Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Remixing Bush's tasteless joke.
April 11, 2004 6:36 AM   Subscribe

Remixing Bush's tasteless joke. Has some graphic images.
posted by skallas (19 comments total)

 
Nothing like contrasting politics vs. reality.

What's really shameful here is that those are reporters serving up the guffaws for Bush. These "journalists" will fake a tear for any kidnapped child that is a ratings success on television, but when the cameras are turned off they think its *hilarious* Bush started a war based on lies. Not to mention they did very little to counter the White House propaganda machine in the run-up to the war.

Lester Holt, where's my "Iraq Low Down" tonight?
posted by skallas at 6:41 AM on April 11, 2004


If your browser complains about plugins, go get Quicktime and free yourself from dependence on Windows Media Player.

...and you should drink soy milk, to stop our society's dependance on the enslavement of millions of cattle.
posted by sleslie at 7:12 AM on April 11, 2004


I don't think that follows logically sleslie.
posted by thebabelfish at 7:19 AM on April 11, 2004


I think this goes over line. I'm no Bush fan, but his speech was given in a setting wherein the incumbent usually "roasts" himself. You may debate the merits of joking about WMD.

If this was a case of the "bring it on" speech or any other serious policy speech, I'd be a bit more sympathetic to the "remix".
posted by infowar at 8:44 AM on April 11, 2004


infowar: the point is what Bush actually decides to joke about, not that it was some kind of policy speeech.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:15 AM on April 11, 2004


What Space Coyote said. I don't think the juxtaposition is quite so strong as the "Bring it On!" speech would have been (or even about the "Mission Accomplished" banner) but the joking is nonetheless a little unsettling.

Imagine Clinton "roasting" himself with a slide of him taking a baseball bat to his medicine cabinet, saying, "Whoops, I thought those were chemical weapons!"

A joke, yes, but in poor, poor taste.

The video, by the way, was wonderfully edited (except that I feel like the music cuts off just a bit too suddenly). The smiles/chortles Bush makes are so biting.
posted by rafter at 9:56 AM on April 11, 2004


I don't think this crosses the line but I don't care for it that much, it's too much of a 'cheap shot'. Not as insightful or informative as the moveon.org spots.
posted by bobo123 at 10:05 AM on April 11, 2004


Remixing Bush's tasteless joke.

The post forces the reader to agree with its own belief, which reminds me of 1950s Chinese propaganda.
posted by the fire you left me at 10:36 AM on April 11, 2004


George W Bush joking about his actions when compared to Bill Clinton is to Bernard Manning telling racist jokes when compared to Ricky Gervais.

Does that work?
posted by Blue Stone at 10:53 AM on April 11, 2004


"his speech was given in a setting wherein the incumbent usually "roasts" himself"

Believe me, there's plenty of material there that doesn't involve people dying on 9/11 or the 2 wars. His choice, or should we say Rove's choice, was tactless. Neither Bush, Cheney, or Rove are fit to polish the lowest private's boots; and I'm hearing that from soldiers on active duty.
posted by 2sheets at 11:52 AM on April 11, 2004


There are plenty of good reasons to hate Bush, but this is a very weak one. I mean come on, where's the outcry against John Stewart, or any of the late night talk show hosts? They joke about this kind of stuff all the time.
He didn't joke about soldiers dying. He didn't joke about bombing iraq. And 2sheets, he most definitely didn't joke about 9/11. He joked about not finding weapons of mass destruction, which, in itself, is pretty clean material. At least clean enough that hundreds of war opposing folks have felt free to publicly joke about it themselves.

Sure, I'm surprised he did it, but not offended. Stuff like this gets a lot of attention and backlash while more important things get glossed over.
posted by Wingy at 2:06 PM on April 11, 2004


It is a stretch, unless you're a card carrying member of the loony left.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 2:16 PM on April 11, 2004


Joking about weapons of mass destruction is fine. I've done it myself - however, I'm not in a position to send people off to kill and die because of them. If I were, I'm pretty sure that my WMD-comedy policy - especially on-camera - would be a bit different.
posted by majcher at 2:52 PM on April 11, 2004


The difference, although it will be lost on you retarded winger types who are so emotionally invested in Bush at this point (because to admit his venality would be to admit your own foolishness at believing the emperor wore clothes- attacks on Bush at this point are perceived as personal attacks on you, and you defend against them as if being attacked yourself), is that a Jon Stewart or other comedian is using satire to package a harsh critique- whereas when the object or principal of that satire makes a joke, it isn't nearly as "funny".

Jon wouldn't be as effective if he just got on the TV and frothed at the mouth in impotent rage (frothing in psychotic rage is best left to the Limbaughs, the O'Reilly's, the Hannitys, and the Coulters) over his friends and loved ones dying 2 1/5 years ago because of the willful incompetence and cold-hearted psychopathic destructiveness of the administration. Being out of power, Jon and others use wit and satire to say things that, if said bluntly, would be ineffectual or dangerously seditious (to the current Administration's monarchic mentality).

This really is no different than if Johnson had joked about the Gulf of Tonkin. Except that Johnson was a "demoncrat" while Bush is the son of Jesus wrapped in a red-white-and-blue swaddling cloth.
posted by hincandenza at 3:02 PM on April 11, 2004


Our standards have sunk this low: Hey, the President of the United States didn't do anything a late night comic wouldn't have done! So what's the problem?
posted by Chanther at 3:04 PM on April 11, 2004


There are plenty of good reasons to hate Bush, but this is a very weak one. I mean come on, where's the outcry against John Stewart, or any of the late night talk show hosts? They joke about this kind of stuff all the time.

Jon Stewart isn't the President. As it has been historically noted, the President is held to a higher standard of behavior than you or I, or yes, even a TV comedian.

+

Under no circumstances, even at a traditional "roast," can it be considered even remotely acceptable to crack wise about a war that you started. In particular, about the fact that the reasons you started the war seem to be overwhelmingly fictitious ones.

=

Very, very poor form on behalf of the President, and IMHO, he should have to issue a public apology to those serving, and to their families for making light of their sacrifice.
posted by precocious at 6:01 PM on April 11, 2004


Hey, the President of the United States didn't do anything a late night comic wouldn't have done! So what's the problem?

... 'cept send a whole lotta kids off to war...
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:55 PM on April 11, 2004


I knew I'd catch it from some on my post. As I said, you can debate the merits of the topic (finding WMD), but that doesn't detract from the attempt at humor itself. I agree there are plenty of other topics Bush could laugh at himself for (character flaws are generally better than policy flaws when referring to a politician), but that doesn't justify the remix in the FPP IMHO.

On reflection, what Wingy said.
posted by infowar at 12:14 PM on April 12, 2004


Under no circumstances, even at a traditional "roast," can it be considered even remotely acceptable to crack wise about a war that you started.

Bullshit. That's exactly what is not only acceptable, but expected. This dinner, and others like it, are supposed to be completely devoid of rules. Anything goes, and often has. It used to be that what was said was never reported for this very reason.

Or have you forgotten that video Clinton did in his last year? That was well done, self mocking the "lame duck" image. Here in Canada Chretien has done the same sort of thing. Sure, Bush's humour may seem inappropriate to you, but to a bunch of journalists in a wink-wink off the record setting, it's fair game.

This is a ridiculous assault on Bush, and it could work against its intentions. Mindless attacks like this one take strength away from the worthwhile attacks, and voters in the middle may decide all the attacks on Bush are just as groundless and vote for him out of pity.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 7:19 AM on April 13, 2004


« Older Definitely Not Your Mom's Cooking, But Comfort Foo...  |  Just in time for Easter, peeps... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments