Join 3,440 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Bush v. Bush
April 30, 2003 8:39 AM   Subscribe

Who's the only man who can take on President George W. Bush in a debate? Why, it's Texas Governor of the past, George W. Bush! BUSH v. BUSH! How surreal...(realplayer req)
posted by jearbear (28 comments total)

 
Reasonably funny, but it kinds of gets a bit skimpy in the end. Anyone care to explain the whole Al Gore "locked box" thing?
posted by FiveFrozenFish at 8:50 AM on April 30, 2003


Frozen, it's hard to recall now, but in the 2000 election one of the big issues was the future of Social Security. Can we use the funds for current needs, or should they be placed in a "lockbox" (figuratively).

No one cares about this anymore.

RE: the clip, I saw this on Jon Stewart. First, I think a clip from a TV show makes for a crappy front page post, as it's not really a website we're talking about here, is it? I would take that to MeTa but my workplace filtering software blocks MeTa (but not MeFi), oddly enough. (category="games")

Second, even from my perspective just to the left of Trotsky (that's to the right of nofundy, for the record) I don't see why we can't allow a person to change his thinking based on an attack on the U.S. killing 4,000.
posted by luser at 9:26 AM on April 30, 2003


Great clip from the Daily Show...I had not seen this. I love the ironic differences between what GwB said in 2000 and in recent times. Of course, the world has changed.

"Lockbox" was Al Gore's catchphrase during the 2000 election campaign. The protection of Social Security benefits was a major issue (where is it now?), with Bush advocating allowing individuals to invest in the stock market, and Gore saying that benefits should be kept safe in a, well, lockbox. (catalog of candidates' positions)

Excerpt from a good PBS story (8/22/01) about the lockbox concept:

AL GORE: I'll keep Social Security in a lockbox.

AL GORE: In a lockbox.

(reporter) PAUL SOLMAN: The term lockbox actually invented by Republicans became the mantra of the Gore campaign and a standing national box.

SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE ACTOR: One of the keys to the lock box would be kept by the President. The other key would be sealed in a small container and placed under the bumper of the Senate Majority Leader's car. (Laughter)
posted by msacheson at 9:29 AM on April 30, 2003


nice link, jearbear -- i laughed until i almost burst when this was on TDS Monday night...i have been ranting to anyone who will listen about Bush's isolationist ramblings in the debates (a position that lasted until 9-10-01 of course) for months now, it was great to see it in living color again...maybe i'll rethink the Howard Dean thing, and go for Stewart in '04(scroll down for appropriate photo)...
posted by serafinapekkala at 9:30 AM on April 30, 2003


luser: Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.
posted by msacheson at 9:32 AM on April 30, 2003


Of course, the world has changed.

Has it?
posted by riviera at 9:42 AM on April 30, 2003


I don't see why we can't allow a person to change his thinking based on an attack on the U.S. killing 4,000.

If you're going to use the number of dead to make your case, please keep it somewhere in the ballpark of reality. It's not like the estimate just changed yesterday - or this year.
posted by soyjoy at 9:43 AM on April 30, 2003


Of course, the world has changed.

Has it?

Yes.

riviera: did I answer your question?
posted by msacheson at 9:50 AM on April 30, 2003


I saw this when it aired and my first thought was "Finally!". I had be talking about Bush campaign themes for a long time now and how he's pretty much done little he said he would except his tax cuts.

Where's the Bush prescription medication plan for seniors? This was a big promise that in my opinion made Florida such a close race. This was supposed to be one of the first pieces of legislation for Gore and was promised to be a "Top Priority" by Bush. Seems odd to me that the issue that probably got him elected has not been mentioned since the debates.

What happened to the anti-nation building anti-peacekeeper stance? Sure 9-11 changed some things but this was a major theme for Bush during the campaign particularly because he thought we shouldn't have committed troops to Bosnia just to overthrow a despotic dictator.

Where is his Social Security plan? in the next 10 years the first waves of the Baby Boom generation will be eligible for Social Security. There are far too many Boomers who will be entitled for benefits than people who are able to support them. Social Security will quickly be turned into a gigantic monetary drain unless something is done to shore it up. Bush had a plan (as misguided as I thought it was) but has yet to go to square one on this.
posted by aaronscool at 9:52 AM on April 30, 2003


Of course, the world has changed.

Has it?

Yes.


Yes, it is now illegal to laugh at the President
posted by Outlawyr at 9:54 AM on April 30, 2003


This was a fabulous use of editing and one of the stronger statements from the typically left leaning daily show (it reminded me of something i'd expect from Moore's TV Nation (man, that was a good show)).

Strangely enough Mo Rocca just gave a talk at Tufts and was VERY entertaining (apparently he's been on crossfire a bit and was hysterical (even if no one got the actual satire)). One of the statements he made (and is sort of repeated in sera's article is how popular the show is with 18-30 year olds (i happen to be one). One thing he mentioned is that news shows are starting to really look at the daily show as an example of how to be successful with my peers, so we may eventually see stewart at the helm of a network newscast and not as the president (hell, he asks better questions of his guests half the time anyway). Not bad for basic cable.
posted by NGnerd at 9:57 AM on April 30, 2003


Of course, the world has changed.
utter tripe. jingoistic, blinders full on, bullshit of the most egregious feces available. i'm sooooo tired of hearing this shit. no, the WORLD hasn't changed, it's simply that a little bit of it splattered on some AMERICANS, and we've been howling about the world changing ever since. terrorism is nothing new. americans got them a taste of what the rest of the world has been experiencing to one degree or another for decades. how completely ugly, how small mindedly self centered, to go about proclaiming the world has changed simply because we finally experienced a bit of what everyone else has been experiencing. AMERICA has changed. yes, beyond a doubt. mostly for the worst. and not because some extremists knocked over some buildings and killed 400 people, either.
posted by quonsar at 10:17 AM on April 30, 2003


er, 4,000.
posted by quonsar at 10:18 AM on April 30, 2003


my personal view (which i've just fleshed out in the last minute or so) is that people who believe that the world has "totally changed" since 9-11 not only have too much of an america-centric view of things, but also are making the assumption that, in general, the world is a static place. if we believe that things typically stay the same, then we tend to get set in our ways, and fail to constantly challenge our world view. this tends to make us believe that if something worked in the past, it will work in the future, and vice versa. this disregards the incredible complexity of our world and leads to the type of arguments we often see here at mefi where people can passionately argue two simplistic sides of an issue, rather than delving into the nuances involved.

the attack of 9-11 was certainly shocking, but I think it was less so for those who already saw the world as incredibly complex and uncertain.

i would argue that the world DID greatly change on 9-11, but it wasn't some huge transition from one type of world to another, scarier world. it was just a big ripple in the ever-rippling and changing world that everyone lives in but has a different perspective of.

blah...don't know if i'm making this point the best I can but you get the idea.

regarding the video clip: funny stuff and a good way to get across the point that many people have been making about america's arrogance in the last year or so. on the other hand, i don't think anyone wants their leaders to be so rigid in their policy that they never change their minds.
posted by jacobsee at 10:56 AM on April 30, 2003


even from my perspective just to the left of Trotsky (that's to the right of nofundy, for the record)

And with my being a centrist that puts you in an unhospitable camp where eating your young is an acceptable practice.
posted by nofundy at 11:07 AM on April 30, 2003


quonsar! Not You too!

Other than that error, I agree with everything you said except the word "feces."
posted by soyjoy at 11:08 AM on April 30, 2003


It's true the world was a dangerous place before 9/11 and the only real difference was that a massive act of terrorism happened on American soil instead of somewhere else.

However, America is now committed (right or wrong) to ending fundamental islamic terrorism. How can you possibly say that the world isn't different? Everything has changed.
posted by Bonzai at 11:21 AM on April 30, 2003


hee! soyjoy, i copied the estimate from exactly that post! sorry!
posted by quonsar at 11:44 AM on April 30, 2003


So, for those who watched the show. (Chitchatfilter?) What was the deal with our local activist/loser (the guy who chained himself to the wrong building)? Was he playing along? Or stoned?
posted by Wood at 12:26 PM on April 30, 2003


one of the stronger statements from the typically left leaning daily show

This was not the central point of NGNerd's post, but I have heard this before, and I don't necessarily agree. I think the show is very good at pointing out the missteps and hypocrisy that are pervasive on both sides of the aisle. It just so happens currently that mainstream politics are (is?) dominated by the right, so it becomes a much more frequent target. You don't have to go back too far to find some scathing portrayals of some of the folks on the left, most notably the frequently hilarious portrayals of the confused anti-war crowd a couple months ago.

There was recently a great article in the NY Times (registration required) about the Daily Show that was right on the money as far as it goes. It's definitely the best show on American tv.

Hopefully, TDS will continue to be sharp, smart, agile and quick-witted and won't come under the same criticism and shouting down that was visted upon Bill Maher, after he made a very poorly timed (but not necessarily false) statement about the nature of cowardice as it relates to highjackers and cruise missiles in the days following 911.

One of the disappointments of the year is the Maher seems to be running his new show with his balls in a vise. I had come to think of him as a person of integrity, but I think someone reached him, or else he was frightened by the time he spent on the unemployment line.
posted by psmealey at 12:37 PM on April 30, 2003


Hopefully, TDS will continue to be sharp, smart, agile and quick-witted and won't come under the same criticism and shouting down that was visted upon Bill Maher

I'm not worried. While TDS is snarky, it's also aggressively good-natured about most things instead of bitter or nasty like Maher can be. There's much less of a "...because you're a POOPYHEAD who's WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!" tone to TDS.

Except for when the Spice Girls were on. Heh.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:01 PM on April 30, 2003


psmealey, I think if not the show being slightly leftist (i'm not saying it's the exact opposite of fox news (ugh)), but at least you must admit that the audience has a tendency to lean towards the left (one of my personal favorite moments was when ann colture came on the show and managed to get openly booed by the crowd). oh, yeah, and that link wanted me to pay $3 for the article (mumble curses...)

From Mo Rocca's description it sounds like they're not going to be under the same control as maher as they're on cable (maher of course was on a network) and comedy central REALLY doesn't want to mess up a good thing. If anything i do think the show is going to go on to future greatness.

Since this thread has been completely hijacked i might as well bring up something else. Has anyone else noticed that stewart seems to be an incredibly insightful interviewer for someone that started out as a comedian. Personally i have a feeling the reason the show is soo popular is that it's sarcastic and witty, but still manages to occasionally get on the important guest and ask the good questions (ex: when it first came on the air they had a bio expert on and were asking about the media's overplay of the anthrax scare, not exactly light hearted entertainment).

3,000 deaths you twits!
posted by NGnerd at 1:34 PM on April 30, 2003


NGN I don't disagree entirely with what you're saying (Re: the audience and the occasional JS aside), but I would hate like hell for people to dismiss it merely as a tool of the left, which might be a danger at this point. I think it's the only intellectually honest news program left on tv, despite its satirical format. Also, how did 3,005 deaths get rounded up to 4,000? Hmph. Very curious.

A thousand apologies for the times pay per archive content link.... I was not intending to shill for NYTimes.com there. Just saw the first two paragraphs after doing a search for the article, and assumed the whole thing was there since it was only from two weeks ago. :-(
posted by psmealey at 1:56 PM on April 30, 2003


people agreeing on metafilter, what the hell's this world coming too. Don't worry about the times article, people wonder why we're watching less news and then turn around and try and get as much money as possible from it. i was just freaked out because i've never seen NYT do that and i've been registered with them for awhile, wierd.
posted by NGnerd at 3:25 PM on April 30, 2003


On the day of Baghdad's liberation, Stewart told his viewers that "if you are incapable of feeling at least a tiny amount of joy at watching ordinary Iraqis celebrate this, you are lost to the ideological left."

Then he added: "If you are incapable of feeling badly that we even had to use force in the first place, you are ideologically lost to the right."

That sounds pretty smack dab in the middle to me.
posted by CrazyJub at 3:30 PM on April 30, 2003


[cheerleader post]
quonsar kicks some ranty butt sometimes.
[/cheerleader post]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:30 PM on April 30, 2003


This is is gettin' some serious web and email play. It's funny, it's honest and it's propagating like a muhhfuhh.

This is the sixth reference to this clip I've seen since I got home a half an hour ago, two from very disparate friend's emails. It's shit I already of course knew. To see it spread like wildfire shows what a bleak intellectual tinderbox the American "collective conscience" is. Let it spread. Toss a cigarette out your window.

Jon Stewart and his crack team could be sainted when this is all said and done.
posted by crasspastor at 6:06 PM on April 30, 2003


Nothing's more sad and frightening than the fact that the only insightful news coverage to be had anywhere on U.S. television is The Daily Show.

ROU_Xenophobe:

I'm not worried. While TDS is snarky, it's also aggressively good-natured about most things instead of bitter or nasty like Maher can be. There's much less of a "...because you're a POOPYHEAD who's WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!" tone to TDS.

Good point. That's why I loathe both Maher and Dennis Miller. They aren't a fraction as funny and insightful as they think they are and their vast egos get in the way of whatever points they try to make. Jon Stewart makes fun of anything and everything, but looks simultaneously nonplussed. That's what makes things fun.
posted by mark13 at 4:38 PM on May 2, 2003


« Older Dutroux to face jury trial...  |  A Profile of Adolf Wolfli... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments