Some years ago, Comedy Central did a Bush-based sitcom called “That’s My Bush.” Created by Parker and Stone of “South Park” fame, it was a parody of old-style sitcoms that was distinctly hit or miss in its execution. It did, however, deftly capture what many saw as the essential banality of George W. Bush.
Then the Twin Towers fell and suddenly making fun of the President was no longer deemed acceptable. The show quickly evaporated.
So now it’s five years later and Comedy Central is launching a Bush-based sitcom called “Lil’ Bush.”
No, I don’t REALLY think there’s cause-and-effect involved…
…but it’s making me nervous.
PAD
• 
What would the cause and effect be? That they’re launching the show because now it’s okay to make fun of Bush?
Frankly, I think they’re a little late. I can tolerate Bush humor in sardonic doses like on the Daily Show, but I don’t think I could stand to watch a whole show that makes light of what he and his administration have done.
The cause and effect would be
* launch show
* terrorist attack
(At least, that’s how I understood PAD’s post)
Though it is nice to see that it may be ok to make fun of the president again, I do agree with Matt in many of us who were making fun of him before, are no longer laughing.
and PAD — I do realize the post is timestamped at 6:56 am, which does explain things, but you ought to go over the first couple paragraphs of your post for spelling errors. I know you’ll catch them.
My problem with any parody or satire of the Bush Presidency is that his Presidency, and the man himself are such an absurd, bizarro world reflection of reality that any show will pale in comparison. I mean how do you top being the laughing stock of the whole world.
It reminds me of something the folks at Second City TV once said about the show “Three’s Company”. They said they couldn’t do a parody of it because it always seemed like just another episode of the show itself. They couldn’t make it any stupider than it was.
I disagree with the premise that Bush can’t be made to look more stupid than he already is. I loathe Bush, and believe him to be an incompetent and dishonest president. Nevertheless, I believe many of my fellow libs have given in to “Bush-Hatin’ Fever,” and are acting like he’s the Anti-Christ when he is in fact one of the many bad presidents we’ve had throughout history.
(By the way, I have no interest in getting into a debate over whether he’s the worst we’ve ever had because I believe to do so is just silly. It often takes decades or longer before we can truly put a president in proper historical context. The cries that “Bush is the worst” are nothing but raw, unadulterated emotion.)
The problem is not whether or not Bush can be parodied, because he can be. The problem is that the debacle in Iraq is the dominant theme for this administration, and I don’t find it particularly funny. Yet were the show to ignore that subject it would seem hollow.
When I first found this blog I was thrilled, since PAD has become my favorite author. But the more I see these kind of Bush-paranoia posts, the more that joy is diminished. It makes me want to see the Republicans out of the White House if only to make PAD move on to topics more worthy of discussion.
Do you hear that Peter. How dare you post your personal thoughts and opinions on your personal blog.
On the flipside…maybe PAD has gained a voter for the Democrats in the next election. (Saddened seemed to imply he wouldn’t normally want the Republicans out of the White House.)
Admittedly, it’s not the best of reasons to vote…but one can make a ‘smart’ vote for a ‘dumb’ reason.
😉
Posted by: Saddened at June 5, 2007 10:27 AM
When I first found this blog I was thrilled, since PAD has become my favorite author. But the more I see these kind of Bush-paranoia posts, the more that joy is diminished.
If you have a different point-of-view about the president, why not air it out? PAD’s commitment to free speech extends to his blog: he doesn’t censor opposing points-of-view, no matter how odious he finds them.
If you can’t or won’t contribute anything more than complaints about the tenor of the conversations here, however, please don’t be surprised if you find yourself roundly belittled and subsequently ignored.
“When I first found this blog I was thrilled, since PAD has become my favorite author. But the more I see these kind of Bush-paranoia posts, the more that joy is diminished. It makes me want to see the Republicans out of the White House if only to make PAD move on to topics more worthy of discussion.”
Considering out of the last twenty blog entries, eighty percent were about topics other than Bush–movies, television, my work, bowling–it seems to me what you REALLY want to see is, in fact, NO posts about Bush. ‘Fraid I can’t help you there.
PAD
Not to defend Saddened, but it seems that he/she seems to think that PAD was implying that Bush and Co caused 911 to stop “That’s my Bush”, and would do the same with “Lil’ Bush”.
Obviously, that’s nuts, and anyone who reads here enough would know that PAD wouldn’t think that. It was a more general, “this happened before, and I’d hate to see history repeat itself” type of thing. I don’t think there was a paranoia aspect to the posting.
Lil’ Bush started not as an influence because of the hhe earlier show. I’ve met the creators of the new show which started as a mobile exclusive on Amp Mobile and not by Comedy Channel. The connection is only in name and making fun of GHBush
Posted by Bill Myers at June 5, 2007 10:57 AM
If you can’t or won’t contribute anything more than complaints about the tenor of the conversations here, however, please don’t be surprised if you find yourself roundly belittled and subsequently ignored.
Saddened, I myself happen to agree with you (About the Bush paranoia not the diminished joy of Peters writing) but being one that found out the hard way. (My skin is much thicker now) You have to contribute to the debate not just disagree. That is if you plan on joining the debate.
After all this is Peter Davids Blog
“Not to defend Saddened, but it seems that he/she seems to think that PAD was implying that Bush and Co caused 911 to stop “That’s my Bush”, and would do the same with “Lil’ Bush”.”
Good God, seriously? I don’t subscribe to the whole “Bush was responsible for 9/11” wheeze, and even if I did–which I don’t–“That’s My Bush” certainly wouldn’t have been the motivation.
No, I was just worried about the whole notion of history repeating itself because of karma, fate, whatever.
PAD
When someone says explicitly No, I don’t REALLY think there’s cause-and-effect involved… I should hope it’s hard to imagine that they, well, think there’s cause-and-effect involved.
As to whether there is a greater chance now of an actual attack…they haven’t been able to do anything for almost 6 years now. I suppose there could be an attempt to time an attack to coincide with a withdrawing of the troops totry to take credit (there are reports of increased activity in places where the British are reducing their presence) but that would be mind bogglingly stupid.
Though it is nice to see that it may be ok to make fun of the president again,
I gotta say, if there was an actual time when it was not ok to do so the memo must’ve missed John Stewart, Leno, Conan, Letterman, etc, etc.
Posted by: Pat Nolan at June 5, 2007 11:20 AM
You have to contribute to the debate not just disagree.
Well said.
I find myself disagreeing plenty with people here, even my fellow liberals. Often I learn something, and sometimes I even change my mind about things. But when all someone does is post the equivalent of “this sucks,” well, what’s the point?
I think that a small amount of paranoia is a good thing. After all this administration continues to do things to make people paranoid.
That having been said. A sense of deja vu that PAD is getting isn’t necessarily paranoia, just a good writing sensing a pattern to the sweep of the events.
After all Mayor Rudy did say if he wasn’t the next President we would have another terror attack.
I think that a small amount of paranoia is a good thing. After all this administration continues to do things to make people paranoid.
That having been said. A sense of deja vu that PAD is getting isn’t necessarily paranoia, just a good writing sensing a pattern to the sweep of the events.
After all Mayor Rudy did say if he wasn’t the next President we would have another terror attack.
I think that a small amount of paranoia is a good thing. After all this administration continues to do things to make people paranoid.
That having been said. A sense of deja vu that PAD is getting isn’t necessarily paranoia, just a good writing sensing a pattern to the sweep of the events.
After all Mayor Rudy did say if he wasn’t the next President we would have another terror attack.
The dreaded double post. I shall drag myself off to a sound beating for that.
I don’t know what they can do to make a successful series out of poking fun at Bush. Most Bush parody that seems really funny is very quick, hit and run style stuff like the Jib Jab shorts. Bush and his crew are so far beyond rational concepts that any parody would fall short of the real deal or end up making light of a truly vile situation.
And, adding to what Bill pointed out above, the greatest blunder and frequent smarmy maneuverings of the Bush administration are centered around Iraq or The War on Terror. You can do some great comedy and parody about war, but not while the war is in progress. Most people won’t watch that. The War on Terror would require a very skilled hand and would have to tread a very fine line. Again, don’t see it happening. But without those two topics, you have such a hollow parody of Bush that you may as well either not do it at all or just do it around a fictional administration.
No, I was just worried about the whole notion of history repeating itself because of karma, fate, whatever.
Hëll, I would be worried just because we’re past due. They’re out there trying to hit us and we’ve been lucky enough to catch them or stop them so far. It only takes one successful attempt by them VS us having to having to stop them 100% of the time. Not really the greatest odds for us.
Hah.
Little Wolf, you gotta love the ironic whimsy of triple posting when discussing a sense of déjà vu.
Part of That’s My Bush‘s problem was that the plan was to do a sitcom for Bush or Gore, so it wasn’t keyed to either…you’d either have a yokel main character or a robot main character….that and I’m not sure that Parker and Stone really have a voice outside of South Park.
Lil Bush has apparently been around for a while as mobile phone toons, and have been well received. (I haven’t seen them). But I don’t get the sense from the ads that this show will do anything more than poke gentle fun at the administration, and we’re well beyond that. Clinton you could poke fun at…Bush Sr. and Reagan…W and co are just a bit too far gone for it.
Part of That’s My Bush’s problem was that the plan was to do a sitcom for Bush or Gore, so it wasn’t keyed to either…
I’m not sure that was really a problem. They said from the beginning that they were out to spoof the idea of the sitcom and that they were basically using the setting as a tool to that rather then spoofing Bush (or Gore if it had gone the other way) himself. In that goal, they succeded pretty well. I’m just not sure how many people who tuned in knew that they were aiming at target A rather then target B.
….that and I’m not sure that Parker and Stone really have a voice outside of South Park.
Oh, I’ll go all the way with you there. I’m a huge fan of the show, but nothing else that they’ve done has really worked that well for me. Even World Police failed to really rise up past a few good scenes here and there. They seemed to have hit the perfect formula for themselves the first time at bat and have yet to show that they’re truly bankable or dependable outside of that one formula.
I’m a little iffy on the show. The commercials so far look like the same jokes we’ve already heard a thousand times before. I’ll give it a try, though. At the very least because Iggy Pop is doing the singing voice of Lil’ Rummy.
Actually PAD, “That’s My Bush” was cancelled a month before 9/11. Comedy Central cited production costs, which were in the neighborhood of $700,000 per episode, as the main reason for the decision.
http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,271|69673|1|,00.html
On the other hand, maybe that’s just what they want you to believe? World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demolition, right? Hey, if the tinfoil hat fits…
-Dave O’Connell
Actually PAD, “That’s My Bush” was cancelled a month before 9/11. Comedy Central cited production costs, which were in the neighborhood of $700,000 per episode, as the main reason for the decision.
http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,271|69673|1|,00.html
On the other hand, maybe that’s just what they want you to believe? World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demolition, right? Hey, if the tinfoil hat fits…
-Dave O’Connell
Actually PAD, “That’s My Bush” was cancelled a month before 9/11. Comedy Central cited production costs, which were in the neighborhood of $700,000 per episode, as the main reason for the decision.
http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,271|69673|1|,00.html
On the other hand, maybe that’s just what they want you to believe? World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demolition, right? Hey, if the tinfoil hat fits…
-Dave O’Connell
Part of the problem I had with, “That’s My Bush” was the show just wasn’t funny. It reminded me of the “Ellen” show when it became not a sitcom, but a show focusing on a soapbox for the sexuality of Ellen.
Right now I am a big fan of “Family Guy” and have bought and read the comics and the tie-in books. However right now I am reading “It Takes a Village Idiot…” and most of it seems to be a bash on Bush. I want to read it for it’s satire and comedy not agenda driven politics. I don’t mind Bush bashing in a comedy series, “The Simpsons” have done it in a funny way without distracting from the comedy of the show. I watch and read funny stuff to laugh, when it becomes more I hate whatever. It starts to loose me. “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” do this very well. And I am mostly a right leaning person. (Makes it hard when I walk the dog and she goes right. I almost fall over.) Satire and comedy done right no matter who they skewer is funny. But things like “I’m gonna punch you in the face”, (or whatever the line was), in a world where spousal violence is a real problem leaves me cold.
Now I think I am being repetitious so I’ll stop.
Bobb
And another joins the ranks of the reading-challenged. *sigh*
Try again, Dave. Read the entire post this time. Then, just for fun, read the responses too. Perhaps this will clear things up a bit for you, tinfoil wise…
“Hëll, I would be worried just because we’re past due. They’re out there trying to hit us and we’ve been lucky enough to catch them or stop them so far. It only takes one successful attempt by them VS us having to having to stop them 100% of the time. “
But I thought Bushie said we were fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we wouldn’t have to fight them here?
You can’t be implying that Jesus Bush lied to us, can you?
I have already ordered my tickets for the new Broadway show, “Springtime for Bush.” See you there!
Seriously, it was ok to make fun of Bush when he was merely an ineffectual toady, but now that he is undermining the constitution, he is actually a villain.
Posted by: Bobb (In Irving) at June 5, 2007 01:01 PM
Part of the problem I had with, “That’s My Bush” was the show just wasn’t funny. It reminded me of the “Ellen” show when it became not a sitcom, but a show focusing on a soapbox for the sexuality of Ellen.
Funny, I never heard anyone complain that such-and-such a show is “a soapbox for the heterosexual agenda.” When Ellen’s character “came out,” it made sense that she’d face the kinds of problems that all openly gay people face. It was no more “preachy” then the overrated “Family Ties” (which often had a syrupy, sickening moral at the end of each episode) or “Growing Pains” (don’t get me started!). The only difference is that Ellen had the temerity to act as though homosexuality is something other than a dirty little secret.
Besides, after Ellen came out ABC pretty much withdrew all support from the show. I think that had as much to do with the show’s failure as anything else.
Posted by: Bobb (In Irving) at June 5, 2007 01:01 PM
I want to read it for it’s satire and comedy not agenda driven politics.
That’s too bad, because political satire can be thought-provoking, even if it’s driven by an “agenda” other than your own.
Posted by: Bobb (In Irving) at June 5, 2007 01:01 PM
But things like “I’m gonna punch you in the face”, (or whatever the line was), in a world where spousal violence is a real problem leaves me cold.
That’s because you missed the point. They were spoofing that bit from “The Honeymooners,” where Ralph would threaten his wife by telling her, “To the moon, Alice! To the moon!” Meaning he was going to knock her all the way to the moon, of course. By stripping away the euphemisms and having Bush explicitly threaten to punch his wife, they were exposing what was hidden under that rock and forcing us to see the ugliness behind what is generally regarded as a harmless “Honeymooners” bit.
Of course, all of this misses the larger point.
Lil’ Bush just isn’t that funny. It may be ok in short blips and small doses, but it’s going to sink like a rock in long form. Anybody that hasn’t seen the thing can judge for themselves over on Youtube and Google Video.
Funny, I never heard anyone complain that such-and-such a show is “a soapbox for the heterosexual agenda.” When Ellen’s character “came out,” it made sense that she’d face the kinds of problems that all openly gay people face.
I don’t know, Bill, I can sort of see where he’s coming from. The show was not exactly knock down wet your pants funny to begin with but when it “got serious” it became barely watchable. Some gay folks I know were glad when it got cancelled, since they were afraid it would be the kiss of death to any further gay shows (obviously the folks behind Will & Grace managed to get it right).
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at June 5, 2007 04:01 PM
Lil’ Bush just isn’t that funny.
Maybe THAT is the terrorists’ plan! To kill us with unfunny comedy! I just KNEW Alan Thicke was an Al Qaeda operative…
“Though it is nice to see that it may be ok to make fun of the president again,
I gotta say, if there was an actual time when it was not ok to do so the memo must’ve missed John Stewart, Leno, Conan, Letterman, etc, etc.”
There were several months after 9/11 where all the comedians gave Bush a totally free pass. Hëll, there were even still serious “The Death of Irony” conversations a year after the event. “Saturday Night Live” even treated Giuliani with a reverence bordering on worship not long after the attacks. You had Dan Rather — not exactly a noted conservative icon — on David Letterman declaring “If the president tells me where to line up, I’ll line up.”
Once the gloves were off — around mid-2002, by my guess — everyone was off to the races with Bush jokes again, but he got a LOT of leeway from the Jon Stewarts of the world for quite some time.
“Getting on a soapbox” is just saying something that someone disagrees with. Most of the people who complain about it are the ones who have no problem with shows that agree with them.
For example, I’m an atheist (or close to it), so Kirk Cameron makes me laugh like crazy. Lately he’s talking about atheists trying to recruit people and spread atheism in insidious ways. Where’s he doing this? On his religious television show on a religious channel. Last I checked, there was no atheist cable network. Yet I’m the one who’s trying to force my opinion on people?
On the other hand, I’ve had friends who were very religious and totally respectful of my beliefs. I’ve had very intelligent conversations with a priest where neither of us exactly changed our minds, but we learned a little about each other’s opinions.
Politics is the same way. The problem is never Democrats or Republicans. The problem is extremists. I’m sure some people will get upset over Lil’ Bush, and I’m sure plenty of other moderates on both sides will see it for the harmless thing it really is.
I agree with the sentiment that “That’s My Bush” wasn’t funny. I get what they were trying to do in satirizing the idea of a sitcom (even to the point of giving Bush a wacky neighbor who could enter and leave the White House with impunity ala Kramer), but, like someone said above, you can’t satirize “Three’s Company” because it’s already as stupid as it possibly could be.
I watched about two episodes and every joke pretty much depended on the premise that Bush was stupid dork. Even for someone who dislikes Bush as much as I do, it was too heavy-handed.
I’ve only seen the preview clips for “Lil Bush” and it looks like they’re going to focus on Bush’s famous petulance and childishness. On scene has him calling another kid “red shirt” because he’s wearing a redshirt, an obvious reference to Bush’s habit of giving people around him demeaning nicknames like Turd Blossom (Rove). The problem is, like in That’s My Bush, the jokes come across as too obvious. I doubt it’ll work.
As for Ellen, jeez, I think I’m the only human being on the planet whose opinion was entirely unchanged before and after she came out. I didn’t think she was funny before and I didn’t think turning the show into nonstop preaching about gay acceptance made her any funnier.
Before she came out, her show was teetering on the edge of cancelation, so her decision always smacked to me of a desperate ploy to save the show. It didn’t work because, as I said, she still wasn’t funny.
Kinda sorta off topic, but….
After “Ellen” (the person and the character) came out, I began to notice a little two step that ABC and the show’s producer’s kept falling into. ABC would object to content, the producer’s would stand firm, publicity for the show would occur, and ABC would cave.
It looked rather orchastrated to me. And that’s one conspiracy theory I’ll gladly hang my tinfoil hat on.
There were several months after 9/11 where all the comedians gave Bush a totally free pass.
That may be…I don’t remember lots of laughs around then. But It’s still a big leap to say that “now” we can finally laugh at the president again when it’s been kosher to do so for 5 years now.
I didn’t think she was funny before and I didn’t think turning the show into nonstop preaching about gay acceptance made her any funnier.
Actually, I think Ellen can be quite funny but here style may not be the sort that transfers well to a traditional situation comedy. She seems to be doing well as a talk show host though.
Saddened said:
“It makes me want to see the Republicans out of the White House if only to make PAD move on to topics more worthy of discussion.”
———-
There is nothing—nothing—NO THING—more worthy of discussion than how the country is being managed or mismanaged. What happens in Washington, D.C., affects everything that happens in our lives.
I JUST can’t wait to see how my life changes in 595 days.
Oddly enough, after eight years of being away from freelancing for the local newspaper, I recently began getting promo discs from Comedy Central out of the blue about a month ago. A DVD of L’IL BUSH arrived in my mailbox today. I’ll try to find time to watch it tomorrow and report back.
I think L’IL BUSH looks like a one-joke concept: A juvenile president is an actual little kid! Watch, forget, repeat the next episode. I’ll pass.
As for ELLEN (as the topic drifts to a show that was cancelled nine years ago), I agree that it got too preachy after she came out in “The Puppy Episode.” Before that, the show was cute with lots of chuckles and sometimes laughs. Afterwards, virtually episode revolved almost solely around Ellen being gay (“Gay ice” anyone?) which led to lots of preachiness and much less humor. WILL AND GRACE did a better job balacning the characters’ sexuality (everyone on that show, gay or straight, had an active sex life) with their friendships, careers, and general life.
>And another joins the ranks of the reading->challenged. *sigh*
>Try again, Dave. Read the entire post this >time. Then, just for fun, read the responses >too. Perhaps this will clear things up a bit >for you, tinfoil wise…
OK. I reread PAD’s post. He said:
>Then the Twin Towers fell and suddenly making >fun of the President was no longer deemed >acceptable. The show quickly evaporated.
How can a show “evaporate” when it’s already been cancelled? The network of origin doesn’t show the reruns as much, or at all? Why, that’s only happened with pretty much every single cancelled show in the history of television!
I remember 9/11. For a few weeks afterward, yes, the Bush jokes weren’t exactly flying fast and furious. But then Conan, Saturday Night Live, etc. got back to normal. And that was that. Jeez, even “24,” then in its first season, aired almost completely intact, and that season’s plot was about the assassination of…wait for it…the President!
There’s no need to suggest there was some weird post-9/11 chilling effect lasting until now that effectively forced shows off the air. This is a daft notion, and it seems to be a cheap dig at Bush, since such an alternate “no laughs at Bush expense” universe wouldn’t be possible unless Bush was seriously fanning the flames somehow. It is indeed the kind of sentiment that accessorizes nicely with tinfoil hats.
-Dave O’Connell
>And another joins the ranks of the reading->challenged. *sigh*
>Try again, Dave. Read the entire post this >time. Then, just for fun, read the responses >too. Perhaps this will clear things up a bit >for you, tinfoil wise…
OK. I reread PAD’s post. He said:
>Then the Twin Towers fell and suddenly making >fun of the President was no longer deemed >acceptable. The show quickly evaporated.
How can a show “evaporate” when it’s already been cancelled? The network of origin doesn’t show the reruns as much, or at all? Why, that’s only happened with pretty much every single cancelled show in the history of television!
I remember 9/11. For a few weeks afterward, yes, the Bush jokes weren’t exactly flying fast and furious. But then Conan, Saturday Night Live, etc. got back to normal. And that was that. Jeez, even “24,” then in its first season, aired almost completely intact, and that season’s plot was about the assassination of…wait for it…the President!
There’s no need to suggest there was some weird post-9/11 chilling effect lasting until now that effectively forced shows off the air. This is a daft notion, and it seems to be a cheap dig at Bush, since such an alternate “no laughs at Bush expense” universe wouldn’t be possible unless Bush was seriously fanning the flames somehow. It is indeed the kind of sentiment that accessorizes nicely with tinfoil hats.
-Dave O’Connell
>And another joins the ranks of the reading->challenged. *sigh*
>Try again, Dave. Read the entire post this >time. Then, just for fun, read the responses >too. Perhaps this will clear things up a bit >for you, tinfoil wise…
OK. I reread PAD’s post. He said:
>Then the Twin Towers fell and suddenly making >fun of the President was no longer deemed >acceptable. The show quickly evaporated.
How can a show “evaporate” when it’s already been cancelled? The network of origin doesn’t show the reruns as much, or at all? Why, that’s only happened with pretty much every single cancelled show in the history of television!
I remember 9/11. For a few weeks afterward, yes, the Bush jokes weren’t exactly flying fast and furious. But then Conan, Saturday Night Live, etc. got back to normal. And that was that. Jeez, even “24,” then in its first season, aired almost completely intact, and that season’s plot was about the assassination of…wait for it…the President!
There’s no need to suggest there was some weird post-9/11 chilling effect lasting until now that effectively forced shows off the air. This is a daft notion, and it seems to be a cheap dig at Bush, since such an alternate “no laughs at Bush expense” universe wouldn’t be possible unless Bush was seriously fanning the flames somehow. It is indeed the kind of sentiment that accessorizes nicely with tinfoil hats.
-Dave O’Connell
“Bill Myers at June 5, 2007 02:57 PM
generally regarded as a harmless “Honeymooners” bit”
Harmless? Men may have thought it so, but do you think women of that era (especially those on the receving end of such treatment in real life) didn’t recognise exactly what was being said?
Dave O’Connell,
Actually, season one of 24 concerned the attempted assassination of a presidential candidate. Palmer was a senator at the time.
Rick
>>There were several months after 9/11 where all the comedians gave Bush a totally free pass. Hëll, there were even still serious “The Death of Irony” conversations a year after the event. “Saturday Night Live” even treated Giuliani with a reverence bordering on worship not long after the attacks. You had Dan Rather — not exactly a noted conservative icon — on David Letterman declaring “If the president tells me where to line up, I’ll line up.”
Those last two things came in the weeks following the atacks, though. As for “The Death of Irony” articles, I think we can chalk that up to journalists flailing about to fill out the huge volume of 9-11 anniversary coverage. I did say in my last post that after a few weeks back on the air, things were back to normal. At the very least, I’m sure the knives were out by January, when Bush coined the phrase “Axis of Evil.” (You don’t think the talk shows had a field day with that?) It sure wasn’t the almost 6 years PAD seems to be suggesting.
Also, that moratorium doesn’t mean a whole lot if Bush gets ribbed for stuff he said in the interim. If a year down the line, someone who held off in the immediate 9-11 aftermath knocks Bush for saying…
“We are fully committed to working with both sides to bring the level of terror down to an acceptable level for both.” —George W. Bush, after a meeting with congressional leaders, Washington, D.C., Oct. 2, 2001″
…that person’s “respect” could hardly be considered sincere in retrospect. I mean, it’s not like there aren’t a ton of Bush tongue-twisters out there to hang him with!
-Dave O’Connell