Over at Instapundit we have a link to Pajamas TV and "Zonation." The item is "AlfonZo Rachel Presents: Letterman, Palin and a Topless Drew Barrymore".
To see the video you have to sit through a 30 second commercial for Pajamas TV. One thing you learn from the commercial is that Pajamas TV is a lot cheaper per month that The Boston Globe. The content can't be must worse.
I think that Mr AlfonZo Rachel nails it with regard to Mr David Letterman. Mr Letterman hides behind his jokes as he pushes his own particular political views. It isn't pretty.
On the other hand, it is reported that this evening Mr Letterman will take another shot at an apology. Maybe this time he will show that he is serious about the apology. I would hold off on this post except that I am going to bed soon and won't be staying up to watch Mr Letterman. I will count on the Blog-o-sphere to update me in the AM.
Regards — Cliff
4 comments:
Am I the only one who recalls Rush Limbaugh broadcasting a photograph of the then 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, and describing her as "the White House dog"???
Just the other day, GOP activist Rusty DePass characterized a gorilla recently escapted from the South Carolina Riverbanks Zoo as one of Michelle Obama's ancestors. When pressed to make an apology, his offering was that the comment was made "in jest".
Face it--expecting a worthwhile apology from anyone whose living is made whoring for attention is a fools occupation. And among attention whores I absolutely include politicians and their activist supporters who are shocked, shocked I tell you, that the offspring thrust into the public limelight as part of their parent's profession are catching some of the flak.
I don't remember the Rush Limbaugh abuse of young Chelsea Clinton, but saw a comment about it Monday. I thought it was a bit OOC for Rush, but figure it must have happened and that it happened was an act of stupidity on the part of Mr Limbaugh. I hope he apologized for it.
And, on FOX last night I heard a comment about Rusty DePass' faux pas (my wife was channel surfing and I heard the reference). What was the man thinking? Obviously nothing.
This is not just a "liberal" problem. It is a human problem. I think that where I part company with Kad is in not hoping for the best for the offspring of politicians. We need politicians and in order to attract a certain quality we need to condemn those who abuse the children of politicians, including politicians who move from giving their children a chance to view the world to exploiting them as props.
That said, I am not sure where to draw the line. If you are nominated for dog catcher (or President of the United States), do you hide your children or bring them up on the stage with you?
Regards — Cliff
Here's Molly Ivins on the Limbaugh quote for the skeptics: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/lyin-bully
At the time there was also another shot from John McCain of all people saying that Chelsea was "so ugly" because Janet Reno was her father. This was not an isolated incident.
You misundertand if you think I believe that political progeny should be "fair game" just for being political progeny. What I do believe is that the moment a politician brings their offspring up on stage at a convention, and holds them up as personal examples of their fine family values and general politcal opinions, (e.g. Sarah Palin discussing the ethics of Bristol's pregnancy), those progeny are absolutely going to be targeted, and I completely understand why, and also, more importantly, why this must be so.
Politics is a contact sport, and allowing any politician the space to make points that are beyond question or reproach or humor (like #43 pulling the "patriotism" card to stifle objections to his illegal declaration of war in Iraq) is a dire threat to our entire process.
To the admonition to Question Authority, I would add, And Make (Fair) Jokes About It.
The confusion about Willow vs. Bristol is a serious point, and its important to have Dave's clearer apology this morning.
I also feel that the stuff about any politician appearing to be a "slutty flight attendant" is in poor taste, bordering on outright misogynism, and embarrassing to us all, but to me that's a classic first amendment issue, and folks have to have the right to say stuff like that. (Don't forget, Sarah Palin began her career parading herself around on stage in a bathing suit, so it's not like it's not in some imagination of a ballpark). In any case, we all have to then raise our voices and point at the jokester and take sides against him or her if we so believe. (Like the the LA Times blog headlining: "Man, 62, jokes about girl, 14).
Guys,
Yup, Kad you're not alone on the Chelsea thing, it was in one of the comments under "Willow Palin" a couple entries down here..
Glad to see the mentions of the Rusty DePass thing...I was thinking about doing an entry about it. When I first heard there was an uproar over a Michelle Obama joke I sort of groaned and thought about double standards and oversensitivity. When I saw the joke, however, I saw there was NOTHING funny about it and it seems to have been based in racism (would he have EVER said that 'in jest' about a white pol's wife?). Sounds like someone was trying to throw red meat at a certain type of audience, got called out for it, and then had to apologize to save face.
ALL THAT having been said, though, I still think parody and humor still shows which lines really can't be crossed...just imagine for a second -- and I'd prefer not to -- what would happen to David Letterman had he made a joke similar to the Willow Palin crack about one of the President's daughters..
best,
gp
Post a Comment