Three weeks into its new season, Saturday Night Live has had two sketches attacking McCain and two attacking Palin, and not a single sketch attacking Obama or Biden.
Obama's only shown up in one sketch, in a spoof of the first debate, in which McCain was portrayed as an unhinged nut and Obama as a serious politician. There were two token jokes thrown out about Obama -- one about Chicago corruption and another about playing the race card -- but the rest of the eight-minute sketch was poking at McCain. There were almost as many jokes about Hillary Clinton, who showed up at the end of the sketch, as about Obama.
I remember the good old days when SNL would attack all sides, and not pick sides. Sketches like the spoof of the three-way debate between Bush, Clinton, and Perot (with Dana Carvey playing both Bush and Perot) were the reason why people tuned in each week: to see funny parodies, not lame attack ads against one party's candidates.
These are not those days for SNL. It's too bad that just when they get a cast that is really putting out some good stuff, after several years in the wilderness, that they are undermining their own bread-and-butter: political spoofs.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 28, 2008 12:31 AM | Email ThisThat was back when I was a kid. In the last century.
Posted by: scott158 on September 28, 2008 12:41 AMAlso, as several comedians have noted, including Jay Leno and Dave Letterman-- before McCain slighted him--, there's nothing to make fun of Obama about. He's young, good looking, and really cool. McCain is comedy gold with his temperament and age. Chicago politics is pretty much all SNL could do with Obama. He's not a very good comedy source.
Posted by: rsanni on September 28, 2008 05:17 AMHard to parody a poser.
Posted by: Vince on September 28, 2008 06:22 AMOh come on, that's just stupid. Obama is a very easy comedic target.
David Mathews: You really cannot blame SNL for "attacking" Sarah Palin
I never did. I am blaming them for NOT attacking Obama and Biden.
rsanni: you do know that Lorne Michaels is a McCain supporter, right?
You do know that Lorne Michaels doesn't write the show, right?
Oh what will McCain do?
What a silly "its not fair!" post.
LOL.
Posted by: LOL on September 28, 2008 07:30 AMWhere? I see no "it's not fair" post. Perhaps you meant to comment on a completely different post?
Part of the problem facing the Radical Republicans is that no one can take them seriously. Even people who support traditional republican ideas of the market, American morality, support for Israel, find little in this year's ticket.
Just look at the issues:
Competence: McCain is runnng on his record of opposing his own party unsuccessfully for 28 years.
Religion McCain is not a religious person but is running as the candidate of the prayer=power crowd.
Palin Does anyone take her seriously?
Truth be told, McCain's campaign is funny. If he were to win, he could not govern. The joke wouold be on us all.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 28, 2008 08:30 AMPseudo-intellectuals see only themselves in Obama, and they don't see any humor there.
Posted by: deadwood on September 28, 2008 08:49 AM"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him."
John 8:44
"He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God." John 8:47
"Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Israelites and are not, but lie -- indeed I will make them come and worship at your feet, and to know that I have loved you." Rev. 3:9
Go get your kneepads, untermensch.
Posted by: The Pirate on September 28, 2008 09:29 AMOne could easily create a skit about Obama ballooning up into the verbal stratosphere when encountering simple issues such as someone drinking all the milk in the refrigerator:
"Why is it that Wall Street can drain the milk of the working American and leave not a drop for middle class? I ask you this ladies and gentlemen today, as we move into the second decade of the 21st century..."
[Meanwhile, wife and kids are staring at him with puzzled looks.]
Posted by: John Bailo on September 28, 2008 09:39 AM
As terrible a person as SeattleJew is, your comment is extremely vile. Anti-semitism has no place in civil society. I hope you didn't mean it, and were only trying to be funny or something.
I'm surprised no one has capitalized on this opportunity- because never in history has there been so many inept people with so much power.
It would be tough to parody Pelosi, they might have to have her play herself.
Posted by: Andy on September 28, 2008 10:06 AMEvidently you did not watch the program. There was a segment devoted to the debate which happened to make fun of both Obama and John McCain.
Evidently you did not read my post. I specifically referenced that sketch, and I noted the fact that they only made two token jokes about Obama and devoted the rest of the sketch to making fun of McCain.
Conservatives [...] they should be upset that John McCain would make such a reckless, irresponsible, stupid decision.
Not a single person here looks to you to give advice on what is, and isn't, stupid.
Posted by: pudge on September 28, 2008 11:00 AMThere is no place in the 21st century for your kind...at least not in this country.
Posted by: Proteus on September 28, 2008 11:48 AMThere is no place in the 21st century for your kind...at least not in this country.
Posted by: Proteus on September 28, 2008 11:49 AMEveryone needs advice. No one cares what YOU have to say, though.
Conservatives really should stop whining about such things ...
Typical liberal. Noting facts is "whining" to them.
Proteus: oh get a life. You have absolutely no evidence that this site is remotely friendly to racism. All the evidence shows precisely the opposite (including this example, where I immediately chastised him for his comment).
Typical liberal. Ignoring facts to make an insipid point.
Does anyone care about what you think?
Shrug. You're the one commenting on my post.
Conservatives aren't exactly bright. That's why conservatives remain fundamentalists and complain about the educated elistist. Conservatives also are anti-science and they continue to believe in creationism and insist that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
See, here's a good example. It's simply false to say that fundamentalism is opposed to education, so you obviously don't know what fundamentalism is. It's also false to say conservatives are anti-science, or creationists, let alone "young earth" creationists.
And yet despite all those ignorant claims you make ... you assert that they, rather than you, "aren't exactly bright."
My point, David, which you don't seem to get, is that pretty much everyone in here, except for SeattleJew, is much smarter than you are.
Would anyone care to defend Sarah Palin's claim
That is not her claim. We have no reason to believe that she ever said such a thing. For all we know, Munger is as big a liar as SeattleJew is.
But even if she did say it, it's certainly more justifiable than the majority of things you say, so that you criticize her is laughable.
Good bye.
Wow, such proof! Would you take the word of anyone who voted for Bush with as much credibility?
I didn't think so!
Rumor mongering is what it is. Only fools (on both sides) treat rumor as fact.
BTW, there is a rock outcrop in Texas which has what appear to be human footprints next to what appear to be dinosaur footprints. These have been offered by some creationists as "evidence" of humans living among dinosaurs. They have also been debunked by many paleontologists. People will believe what they wish.
Posted by: deadwood on September 28, 2008 12:37 PM
Family told Obama not to wear bracelet with son's name
Family of Fallen Soldier Asked Obama Not to Wear Bracelet...
Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son's Bracelet... Where is Media?
"I wanted him to know my son's name"
Soldier's Family Asked Obama Not To Make Son's Death A Campaign Issue
Family Told Obama Not to Wear Son's Bracelet
About Obama's "I've Got a Bracelet, too" Comment
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 28, 2008 12:39 PMI believe ThePirate was not speaking as an anti-semite in #18, but was simply quoting scripture verses where Jesus condemns the prideful and hypocritical Pharisees. The Jews were (and still are) God's chosen people, yet their religious leaders turned on Jesus when He didn't fit in their mold. Likewise today, many Jews ignore their heritage and the plight of Israel and embrace secular liberalism. Obama, like the snake he is, would turn his back to Israel the moment he took office.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 28, 2008 12:45 PMI am well-educated. I am a fundamentalist. I am not a creationist. And I do not "accept the conclusions of science," because science offers no serious conclusions, as any intelligent scientist would tell you.
Do you reject the dogmas of fundamentalism, pudge?
Absolutely not. Do you know what the "dogmas of fundamentalism" are? I sincerely doubt it. You do not know what fundamentalism is. You have no clue. "Fundamentalism" simply means that we have a certain set of fundamental beliefs that define our faith, and that we firmly believe in them.
The "dogmas of Christian fundamentalism" are simple and widely held, things like the death and resurrection of Christ, salvation through faith, the coming return of Christ, and so on. They do NOT include "creationism," nor interventionist intelligent design.
For example, one of the authors of The Fundamentals, from which we get the term "fundamentalism," was a biologist named George Frederick Wright who wrote that if evolution is true it wouldn't in any way harm the tenets of Christianity. He was explicitly stating, in The Fundamentals, that creationism is NOT a "fundamentalist dogma." Many people today think of this as a "progressive" view but it was written by one of the original "fundamentalists" 100 years ago.
If you actually knew anything about fundamentalism, you would understand this. You don't, so you don't.
Now someone as intelligent as Pudge (ha!) will acknowledge that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, long before the Homo sapiens evolved, and that all fundamentalist arguments on behalf of a young earth are pure bunk.
There are no "fundamentalist" arguments on behalf of a young earth. They are "young earth creationist" arguments on behalf of a young earth. Some fundamentalists are also young earth creationists. Many, like me, are not.
And yes, I find arguments for a young earth entirely unconvincing. And I do believe it is extremely likely that dinosaurs were here millions of years ago, and humans were not. But I don't know this for a fact, of course, and neither does anyone else, because as noted, science doesn't come to conclusions.
Sarah Palin seems like the sort of person who would believe that sort of bunk.
You have no serious evidence to back up this claim. You want it to be true, so you say it's true. This is not what intelligent people, or scientists, do.
Posted by: pudge on September 28, 2008 01:06 PMMathews has been banned from this blog before, has there been a change in policy?
Posted by: Smokie on September 28, 2008 01:19 PMBy responding, you validate the blather, you feed the monster.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 28, 2008 01:28 PMPudge's response is always the same .. to call me a liar. Such sophistication is hard to reply to.
If anyone here is a true conservative, they will not vote for McCain.:
1. McCain has made unpatriotic decisions:
PALIN
INTERVENTIONJ IN RESCUE DEBATE
2. McCain has NO strategy for our military other than "victory.'
We are BROKe, we can not afford a leader who can nto define the goal of pending 500,000,000,000 per year.
3. McCain has NO support among the leaders of his own party.
The Reoublican party needs reform. The best thing a truw conservative can do is work to rebuild the wreck of the party.
Those of us who put country above party, KNOW we need two realistic parties to govern the US. The time has come to support the Hagels, Lugars, Schwarrzneggers.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 28, 2008 02:19 PM
Unless the ban has been lifted (and I pray it hasn't), please enforce it.
Posted by: Mike H on September 28, 2008 02:42 PMMonths of obvious preference for Obama on all three networks.
And then they have the gall to tell us they're not biased.
Another gross insult to the intelligence of the average American voter.
Posted by: Independent Voter on September 28, 2008 02:50 PMThough, I should also add condescending, self important, self righteous, stuck up, insular... and with a greatly overinflated view of his own intelligence.
Please enforce the ban.
Posted by: Mike H on September 28, 2008 02:54 PMI was prepared to answer you, but out of deference to the other denizens, I will not engage further in this off-topic thread. Any further attempt to discuss this topic in this discussion will be removed. I have started a new discussion on the Public Blog for you to make yourself look foolish on.
I know of no ban on David Mathews, and I likely won't delete his posts unless they become extraordinarily abusive. I suggest people just ignore him, as I've usually done, and will -- except for on the above discussion, for now -- continue to do.
SeattleJew: you're a liar. Yes, my response to you is always the same, because you are worth nothing more than that.
Public blog, windbag... public blog.
Posted by: Mike H on September 28, 2008 03:31 PMThat is the opinion of a nutroots troll and in return, I'd like to ask Mr. Matthews to prove that he is not a racist or xenophobe based on he previous postings that indicate otherwise.
Hey Matthews - What religion are you aligned with ? (Read his answer carefully - if he so chooses to answer, and draw your own conclusions)'
Anyone who thinks Jack Cafferty is a voice of any kind of reason or objectivity is not playing with a full deck, to put it diplomatically. Birds of a feather flock together.
Posted by: KS on September 28, 2008 04:46 PMThe truth is that the MSM is so insecure that they have to cut out the good parts of Palin's interview answers and only play those that make her look incompetent or clueless - in their minds. The McCain campaign strategy may be to have her do a roper-dope and come out smoking in the debate.
I think we can all see that Sarah-cudda will outperform the expectations that the MSM attributes to her. I sense a surprise in the brewing - because they won't be able to edit this time.
#63 - Your answer indicates loud and clear to me, based on your previous posts that you are a faux Christian.
Posted by: KS on September 28, 2008 05:06 PMGone over to the Public blog.
Posted by: KS on September 28, 2008 05:57 PMNight, night.
Posted by: KS on September 28, 2008 06:32 PMApparently you were not yet reading SP as much back when the David Mathews loves Global Warming comments reached their zenith.
Please don't feed the trolls.
You profess vague unitarianesque Christianity @63 and amplify it with love @70, yet you affect such universal animosity in those you deal with. Why is that? How does that work for you in your life? What are you really looking for? If people are to know you by your fruits, then what we know by your own words is someone who appears hard to love and one who is distant from God. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: The Pirate on September 28, 2008 07:19 PM@75. "Jesus provoked a similar reaction from people, too, and this is the reason why He was crucified. There are some lessons which humankind simply refuses to learn."
Unfortunately, you are provoking dissimilar reactions from those who love Jesus. He wasn't crucified because he acted like you, just as you aren't being ridiculed because you act like Him. What are the lessons you exemplify and want others to know?
@52. "Christianity is flawed. Christianity is wrong. If you are hoping for Heaven you are hoping for nothing." Yet, at @63 you say, "I am a Christian, hence can speak honestly and objectively about my own religion." In one breath you say Christianity is wrong, but in the next you say you are a Christian. Please resolve this dichotomy with a sorites using any recognized truth theory you prefer.
@75. "You don't need to hope, pirate, you are wrong. You are wrong about a great many things." My hope is that you are not hard to love and that you are not distant from God, but you seem dismissive of this sensitive area, so let's explicate it a little more. Loveability is a reflective manifestation of Jesus' love for us, which draws us closer to others, and God. That dynamic makes us love our enemies, even conservative ones. You must grant that you alienate most of those on this website. I infer that you probably alienate others in your life, such as family members. That's why I queried how your approach works in your life. Anger, alienation, solipsism and iconoclasm comes from internal dysfunction of some kind; it's a slow death, David.
If you are nominally Christian, then I recommend you read the Bible and extract what is beneficial for you. Does that sound reasonable? If you are a Christian poseur and Accuser, then it is simply a matter of time before His Shekinah glory cuts you to ribbons.
See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/29/politics/main4485265.shtml for more, including what the mother of Sgt. Jopek actually said.
#1: Setting. Jeremiah "Jerry" Wright and Obama at a press event:
Obama: Let's welcome my spiritual advisor. He's taught me about unity between blacks and whites, gays and straights, Jews and Christians (Applause)
"Jerry" interrupting: The black man has been screwed by the white man.
(Silence)
Obama: Let's move on and welcome my running mate, Joe Biden.
"Jerry": This is the man who has screwed the black man and given our African brothers AIDS.
Obama: Come on, Jerry, you know very well my brother lives in a carboard box in Africa and I've not seen him in Decades!
#2: Setting: Henry Kissinger and Obama fishing together.
Actually, I've not thought of any dialogue yet, but it'd have something to do with Obama kissing Dr. Kissinger's rear and trying to get him to agree with his wacko foreign policy ideas.
Others?
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on September 29, 2008 10:09 AMKatie Couric interviews Joe Biden:
Katie: So, can you name me just one thing, just one, in Senator Obama's 4 years in the Senate where he led on the economy?
Joe: Of course he's led. He's been leading since he's been in politics. Democrats are always the leaders on the economy. Just think about President Clinton. What did he do? In fact, he went onto Google as soon as he got into office and searched for areas he could cut.
Katie: Um, Senator, Google was not around at that time.
Joe: Katie, Katie. Look, Sweetheart, I know you think you're some sort of big deal 'cuz you're on the Today show, but maybe you need to ask how real reporters work...maybe talk to Dan Rather over at CBS and then come talk to me about Google.
(END)
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on September 29, 2008 10:48 AM"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"
Not to mention telling people in wheelchairs to stand up.
Posted by: Tim on September 29, 2008 10:55 AM"After her galvanizing speech at the Republican convention, Palin subsequently became the focus of a media frenzy, which included near-hysterical wrath from clearly threatened feminist observers. I cannot remember witnessing such intense media obsession with a public figure since the death of Princess Diana. It was clear in retrospect that Palin's convention speech had been more than the sum of its parts, and that what Sarah Palin represented might result in significant cultural reverberations.
As I noted in a column the week after the speech, perhaps over-optimistically:
But win or lose the election, Sarah Palin has already altered the cultural landscape of America, possibly of the Western world. In years to come, social archaeologists will mark her speech as the official beginning of an end to the gender wars, and, one hopes, a return to trust and collaboration between the sexes.
Palin represents what would have happened to American women without a feminist revolution. For legal and social equity for women was bound to arise organically through political and cultural reform, as more and more women entered university and the work force, a process well underway before feminism became an organized movement.
After all, from 1940 to 1970 the number of female college graduates in America more than tripled (to about 5 million). With or without a movement, such education would have created a labour market whose momentum could not be stopped. And as a significant number of women entered the market, they would have changed the working environments they entered in large numbers in a natural way.
And that's what I find so culturally tantalizing about Palin's successful bypass of the feminist movement: She seems to represent an idea of what might have happened to women if women's legal and social rights had been brought into alignment with men through an organic process and a win-win model rather than through politically aroused animosity and an adversarial model of 'if men win, women lose.' "
@77. "I draw a distinction between the religion Christianity which is fatally flawed and the source of many of this world's problems and the moral principles which Jesus Himself taught." Please clarify your distinction between your subjective understanding of Christ's teachings and your objective understanding of universal Christianity. Clearly Christianity, in all its variants, has been around for millennia, and has become the explicit or implicit grounding for most ethical propositions, including the one you posit here that there are moral principles that aren't being followed. I suggest your argument is not with Christianity, it is with others' understanding of Christ, which, like yours, is finite with a dynamic intentionality, but isn't fatally flawed. If it helps you, the angst you raise is not original thought. Exegesis and axiology have always dealt with this problem. It is prudent to be humble in these inquiries, because hubris will blind you to the solutions and peace you seek. Minds greater than ours have already dealt with the issues of fatal flaws. It's best not to reinvent intellectual wheels, but to start with studying the classics. That's why they are called "classics." Have you done that? What theologians and philosophers do you rely on for your baseline statements, beliefs, and distinctions? Have you studied the Bible to know Jesus' intent? What translations do you favor? Do you find prayer is helpful in discerning Jesus' "moral principles?" How often do you pray to God?
@77. "Conservatism and fundamentalism exemplifies all of these traits, Pirate. You should look at yourself in the mirror." The traits you reference are from my concern for you @76. "That's why I queried how your approach works in your life. Anger, alienation, solipsism and iconoclasm come from internal dysfunction of some kind; it's a slow death, David." It will be helpful to you if you answer my query, instead of telling me to look "in the mirror." You don't have to do it publicly, but I want you to reflect on how the attitudes you exhibit on this website, ie., anger, alienation, solipsism, and iconoclasm, effect and work in your everyday personal and business life.
Posted by: The Pirate on September 29, 2008 02:16 PM
http://www.barbarakay.ca/speech_REAL%20Women.php
if you aren't afraid one of the other lemmings will see you reading it.
Posted by: shaydo on September 29, 2008 02:34 PMMcCain should have picked Mitt "Magical Underpants" Romeny, at least he was properly vetted and can answer serious questions with strong coherent answers.
That web site is a parody. It's not real. It's not even a very good parody; I knew the exact algorithm they were using before I even looked at the About page.
@88. You are clearly an untermensch. (Note to Pudge: Fully research your etymology so you won't embarrass yourself.)
Posted by: The Pirate on September 29, 2008 04:42 PMI have nothing to be embarrassed about.
I fully realize the word is not exclusively used for anti-Semitic connotations. But that is by far its most common use. That you use juxtaposed the word to a quote -- "synagogue of Satan" -- which is also often used by many anti-Semites, and that you directed those words at someone named "SeattleJew," only reinforces the overwhelming liklihood that this was your meaning.
As I said initially, it's possible you did not intend that meaning. But if you intended a meaning aside from what is clearly the most obviously understood meaning, then it is up to YOU to explain that meaning, not up to others to try to guess at what you meant.
This is how communication works.
you forgot to include one more link Soldier's mother 'ecstatic' about Obama's bracelet
I'm pleased you fully researched the etymology and did not embarrass yourself this time. That's good communication.
Is SeattleJew in fact known to all as a Jew, or do you commit a fallacy of an illicit major premise to excuse belligerence. That's bad communication.
Posted by: The Pirate on September 29, 2008 05:45 PMWhatever. Your job now is to explain what you meant. Either you meant to use an anti-Semitic term, or you did not. Nothing you say on the subject matters, except for your explanation of your meaning.
If you do not provide one, I'll continue to assume the meaning I thought from the beginning.
You're "whatever" does not cure your illicit major premise fallacy, so I will explain as it pleases me. You are still obsessed with trying to think what I think, and using inflammatory leftist PC ad hominems, e.g., anti-Semitic. Your job is to facilitate the First Amendment, recognizing everyone is free to express strong contrary opinions on anything since we are generally anonymous, unless you have some other agenda. The truth will also set you free, if you have the courage to be bound by it. Just remember, your assumptions are mere beliefs unless verified, and your belligerence will be an obstacle to that verification. Is David Mathews one of your aliases? You guys reason similarly.
Posted by: The Pirate on September 29, 2008 06:48 PMFeel free to not explain yourself and leave people with the most likely impression: you were calling SeattleJew a sub-human by virtue of his ethnicity.
If you have another explanation, provide it. If not, fine.
From the about section of the link you provided:
"This site is a parody. The answers are computer generated based on probabilities calculated from Sarah Palin's actual speech. We think it is hilarious."
Nice... your proof she's dumb is quoting a parody site that uses randomly generated words. So, uh, how does your foot taste, given it's lodged so deeply in your mouth.
Posted by: Mike H on September 29, 2008 07:46 PMThey are just funny. Sort of like Borat with a rubber chicken. "I understand foreign policy 'cause I is next to Russia". "I tell my daughter to abstain and I'll tell her daughter the same". It's funny.
Funny, except that Obama's the one whose policies are heavily influenced by Marx. And you're lying about what Palin said about Russia.
And empty barrel fires loudest, Pudge my friend.
Posted by: Cannon on September 30, 2008 03:27 PMYou don't seem to have any concrete evidence to back up your claims
Shrug. Name a claim. Just one.
