During his interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, David Letterman went off on a passionate defense of President Obama. Letterman concluded by saying, “What more do we want this man to do for us, honest to God?”
For starters, something better than the weakest economic recovery in the modern era, the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era, the highest sustained unemployment rate since the Great Depression, a housing crisis worse than the Great Depression, unprecedented deficits and debt, a standard of living that’s fallen longer and more steeply during the past three years than at any time since the government began recording it five decades ago, a downgrade in the United States’ credit rating for the first time in history, and a record number of people in poverty.
Beyond that, though, it’s worth pointing out that earlier this week PBS’s American Masters series broadcast an excellent two-hour documentary titled, “Johnny Carson: King of Late Night.” Among those paying tribute to Carson was Letterman, who clearly revered Carson. In the course of the program, some of those on “The Tonight Show” staff pointed out with pride that no one ever really knew Carson’s politics – that he was never tendentious and his humor and targets were bi-partisan. It helped explain his appeal during the course of 30 remarkable years.
Carson knew he was a comedian, not a political commentator – and he was able to set his political opinions aside before stepping through the “Tonight Show” curtains.
One is reminded that in this area, as in so many other areas, David Letterman – aging, increasingly brittle, and not terribly funny — is no Johnny Carson.
Rub the heads of Letterman and Bill Maher together and you get Joy Behar.
PERFECT description of Letterman. Maybe toss in some Rosie O'Donnell.
Well, to answer the question, "Nothing. I want this man to do nothing more 'for' me. I don't like any of the things he has already done 'for' me. And therein lies the problem, Dave."
Letterman is not alone in his sentiments about Obama. People like him actually believe that were it not for Republican obstruction Obama could have found the cure for cancer, ended war, and found the Lindburgh baby.
Don't forget reversing the rise of the oceans.
This is the usual right-wing hatchet job. Obama has some of the worst employment numbers of any president of the modern era!– if you start the clock from the second he took the oath of office, January 20, 2009. Actually, most conservatives take it a step further and blame Obama for all the job losses that occurred that January (some 600,000), apparently on the premise that he should have led a coup on New Year's Day. Does Mr. Wehner? We don't know, because he doesn't furnish us with any hard data. n nAny reasonable person, I think, would give Obama's policies a few months to take effect before laying the state of the economy at his feet. And these figures tell a very different story. Unemployment hit its peak in October 2009 at 10%, eight months into Obama's term. Since then, under Obama-with-his-policies-actually-in-effect (rather than the spiteful and absurd right-wing phantasm, Obama-should-have-instantly-turned-the-economy-around), it has fallen two points to 8.1%. Meanwhile, the US has added about 4 million jobs. Not too shabby. n nBut perhaps, as Mr. Wehner says, the recovery has been unusually anemic. There may be some truth to this, but what he doesn't tell you is that most of the difference in employment gains between the current recovery and past recoveries is a result of the government shedding jobs, rather than the private sector. In the past, state and federal governments typically added more employees to their payrolls during economic downturns, boosting job numbers, while in the current recovery, republican governors/legislatures and balanced-budget amendments at the state level and a divided congress at the federal level have imposed de facto austerity policies on the nation. The stimulus bill barely managed to staunch the hemorrhaging, for a time. So could the recovery have been more robust? It's possible. But who should we listen to on this score, the ideologues who tanked the economy in the first place, or the folks who have almost but not quite finished repairing the prodigious damage that Mr. Wehner and his colleagues at the Bush administration caused? How much cognitive dissonance does it take to even ask that question? n nThe only thing that Mr. Wehner gets right, so far as I can tell, is that Mr. Letterman has not been funny in about a generation and no one should take any interest in his mostly uninformed political opinions.
First of all, there are hundreds of articles explaining why the true unemployment rate is much, much higher than reflected by the Labor Department figures. Specifically, the math is severely affected as more and more of the population give up seeking work and hence significantly reduce the number "reported as the unemployment rate." As for the rest of your screed, suffice it to say that I'm glad the Democrats are finally getting into the 21st century in ascribing blameworthiness to G.W. Bush rather than Herbert Hoover. Tune back in another several decades to see where the culpability falls. I can assure you, it will not be upon Mr. No Mea Culpa personified,
Television in all areas except for some cable programming has become a dumping ground for comics who are not funny, prone to scatological and cringe-inducing double entendres, and think the world won't survive without their take on contemporary politics and issues. All their pontificating does is to reveal incredible stupidity and an inability to be witty and a disdain for the audience. Can there be no other explanation for why viewers are jumping ship and longing for the "good old days"?
It's funny to hear Letterman use the phrase "honest to God." This despicable perverted misogynist hasn't been honest with God his entire life! n n
Letterman is a pathetic twerp and the fact that the only environment he can survive in is a Marxist Dim Liberal world is testament to his utter uselessness.
Carson was good friends with Gore Vidal. He was liberal-left. True, he didn't articulate these positions, but I have no doubt if he was alive – he would be excoriating the Israel-Firsters.
"Not terribly funny"? He might be the most influential and accomplished comedian ever. Carson took him under his wing, considered him his rightful successor. Dave's the only challenger to Carson in terms of late night. He's partisan, but that doesn't negate everything he's accomplished.
Well, his script-writers might be funny. But the 'human semaphore' isn't.
I am sure I have no interest in David Letterman's politics.
Cher was right.
"What more do I want this man to do"? Pack his bags and get out of the White House. The sooner the better.
Nice try, Pyrrho37. Those 600,000 jobs that were lost that January could have been lost -at least in part– because of the jitters that normally accompany the inauguration of a new administration, compounded by the fact that the business community had a since proven well- founded idea that the incoming Obama administration was going to be unfriendly to free market capitalism.
“What more do we want this man to do for us, honest to God?” n nQuietly pack his bags and go.
Excellent article. I just happened to have watched the Johnny Carson special last night on my DVR. It was an interesting and entertaining program, and what you say about Letterman pointing out Carson's neutrality on politics is spot on. I still have no idea who he voted for! The same can be said of Walter Cronkite, although in his retirement he has taken a definite Liberal stance on issues. But during his day as a Journalist, I viewed him as being completely neutral on political matters. Too bad the Main Stream Media has become so blatantly biased (CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, PBS on the left, and FOX on the right.) I much prefer the news as it happens, and then let me decide about the politics. Now, it is completely out of control, and a disgrace to what used to be a profession.