Are you trying to blame GWB for everything?
The Spitting Image parodies reached a status not unlike that of Mad magazine in the early 1960s, when many of those whom the show caricatured took it as a sign that they had "made it." While Thatcher has only commented, "I don't ever watch that program," members of the House of Commons had tapes of each show delivered to them the following Monday, and former Tory Defense Minister Michael Heseltine tried to purchase his puppet
The influence of American politics on the British scene was apparent in frequent lampoons of Ronald Reagan. American news outlets excerpted a video with Ron and Nancy as Leaders of the Pack, singing "Do Do Ron Ron." The befuddled Reagan also appeared in a serial thriller, "The President's Brain is Missing," and was featured prominently in the Spitting Image-produced video for Genesis' song, "Land of Illusion." In September 1986, NBC aired a two-part original Spitting Image special in which the secret arbiters of fame, including Bill Cosby and Ed McMahon, hatch a clandestine plot to have an over-muscled Sylvester Stallone elected president.
Now doesn't that ring some bells!
"Posted 3:22 PM by Josh Chafetz
WEISBERGISM OF THE DAY. Back in May, I wrote about how media consensus tends to form around a certain conception, which creates a feedback loop, with the media then largely reporting things that tend to confirm that conception. One of my examples was Slate's "Bushism of the Day." It's worth noting that the very name is unfair -- Slate doesn't run one nearly every day, but by making it sound as if they do, they also make it sound as if Bush misspeaks far more often than he does. It's also worth noting that the "Bushism of the Day" is often not a terribly egregious example of misspeech. Many of them are the kinds of verbal stumbles that you and I make fairly frequently -- the only difference is that every word we say isn't recorded and scrutinized, whereas every word the President says is.
But, worse, sometimes the "Bushism of the Day" isn't a mistake at all. Take today's:
"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." - Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003
Now, obviously, we're supposed to laugh at "his willingness to terrorize himself." But, remember, this was a speech -- i.e., delivered orally. Isn't it likely that it was read as, "his willingness to terrorize, himself."? The comma makes a big difference. With the comma, the meaning is perfectly clear: Attacking Saddam Hussein is part of the war on terror, as evidenced by three factors: (1) "the nature of Saddam Hussein" -- i.e., he's a bastard and we all know it; (2) "the history of Saddam Hussein" -- i.e., he has supported terrorist groups in the past; and (3) "his willingness to terrorize, himself" -- i.e., Saddam, himself, has engaged in terrorist activities. Gassing Halabja, for instance.
So that leaves me with a question. Is Weisberg so blinded by his assumption that Bush is a moron (or at least a bad speaker) that he just doesn't even consider the fact that Bush's statements often make perfect sense, or is he knowingly distorting them to make Bush look worse than he is?
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh, a frequent critic of the "Bushism of the Day," beat me to it by just under 20 minutes ... "
from Ox BloG
around feb 01,2003 Feb 01 2003