The Washington Post, today, seems to be lamenting that this year's White House Correspondent's dinner will somehow be too nice to President Bush. In a piece titled "With Rich Little, Press Corps Is Assured a Nice Impression", the Post sees a "controversy" brewing over the fact that an act has been hired that doesn't treat president Bush as a despised figure.
Being nice (to a Republican) simply isn't an option to the Washington Post, it appears.
Stung by criticism that comedian Stephen Colbert went too far last year in his remarks at the White House Correspondents' Association annual dinner, the group announced last week that it had lined up a different kind of entertainer for its next dinner on April 21: impersonator Rich Little.The choice elicited two general reactions: Who? And why?
Only the anti-Bush media could see a desire to be less mean spirited as something to lament.
It always strikes me as hypocritical when the press calls for "less partisan rancor" and absurd when they call for more "bipartisanship" and flat out ridiculous when they claim that people are "too mean" in Washington. The press doesn't want any less meanness in Washington because they are responsible for a large portion of it in the first place. And this story unmasks their underlying hatred.
The Washington Post piece goes on to zing comedian Little for not being "edgy" enough.
But "edgy" Little isn't. Even in his heyday, he didn't do biting topical satire or searing political humor. As a performer, he's more "Ed Sullivan" than "Daily Show."
Why does the comedian for this dinner have to be "edgy" and have "searing political humor"? Can't he just be funny?
Not when Bush is the target, apparently.
Obscenely, the Post quotes the unhinged sports guy, Keith Olbermann-- one of the most shrill purveyors of mean in the media today -- as saying that the press corp has gone soft on Washington over the choice of Little. It is as if Olbermann's is a noteworthy, thoughtful point in the story.
That's more or less how MSNBC host Keith Olbermann read it; he nominated the entire correspondents' association as his "Worst Person in the World" on his program last week.
Olbermann is proof that one need not be worthy of what we term "fame" today. In days gone by he would have been scorned as "infamous" and would not be celebrated as a celebrity or be awarded any measure of "fame." No one would want to be like him and no one would admit to watching him, either.
The most ridiculous statement of the piece, though, is that having the somewhat innocuous Little bring his act to the dinner is somehow proof that the Press Corps is "cozy" with the White House!
The hiring of "a controversy-free" Little underscores the point, he says: "Do we really need a neon sign to proclaim the coziness of the White House press corps and the White House's occupant? It's really hard for me to understand making a decision like this, particularly so close to the WMD debacle. The dinner must go."
Still, I agree with that last point: The dinner must go. This pretense that the Press Corps could ever act like people who have even an ounce of humanity toward the office of the President is a farce beyond measure.This choice of the first actually funny act to appear at the dinner in many years does not cover their hatred very well.
Were I president, I wouldn't even attend in the first place. Who is fooled by the back slapping and wan smiles of the hatemongers in the MSM?
Not I, I'll tell you that much.
