs. us, but that is what our system of government and justice are built upon. “We” only works for the majority and the majority opinion. Back in 2005, we did not hear a whole lot of “we” when it came to social security program. In fact, the Dems became the party of “NO”. The GOP did not exploit that well, at least not nearly as well as the Dems are exploiting it against the GOP today. And there should not be any “we”. I applaud the Democrats for opposing the GOP any way they could to remain relevant and support their positions. That is their right. The Founders set up a government that made it difficult to change things. This helped keep the nation together. Calls for “we” are always made by the majority.
Goodness… the Left is always crying victimhood. From 2001-2009, there was all sorts of “come see the violence inherit in the system… I’m being repressed” calls. The ACLU, NAACP, and many other lefty groups led the way. Left-wing media and a ton of pols continue to claim victimhood from talk radio and Fox News. It is as if having the all major TV, NPR, newspapers, universities, and Hollywood in the left is not enough. That was a weak claim.
What you refer to as “demagoguery” is a bit over the top. If a political opponent points out differences between the parties and tries to rally his supporters, is that demagoguery? I guess it depends if in the opinion of the labeler whether or not an “enemy” has been created. If I say that the Democrats are voting in Congress to raise taxes and complacent Republicans like Snowe and Collins are going along, and that we need to oppose them, have I made them into a “them”, an “enemy”? Am I practicing demagoguery? Where is that line drawn? How about when Democrat politicians and anti-war groups separate the Bush Administration because of the Iraq war? Is that creating an enemy, or rallying the troops.
Our blog takes a view of right vs. left because it is a political blog, focused on the issues that divide us… where we can have discussion and good natured ribbing. None of us here call for Obama to be arrested and tried as a criminal. None of us say put Pelosi’s head on pike. We are truly passionate about what we say, but we have no pitchforks. We are only three guys sharing our opinions and attempting to back them up.
That is what you will see on this blog. Whether we are talking about an inflated budget, a Hollywood movie, or a breakfast cereal… if it is on this blog, it is likely to have a political bend, and the perspective will be from the right.
I hope you enjoy coming here to read and comment, but you are unlikely to change the format or direction of this blog.
Demagoguery is how I see your position. By definition, anyone who talks about people as a class instead of the merits or not of an idea is engaging in demagoguery. It fits this “partisan” blog perfectly.
There is a huge difference between an exchange of ideas and an argument based on “they the left.” Your post above continues with “they the left” but brings absolutely nothing in terms of ideas to the table. Yours is just trying to rationalize your position as right when your position is nothing but demagoguery.
The ACLU works on ideas – the idea of constitutional rights and guarantees. The right to a fair trial, the right to wear what you want, the right to your religion, or lack there of, the right to be left alone from government snooping.
That is a huge difference between your unsupportable supposition and that ACLU’s position. I doubt that you will find an NAACP position about everyone on the right as a group. NAACP has done some terrific work insuring that rights for everyone are respected. It used to be that the Old South denied poor whites as much as anyone else their rights.
You should “get” the fact that it is about an exchange of ideas, like the debate about social security was (glad we won that one), and stop demonizing people and groups. The only reason you demonize people is because as a group your ideas are weak and vacuous.
This is why democrats did not want Soc Sec raided to the benefit of Wall Street – because it was a sucker’s bet
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/munnell.social.security/index.html
This is why it should be about ideas and facts, and not about everyone on the right or everyone on the left
http://foxnewsboycott.com/fox-news/janeane-garafalo-handles-ambush-on-fox-news/
The right is not all racist anymore than the left is all anti corporate. Worse, what you call the left is or is not what Michelle Malkin calls the left. You (or her) may include the responsible center.
The call to dialog was not a call to leave your belief the conservatism is the only path. Rather, it was a call to discuss issues on the facts. So long as you persist and insist on calling the left one thing, it follows with certainty that you cannot then complain that opponents of your point of view tar the entire right with their favorite insult. Like it or not, the right has lost any claim to higher ground. It has used someone’s odd attack of it as a rationalization.
We isn’t just for the majority. In fact we is the best tool the minority has.
Let me address the examples you asked about,
- nobody on the left feels victimized by Fox News. Get over it.
- About your opposition to “complacent Snowe and Collins.” Your opposition is fact based, you don’t like specific items for specific reasons. Fair opposition.
- “How about when Democrat politicians and anti-war groups separate the Bush Administration because of the Iraq war?” Not sure what separate means here, but opposition to the war is fair opposition; calling all conservatives war mongering not.
- “Rallying the troops.” Putting troops in harms way on a foolish mission is not rallying the troops. It is killing them.
- “None of us here call for Obama to be arrested and tried as a criminal. None of us say put Pelosi’s head on pike. We are truly passionate about what we say, but we have no pitchforks. ” Making a case for Bush Administration arrests is fair opposition if it is based on specific legal arguments; calling all Bush appointees war criminals without proof is not. Also not fair game is a blanket assertion on the motives of the Obama administration; specific points and examples is fair.
- “We are only three guys sharing our opinions and attempting to back them up.” Blanket “left” is not fair opposition, nor does it even meet teh standard you set above!
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 32 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 15 hours, 34 minutes, 29 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags