A Couple of Jokes You Won't Hear on Letterman

Jim Treacher suggests an hilarious gag involving one of Barry’s many half-brothers and Barry’s two underage children:

…I realize I’m just an inbred backwoods moron who can’t abide by any criticism of Sarah Palin whatsoever, but is this really the precedent we want to set for our politicians and their families?

After all, Samson Obama, one of the president’s many half-brothers, isn’t allowed in the UK because he tried to assault a 13-year-old girl. Are we to impose the Letterman standard there? Is it okay to make a joke like this?

“How come the First Family never invites Uncle Samson to visit? Because whenever Sasha and Malia sit on his knee, it takes six Secret Service guys to pry them off!”

Or how about this?

“Joe Biden keeps saying he’s not really sure where all that stimulus money is going. In other news, Ashley Biden’s coke dealer just bought Luxembourg.”…

And Victor Davis Hanson asks:

…What it is about Sarah Palin that drives the Left insane? Her charisma? Her authentic blue-collar roots? The accent? Todd? The pregnancies? The ability to galvanize crowds. Joe Biden tried to fake his working class origins, but Palin seems to live, not romanticize, the life of the middle strata, so would not the Left appreciate someone from the non-elite?

I suggest two reasons for the fury of the aristocratic Left. One was Palin’s stance on abortion. In the elite feminist mind, the perfect storm would be for a 40ish career woman, on the upswing of her cursus honorum, getting pregnant and, then, heaven forbid, delivering the child with full fore-knowledge of chromosomal abnormality. Or having her 17-year old come to full term with a child, unmarried, and without money?

…For most upscale, educated liberals, a daughter’s future career is ruined by pregnancy, and abortion is often the answer. Second, Todd Palin, the Palin accent, the Wasilla connection, the whole notion of Alaska, all this conjured up the elite liberal notion of “trailer trash”-and we all know from Obama’s clingers speech, that the white Christian working class is the last group in America that can be caricatured and slurred with impunity. To the liberal urban elite, poor “whites” are those responsible for racism and other sins associated with the dominant culture, and thus by association taint the white aristocracy unfairly.

…I received a lot of angry mail about a recent prediction that the Obama administration would acerbate not diminish racial tensions, by its addiction to identity politics and the constant invocation of racial difference. Nothing since his ascension has disabused me of that observation. Obama himself, in unusual fashion, has given a number of speeches abroad emphasizing his African heritage, his middle name Hussein, and his father’s Muslim’s connection.

We have heard the Attorney General call his countrymen “cowards” for not talking more about racial identity. We have heard our Supreme Court nominee state on repeated occasions that a Latina is intrinsically better at being a judge than a white male counterpart. Now Rev. Wright has reemerged to suggest that Obama will no longer meet with him because “Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me ….” (a new book about Obama suggests he and Wright met in secret during the campaign after the Wright racist outbursts).

…Note as well, that Wright, in his anti-Semitic diatribe, employs the now customary straw men “they”, which we’ve become well accustomed to. (I note here that what was most disturbing about the Letterman Palin jokes and his “apology” was the audience laughing at his crudity-reminiscent of the standing ovations in the Trinity congregation that met Wright’s profanity, racist outburst, and damning of the United States. This country has a long way to go.)

This racialism will continue. Why? Because Obama discovered long ago that racial identification brings as many dividends as does the content of one’s character or achievement. It is a force multiplier and foolishly left untapped. I fear more, not less, of this, as the tab for Obama’s charge-it economy comes due at about the same time dubious players abroad conclude that serial apologies amount to a green light for adventurism. When his popularity dives, I think critics will be seen as biased and prejudicial.

What was ironic about all Wright’s accusations of Obama’s Jewish hypnosis, was that in just the first six months of his administration Obama has proven to be the most anti-Israeli President since the founding of the Jewish state. Wright should be delighted not disappointed; perhaps his unhappiness is the inability to bask publicly in White House visits, rather than ideological discord…

While we’re on the subject of Democratic double standards, James Piereson revisits a classic:

The New York Times carries a short editorial today titled “A Clear Case for Impeachment.” The editorial concerns a federal district judge from Texas, Samuel Kent, whom the Times reports “has pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for lying to officials who were investigating sexual harrassment charges against him.” The Times goes on to say that he should be impeached immediately by the Congress because, as the editorial states, “He has violated his oath to uphold the law.” In the view of the paper’s editorial board, a lawyer or judge who undermines the system of justice deserves no sympathy.

That is all well stated, except for one nagging doubt: Isn’t this the same crime of which Bill Clinton was accused? President Clinton, as readers will recall, was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath to a grand jury in a sexual harrassment case that had been filed against him. The President, as he even acknowledged, was guilty of perjury. In that case, the Times took the view that it was not Clinton who was in the wrong but rather his accusers who had gone over the line in turning a private matter into a public crisis. President Clinton, the paper said, was standing up to the “right wing” against attempts to politicize the justice system. There was no hand-wringing about “undermining the system of justice” in that case within the precincts of the paper’s editorial offices. That was, in their view, a no-holds-barred political struggle between the sainted Democrats and the evil Republicans.

The Times has by this point established such a clear partisan paper trail that their editorialists cannot even stand up for a simple principle without contradicting themselves with the various double standards they have established. Is it any wonder why some Republicans are quietly cheering the countdown to the paper’s bankruptcy?

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
%d bloggers like this: