Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
May 11, 2009
POLITICS: The Court Jester

It ain't exactly the biggest story in the world, but it's a symptom: Andrew Breitbart nails the difference between the Bush years, when comedians like Stephen Colbert came to the White House Correspondents' Dinner to mock the president, and the Obama years, when they come to fawn over the president and wish harm to his enemies while he laughs. Even Mike Lupica recognized that Wanda Sykes' jokes were over the line and, frankly, barely jokes at all - yet Obama laughed at them, because they were aimed at his enemies.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:10 AM | Politics 2009 | Comments (30) | TrackBack (0)

Wanda Sykes was, is and always will be a no talent hack. Her "comedy" is totally based on her being a black. As such, in her eyes any one who does not agree with Obamna must be destroyed. Though to be consistent, that is the samemantra of open minded/tolerant liberals every where regardless of their race.

Posted by: dch at May 11, 2009 9:56 AM

SHECKYmagazine, on online magazine for standup comedians, was generally critical of Sykes, but did note that Obama seemed uncomfortable at least once, but it was something only stage comic would notice:

Posted by: Phineas at May 11, 2009 10:22 AM

Yes, let's feel sorry for poor Rush, the womanizing, drug abusing, bully who cares not a whit about hitting others below the belt. Sykes' line wasn't funny, but the wing nuts' "shock, shock" that anyone would go after Our Rush is hilarious.

Posted by: Magrooder at May 11, 2009 10:24 AM

Magrooder, it does not surprise me that you have no problem with the President of the United States laughing as a friendly comedienne wishes death upon his critics. But that says more about you than anything.

Posted by: Crank at May 11, 2009 10:38 AM

Sykes = idiot
Obama = No class

Posted by: fred at May 11, 2009 1:59 PM

You protesth too mucheth. Bush and his clowns on the right said horrible things about their political enemies. And remember the time that Bushie joked about those missing weapons of mass destruction ("they must be around here someplace") while U.S. soldiers were getting their asses blown off because the Boy King wanted a war of his own.

As for Obama's laugher. Go to any banquet. You will see two things: bad jokes followed by laughter among people in the audience who pretend that it's funny. If you don't laugh at banquet room humor, then you are a bad sport. And that is just the way that it is.

Posted by: steve at May 11, 2009 2:37 PM

It isn't shock or outrage at what she said, most lefties are unhinged, hyper emotional crack pots, its how once again things are reported depending upon the occupant in the White House.

If this was George Bush and a comedian wished death upon Nancy Pelosi, Keith Overbite or one of the non-talents on Air America -we would be barraged with wall to wall coverage regarding hate speech, and when is Bush going to distance himself from this comedian and then liberal groups would try to destroy that comedians career. But its a a Democrat, so it becomes move along sheeple nothing to see here.

BTW-I wonder if this issue isn't secretly being pushed by the Dems to get everyone off the truth coming out about how many times they were briefed about waterboarding, etc. over the last 7 years and the Dems being revealed to be total liars on the subject.

Posted by: dch at May 11, 2009 2:39 PM

Are you people freakin' serious? She said Rush was the missing 20th 9/11 terrorist. She said she wish he were dead. When did Bush ever say anything resembling that? Show me.

Look, Rush is Rush and I don't fault anyone who finds him offensive and if you want to disagree with him, fine. But c'mon. He is a private citizen fully enjoying his freedom of speech, and he's been pretty successful doing it. How can you possibly defend someone saying these types of things and the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES does nothing but sit there and laugh along? Since when does President Obama have to worry about looking like a "bad sport"? If he had any courage whatsoever, political or otherwise, or any decency, he would have stood up and cut her off, or at least frowned and not laughed. Or at least denounced the comments later. But he is so dependent on his manufactured image and the media's fawning that he would never do anything to disrupt the balance.

The comments were disgusting and your and Obama's indifference and callousness are even worse.

Posted by: per14 at May 11, 2009 4:04 PM


Have you ever gone to a banquet and someone made a bad joke? You have to laugh out of politeness. Are you suggesting that Obama wants Bush dead? Do you expect Obama to stand up and walk out of the room? That's not what happens at banquets and dinners.

I gotta tell you, your objection may be valid as far as it goes, but please have some perspective. I know this argument goes nowhere on this blog and among the conservative readers, but Obama laughing at stupid jokes really pales in comparison to the disgraceful 8 years of the Bush presidency. If you are a fan of Bush and you listen to Rush Limbaugh, then, really, nothing that I can say will be satisfactory to you.

Posted by: steve at May 11, 2009 4:31 PM

What tells me Dave that I if ask you to list all the "disgraceful" things of the Bush Presidency that 95% of what you list is either going to be made up facts, DNC press releases, Michael Moore insanity or the usual lefty amnesia?

I could care less what O'bumbler does or doesn't laugh at. What I do care about is how it is treated by the media, because it is the same crap over and over again. Either ignore both or demonize both-don't ignore 1 side and then demonize the other.

Posted by: dch at May 11, 2009 7:01 PM


You're right it does say more about me. I'm not one of you. Once again, you guys love to dish it out, but can't take it.


Doesn't sykes have 1st amendment rights, too?

Posted by: Magrooder at May 11, 2009 8:25 PM

dch -

Go back to playing with your GI Joe dolls and your Sean Hannity and your Ann Coulter and that pathetic blowhard Rush Limbaugh. Leave the real political discussion to the adults. You are a child. And think about the 4,000 U.S. soldiers that the George W. sent to their deaths because he and you wanted a war so badly that no one cared about dead Americans or thousands of dead Iraqis. As far as I am concerned, nothing else matters. And then ask me if anyone gives a shit about some jokes at a banquet.

Posted by: steve at May 11, 2009 9:36 PM

steve - And remember how Saddam cheered the 9/11 attacks in his state-run media. Sleep well knowing you're just fine with that.

Posted by: Crank at May 11, 2009 10:40 PM

Magrooder - So, you believe the first amendment precludes comedians from being criticized when they criticize the opponents of the governing Administration? You are more ignorant of the law than I thought. You should buy a copy of the Constitution some time and actually read the thing.

Posted by: Crank at May 11, 2009 10:42 PM

What it seems like is this is less or not at all about the specific content of Sykes stuff and more about the (whining) about how people make fun of Bush but not Obama. What this seems to derive from is when Colbert was INVITED by the BUSH admin to be the host. This happened because that admin specifically (and Republicans in a more general sense) lack a sense of humor. They didn't even know that Colbert does his show tongue-in-cheek. They thought he actually was a GOP blowhard and was shocked to find out that he wasn't. If memory serves me correctly last year they invited Rich Little who is no doubt revered as a comic genius here (see the Dave Barry stuff from years ago on this site). Bush also invited (key wod) Lewis Black. Sorry, either do a better job inviting the guest oe shut up. The Clintons had Imus on and he KILLED them. This is a bunch of typical complaining that is SO, SO tired, passe and played.


Posted by: jim at May 11, 2009 11:09 PM

Dave thanks for making my point.

No mention of the first Gulf War, no mention of Oil for Food, no mention of 13 years of failed sanctions, no mention of the thousands upon thousands of ceasefire violations, US airplanes being shot at with impunity, no mention of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, no mention of every action taken by the Clinton Admin against Iraq, no mention of UNMOVIC, no mention of the Dems voting for the War Resolution, no mention of the what? 15 UN Security Council Resolutions, the last chances they were given to comply, ethnic cleansing of the Kurds and Shia, chemical weapons used against his own people, all the violations outlined in the Kay report including the violations relating to WMD, No, none of that matters- the deep analysis from the all knowing Steve is that George Bush wanted a war so bad. Hey Dummy, we were legally and morally justified at resuming the war against Iraq at any time between the ceasefire agreeement and 2003. Period. They were never in compliance withe ceasfire agreement. End of Story.

You know nothing about anything and you and your ilk are deeply dishonest human beings with no honor. You pimp for a dictator that was responsible for the deaths of over 1.5 million people and invaded or attacked 4 countries that were in his immediate area. A dictator that employed professional rapists, that buried around 300 thousand of his citizens in mass graves. No outrage about that from the Steves of the world. You are not a man, you are a coward. Take your faux outrage and go hang out with the other make believe speakers of truth.

Posted by: dch at May 11, 2009 11:31 PM

Dave? Dunno who it was (comments have been removed?) but it wasn't me.,28804,1734530_1734541,00.html

" A shrewd choice: points for hipness, but no risk of real embarrassment, as Hammond does takeoffs of Bill Clinton and Al Gore but thoughtfully avoids the newly elected President. "

Yup! Mocking! Drew Carey was in 2002 who mostly stayed off(what can I say about Bush aside from what Al Gore hasn't said while drunk, and a shot at Hillary and Hollywood), and I think Leno did about what was expected in 2004 - that's from memory, but feel free to look up the video.

Hey! I think Bush laughed at those shots as well!

Perhaps, you know, should compare at the entire span. Though I can understand why you wouldn't want to do that. Much harder to be outraged when that is done.

Posted by: Dave at May 12, 2009 6:38 AM

Crank- are you suggesting the Iraq war was justified because Saddam cheered on the 9/11 attacks? Could foreign countries go to war against us because our presidents cheer on injustices around the world?

dch - I pimp for no dictators at all. My guess is that you are a Republican. The presidents that you voted for over the years have embraced dictators like Saddam consistently. Read up on your history.

Posted by: steve at May 12, 2009 7:38 AM

Certainly Sykes can say whatever she wants and she shouldn't face criminal charges for it. That's what the first amendment is about. But the first amendment doesn't sanitize the disgusting things that come of her mouth or make Obama's laughter any better.

Again, Obama has to laugh out of politeness? Are you kidding me? He's the president. He doesn't have to laugh. How is it "polite" to laugh at jokes like that? I hope Obama has a little more courage when he's talking to foreign thugs.

Anyway, I'm not really that upset about what she said. What amazes me is how people completely dismiss what she said.

Posted by: per14 at May 12, 2009 7:49 AM

I can't believe there are nineteen comments on something so trivial. Oops, make that 20.

Posted by: MVH at May 12, 2009 9:39 AM

steve - First of all, your point on this thread - if you have one - is that the Iraq War somehow immunizes Obama from criticism. Sorry, not buying.

Second: 9/11 changed our assessment of what existing threats we could live with. We set out to eliminate the threat of international terrorism, a threat that is driven by a combination of political/reigious ideology and depends on resources and logistical support either provided or tolerated by states. And here you have a guy

1. Situated strategically at the heart of the geographical region and religious community that produces the threat;

2. Openly sympathetic to the terrorists;

3. With a long history of sponsoring and fomenting terrorism outside his borders;

4. Known to be harboring international terrorists;

5. With a long history of aggressive wars against several of his neighbors, Sunni and Shi'ite and Jewish alike;

6. With a long history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction;

7. Operating a repressive police state from which reliable information was difficult to obtain;

8. With demonstrated willingness to ignore conventional deterrence and act in ways both unpredictable and seemingly irrational, up to and including hiring terrorists to blow up the first President Bush;

9. Restrained only by a sanctions regime with its own human, monetary, diplomatic and ideological costs, which was easily evaded and corrupted and would be extremely difficult to maintain in perpetuity;


10. In continuing, repeated and multiple violation of the terms of a cease-fire by which we had agreed, also at great human cost, to end hostilities with him.

There was no reasonable way to leave Saddam in place if we were to be serious about taking down the threat of international terrorism.

Posted by: Crank at May 12, 2009 9:57 AM


per 14 wrote: "But c'mon. He is a private citizen fully enjoying his freedom of speech, and he's been pretty successful doing it. How can you possibly defend someone saying these types of things and the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES does nothing but sit there and laugh along?"

A point he was trying to make here is that Limbaugh had rights of free speech and I was pointing out to him that Sykes does too.

Posted by: Magrooder at May 12, 2009 2:00 PM


Even assuming every point made is your response to Steve is, or was at some time, true, those facts do nothing to support the conclusion that starting the Iraq war was the correct decision.

In fact, as history has proved, if the goal was truly to stop international terorism, is was a fool's errand. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. How come Bush/Cheney had to keep making up different reasons for going to war? Why couldn't they have just listed your 10 points? It is because they wanted THAT war, for their macho, chicken hawk insecurities.

Posted by: Magrooder at May 12, 2009 2:04 PM

And think about the 4,000 U.S. soldiers that the George W. sent to their deaths because he and you wanted a war so badly that no one cared about dead Americans or thousands of dead Iraqis. As far as I am concerned, nothing else matters.

Posted by steve at May 11, 2009 9:36 PM
Misplaced anger. All those Human Shields have been doing a really crappy job.

No I'm not serious; almost less serious than steve is about caring for any dead GIs beyond a political agenda.
What's the over-under on acceptable casualties in a Save Darfur campaign? The angry answer crowd wants THAT war even worse, for their guilty, chicken dove insecurities.

Posted by: buddypc at May 12, 2009 6:08 PM

Boo-fucking-hoo. Just last week you wrote about how Dems can't take a joke. C'mon Crank, see if you can hold a position for more than 10 minutes.
BTW, breaking the faux-warrior, Hannity, by making him fly coach is not only funny, but true. The least bit of discomfort will make him cry for his Mommy, but he acts like a tough guy. Just ask 5-deferment Cheney about his support for the great Viet Nam War. Phonies! All of 'em.

Posted by: Berto at May 12, 2009 10:18 PM

Actually after thinking about this, what was most telling and disturbing about her comments and really most important was when she said something to the effect: "Rush said he 'wants Obama to fail'. That's like saying you want the country to fail."

No. That's plain wrong and it only underscores the problems liberals have with their cult worship of Obama. Obama is not the country. He's not the federal government. He's one branch of it. They cannot even conceive of Obama failing and the country simultaneously succeeding (or what is more likely the opposite: Obama politically succeeding but the country suffering because of it). That concept does not even register to them.

Posted by: per14 at May 13, 2009 6:36 AM


President Obama is both the head of the executive branch and the "head of state." Moreover, given the recent history of claiming for the executive unfettered authoirty over national security, logically, Boss Limbaugh wanting the President to fail is indistinguishable from wanting us not to be secure.

Posted by: Magrooder at May 13, 2009 4:11 PM

Well who knows what Rush was thinking. That's speculation on all our part.

I was under the impression Rush was talking about Obama's domestic agenda. If Rush was only talking about Obama in his role as commander in chief, then I agree with you. But all the conversations I've had on this topic, and everything I've read about it, always concerned the issue of whether Obama could "fail" in addressing the economy, health care, energy, education, etc, but the country succeed. And I believe he (or any President) can most certainly can fail in those areas, yet the country still be better for it. And many Obamaphiles cannot even understand that concept. It's like telling them a triangle has two sides.

Posted by: per14 at May 14, 2009 8:22 AM

Can't you remember the "if you don't support the war in Iraq, you hate the soldiers" screed?
C'mon, it was a HUGE RNC talking point (and therefore repeated constantly by the "liberal media").
Nice to know false dichotomies go by the wayside once a Democrat takes national office. Just another reason to NEVER vote for a Republican. (As if anyone paying attention needed another reason to not vote Republican).

Posted by: Berto at May 14, 2009 3:10 PM

Berto: I"m not even sure how to respond to that non sequitur. You've lost me.

Posted by: per14 at May 14, 2009 3:44 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg