President as Straight Man

Did President Obama degrade his office by appearing on "The Daily Show"? Or is that notion a relic of a bygone era?

Pat Lang thinks President Obama’s Daily Show appearance was “a bad idea.”

Stewart is a clever man, but he is a comedian. The president of the United States should not act as a “straight man” for a comedian. Obama is trying to reach more potential voters? I understand that, but the gravitas of the office is damaged by participation in such events.

“Dude?” Stewart addressed the commander in chief of the armed forces as “dude?” The president has the actual power to order death en masse and does so order death in the form of national security “findings.” Should someone with that kind of power participate in political grandstanding and clowning?

I had the same gut reaction to the “dude” line and the spectacle as a whole.  But it may just be old fogeyism on our part. Sheryl Gay Stolberg‘s report, “Obama, Jon Stewart and Change,” puts it in some perspective:

Late-night television has come a long way since Bill Clinton, then a presidential candidate, played his saxophone for Arsenio Hall during his campaign for the White House in 1992. The lines between entertainment and news are increasingly blurred – in part because Mr. Obama has been willing to bring his presidential platform to settings his predecessors might have regarded as unconventional, to say the least.

Last, year, Mr. Obama became the first sitting president to appear on “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno. Over the summer, he dished with Whoopi Goldberg and other doyennes of daytime television on ABC’s “The View.” (“I wanted to pick a show that Michelle actually watches,” he told them.)

Getting out the vote is “on the top of every to-do list of every person working in a campaign at any point in the country,” and The Daily Show appearance is a part of that effort, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs told reporters this week. Mr. Obama, he said, “hasn’t been shy about going to the places where people are getting their information and trying to make his case.”

Back in the old days, presidents used to sit down with Serious Journalists from Serious Media Outlets like CBS News and the New York Times.    But, today, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are more influential than Katie Couric and whoever hosts the other network news programs (which, so far as I know, are still being broadcast).

Most of us thought it was rather clownish for Colbert to testify before Congress.  In character, no less.  Everyone came off looking like dolts.   But the fact of the matter was that his bizarre testimony at least got a modicum of attention for the issues immigrant farm workers face.  Without this weird publicity stunt, no one would have known hearings were being held on the matter.

I’m sure there was a time when it was considered beneath a president’s dignity to appear on radio and television, which were low culture compared to the august print journals.  But, eventually, those became the dominant media and it became what one did.

And, surely, it no more degrades the office to appear on a comedy show and get addressed as “Dude” by an otherwise respectful host than it does to go on, say, the Rush Limbaugh program and shower the host with “Dittos.”  Media where politicians pander to a popular host and their audiences are by their very nature smarmy.

FILED UNDER: Popular Culture, US Politics
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. A couple of quick reactions:

    -I am to the point where I am not sure that there is a venue that should be consider beneath the president if the appearance can be used efficaciously. (Granted, measuring that is difficult).

    -I am not so sure that being of The Daily Show is any less dignified than most campaign stump speeches, to be honest. Campaigning in general is an inane enterprise on many levels (it certainly isn’t an especially serious one from an intellectual POV).

    -Stewart (vice Colbert) doesn’t play a character, so I think that there is a difference. (Not, btw, that I think Stewart ought to be appearing before Congress).

  2. mantis says:

    But, today, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are more influential than Katie Couric and whoever hosts the other network news programs (which, so far as I know, are still being broadcast).

    How does one measure influence? The Daily Show averages a bit more than 2 million viewers per episode (Colbert is closer to 1.5 million), while the network evening news shows get between about 5 million (CBS) to nearly 8 million (NBC) per episode. The audiences are, of course, very different, with the Comedy Central shows pulling in mostly the young, and the networks skewing much older. While the former may be more desirable for advertisers, does that make it more influential politically? More old people vote than young.

  3. James Joyner says:

    You’re right in terms of pure audience numbers, although that’s a bit skewed since a lot of the Colbert and Stewart audiences see the shows via Hulu, Web, and other non-traditional means. Not to mention blog clips.

    But two things:

    1. First, the reason advertisers like young audiences is that they’re still impressionable. Old folks buy stuff — and vote — but they’re more or less set in their ways.

    2. News programming, while perhaps slightly biased, is straighforward presentation of what’s happening. Framing matters, of course, but it’s limited. Stewart and company are actively setting an agenda and hammering home points.

    The bottom line is that Katie Couric and Brian Williams are much less likely to be changing anybody’s minds than Stewart and Colbert.

  4. Franklin says:

    -I am not so sure that being of The Daily Show is any less dignified than most campaign stump speeches, to be honest. Campaigning in general is an inane enterprise on many levels (it certainly isn’t an especially serious one from an intellectual POV).

    100% agreed. And furthermore, I’m not even sure The Daily Show is any less dignified than most of the “real” cable news programs.

  5. Franklin says:

    You’re right in terms of pure audience numbers, although that’s a bit skewed since a lot of the Colbert and Stewart audiences see the shows via Hulu, Web, and other non-traditional means. Not to mention blog clips.

    Yup, I was just reading somewhere this morning that the Stewart reruns within the week roughly double the numbers right off the bat. And I don’t think I’ve personally watched the actual show on TV more than 2 or 3 times; it’s mainly been through blog clips. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual viewing numbers get doubled again.

  6. Wayne says:

    When I was an Officer in the military, I tried not to disgrace that position. I was just a human in a uniform but I recognize that anything I did reflected onto that uniform. Others took it to more extreme than others but there are certain lines you don’t cross. IMO for someone to say that “Officers are humans so let us just do away with those standards” is foolish. Not that I agree with those who want to apply impossible standards to all of the military either but there should be a decent balance.

    The President of the United States should hold that position in higher regard than an Officer in the military does his position. The President action should reflect respect for that position. Being a military officer or a President doesn’t make you a great person but overall the positions are.

    A few bad or questionable actions of people holding those positions are to be expected. However there is a point when it happens too often where it shouldn’t be tolerated. Obama going on the Daily Show by itself is no big deal. However IMO Obama the person has not reflected well on his position as President. I am not sure if I articulated my position very well but there you have it.

  7. wr says:

    Wayne — You don’t like Obama. Yeah, you articulated it just fine.

  8. Wayne says:

    Re “But the fact of the matter was that his bizarre testimony at least got a modicum of attention for the issues”

    A Senator speaking nude on the Senate floor would do the same thing. It is still is not appropriate to do so. You may expect that from a liberal activist to do that but not of a member from congress. Colbert action wouldn’t have been such a disgrace except he did it on behalf and by invitation of a congress member.

    Is it “get attention to you cause by any means” now?

  9. Juneau: says:

    The President of the United States appears on a comedy show 4 days before an election in which his party is forecast to do very badly. An election is which his entire agenda – in his own words – is on the ballot. That the left feels this is an effective way to get “positive” exposure for Obama (on a comedy show? Really?) is simply a continuation of this administration’s juvenile approach to the serious issues of governance.

    No matter how many viewers, the setting and requisite “ba-da boom” tone of a comedy show is hardly the type of effective communication desired by serious politicians. Cameo appearance on a comedy show when nothing is on the line? Certainly. Showing up on a comedy show 4 days before his agenda is about to be politically slaughtered across the entire country … rather telling of his rapidly dwindling ability to be taken seriously.

  10. Wayne says:

    I like Carter and thought he acted appropriately for an ex-President until recent years and acted Presidential (although weak) during his term.

    Didn’t like Clinton but thought for the most part except the affairs and lying under oath he acted mostly Presidential. I didn’t agree with his policies though.

    Remember there are action one doesn’t like and actions that are un-Presidential.

  11. mantis says:

    What do you want to bet Wayne thought everything Clinton did was unpresidential when he was in office?

  12. Juneau: says:

    How much you want to bet mantis thinks honor is a word that describes the conclusion of a drunken binge in a mexican bordello?

  13. Tano says:

    The usual suspects are upset that Obama is speaking effectively to a voting bloc that largely supports him, and by so doing ,is helping to maybe increase their probability of voting next week.

    Since that means voting against the preferred candidates of the usual suspects, they don’t like it.
    But since they also want to sound all smart and everything , that have to say more than ” I don’t like this, because it might win his party some votes”. So we get all this horsepatooie about the dignity of the office etc.

    There is nothing wrong with a president speaking to the citizenry at a popular venue. Stewart’s interview was more serious, less comedic than interviews given regularly on some of the “serious” cable shows.

    Just more whining from the right…

  14. mantis says:

    How much you want to bet mantis thinks honor is a word that describes the conclusion of a drunken binge in a mexican bordello?

    I see Juneau is receiving errant transmissions in his/her fillings again. What are you babbling about? Is that supposed to be relevant or funny in some way?

  15. James Joyner says:

    @Tano “The usual suspects are upset that Obama is speaking effectively to a voting bloc that largely supports him, and by so doing ,is helping to maybe increase their probability of voting next week. […] Just more whining from the right.”

    I don’t think that describes either Pat or myself here. The notion of something as “presidential” is perhaps a quaint one and it’s in any case a moving target. But there’s always discussion of this sort when a president does something like this that predecessors wouldn’t have even considered.

  16. sam says:

    “Dude?” Stewart addressed the commander in chief of the armed forces as “dude?”

    Some thoughts. JL Austin made a distinction between illocutionary acts or force and perlocutionary acts or force. Roughly, an illuctionary act is a speech act that does prompt an action of the part of the person or persons addressed. The example used in the wiki page is, I say, “Is there any salt?” conveying the meaning that I desire salt. A perlocutionary speech act, on the other hand, is one that intends to prompt some kind of action on the part of the person addressed. This kind of action is usually understood as psychological in nature, such as, getting the person addressed to realize something, reconsider something, to acknowledge something, and so forth.

    Stewart’s “Dude” to the president is best understood, I think, as a perlocutionary speech act. He wasn’t literally calling the president “Dude.” Rather, he was intending the president to reconsider what he had just said. He was using the word ‘dude’ as a ‘!?’

    The president had used the expression ‘heckuva job’ with regard to Larry Summers to which STEWART replied, “You don’t want to use that phrase, dude.” If you flip the sentence around,
    “Dude, you don’t want to use that phrase,” I think the perlocutionary force of the utterance is clearer. And if you recall the Stewart’s intonation, it’s even clearer.

    The use of the word ‘dude’ in these kind of contexts is pretty prevalent today.

  17. sam says:

    Sorry, that should be

    an illuctionary act is a speech act that not does prompt …

  18. Juneau: says:

    @ Tano

    Since that means voting against the preferred candidates of the usual suspects, they don’t like it.

    On the contrary, I could really care less, Tano. I’m simply making the observation that Obama is continuing his child-prince approach to handling a man-sized job. I’m not insulted by his lack of Presidential dignity – he lost that decisively over the last 12 months with his ad nauseam whining about FOX, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the folks who disagree with his policies (in other words, majority of America). Too bad he’s not up to the task.

    By all means, I think Obama should continue to go on sympathetic TV shows and radio programs . Better yet, maybe he can come up with a little vignette he can take on the road, titled “They Treat Me Like a Dog” (in three acts).

  19. James Joyner says:

    @Sam: Your explanation is unnecessarily complicated, methinks. But, yes, I didn’t take it as Stewart being disrespectful but rather a reaction to the unfortunately Brownie parallel.

  20. mantis says:

    I’m not insulted by his lack of Presidential dignity – he lost that decisively over the last 12 months with his ad nauseam whining about FOX, Limbaugh, Hannity

    Says a staunch supporter of Sarah Palin, who quit her job as governor of Alaska so she could whine about the media full time.

  21. sam says:

    “Your explanation is unnecessarily complicated, methinks.”

    Probably, I put my philosophy hat back on there.

  22. Juneau: says:

    @ mantis

    Says a staunch supporter of Sarah Palin, who quit her job as governor of Alaska so she could whine about the media full time.

    I’m sorry, is Palin the President already? Or is it that you feel there’s nothing special about the Presidency which would dictate more restraint than usual in expressing personal irritations and instead focusing on being “Presidential?”

    By the way, you have no idea how eminently satisfying it is to see you compare Palin with the President. Interesting how much that compulsion is steadily sinking into the leftist psyche…

  23. mantis says:

    I’m sorry, is Palin the President already?

    In your mind, I’m sure she is. President of Facebook, anyway.

    By the way, you have no idea how eminently satisfying it is to see you compare Palin with the President

    I didn’t. I compared your attitudes towards one person with your attitudes towards another.

    Interesting how much that compulsion is steadily sinking into the leftist psyche…

    Hehe. Sure. Please, please, please, please nominate the snowbilly grifter in 2012, Republicans. It would be very helpful.

  24. Juneau: says:

    @ mantis

    Hehe. Sure. Please, please, please, please nominate the snowbilly grifter in 2012, Republicans. It would be very helpful.

    It will be whatever it will be. If Palin, then Obama may very well have a full 8 years of destroying the Democrat party’s future. Or not. It’s just entertaining to see how she lives in all of your heads, rent free.

  25. anjin-san says:

    > If Palin, then Obama may very well have a full 8 years of destroying the Democrat party’s future.

    It’s only 2010, and we are already seeing Palin failure rationalizations.

  26. PD Shaw says:

    sam, you certainly gave me something to think about there. Cheers.

  27. anjin-san says:

    > I’m sorry, is Palin the President already

    Nope. Not even the Alaska Gov. Just a full-time grifter now.

  28. An Interested Party says:

    “By the way, you have no idea how eminently satisfying it is to see you compare Palin with the President. Interesting how much that compulsion is steadily sinking into the leftist psyche…

    It’s just entertaining to see how she lives in all of your heads, rent free.”

    You’re projecting, as it is people like you, around here especially, who bring up the president every time one of the writers here criticizes Palin…of course she is the bête noire of many on the left, just as the president is the bête noire of many on the right…in other words, it is very, very obvious that Barack Hussein Obama, The One, has permanent squatter’s rights in your skull…

  29. Wayne says:

    @ Mantis
    A bet you would lose. Already said I didn’t like the guy, disagree with a good deal f his policies and he did things that were not Presidential but for the most part he acted Presidential. Disagree with me if you want but that was and is my position.

    Hate to put red meat out there. FYI usually I am a guy that is not all that stuck on people in dignified position having to act dignified all the time. However, I understand the need to do so most of the time especially when the person is on the job.

    It cracks me up that those who expect 18 year old privates in a foreign war zones to act appropriate at all times don’t expect as much from a Democrat President.

  30. Juneau: says:

    @ AIP

    Barack Hussein Obama, The One, has permanent squatter’s rights in your skull…

    Of course he does, he’s the President. Wow… came up with that one all by yourself, did you?

  31. mantis says:

    If Palin, then Obama may very well have a full 8 years of destroying the Democrat party’s future

    He’ll destroy the future of a party that doesn’t exist? That would be a neat trick.

  32. Juneau: says:

    @ mantis

    He’ll destroy the future of a party that doesn’t exist? That would be a neat trick.

    What? Sorry, are you saying that the Democrat party is going to disappear after the mid-terms and 2012? Or … what?

  33. wr says:

    Juneau: “Child-prince”? It’s just killing you not calling him “boy,” isn’t it?

  34. mantis says:

    What? Sorry, are you saying that the Democrat party is going to disappear after the mid-terms and 2012? Or … what?

    Here in the United States of America, the two major parties are the Republican Party and Democratic Party. There is no Democrat Party. I understand that being a wingnut who gets information only from sources such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, you would be unfamiliar with the actual names of the political parties in this country. You probably also think the government should stay out of Medicare.

  35. Juneau: says:

    @ mantis

    Here in the United States of America, the two major parties are the Republican Party and Democratic Party. There is no Democrat Party.

    Hah! You’re so cute when you rely on semantics, trying to score points. The term “Democrat party” has been in use at least since 1940 when speaking of your beloved “Democratic” party. Some sources trace it all the way back to before 1900. You are getting desperate, aren’t you?

  36. Juneau: says:

    @ mantis

    I understand that being a wingnut who gets information only from sources such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck,..

    Oh and by the way, I don’t watch or listen to either of those two gentlemen except on infrequent occasions – I watch from hotel rooms when I travel and I don’t listen to the radio unless I happen to be stuck in rush hour traffic, which is not often.

    Sorry to burst your stereotype bubble, but… there you go. The idea that all of us stupid people are feel this way out of inner conviction rather than indoctrination is a little scary for you, huh?
    It’s OK, we only want to have the “Democratic party” – which has been co-opted by gibbering liberals – to be stripped of any meaningful power. Forever.

    A person has to have dreams, you know…

  37. Juneau: says:

    Correction – “are feeling” (Gosh, now you’ve gone and made me all sensitive about my spellin’ and stuff)

  38. rodney dill says:

    Did President Obama degrade his office by appearing on “The Daily Show”?

    Not any more than he has done by bowing to anything that moves.

  39. mantis says:

    You’re so cute when you rely on semantics, trying to score points.

    Semantics deals with the meaning of words. This has nothing to do with semantics.

    The term “Democrat party” has been in use at least since 1940 when speaking of your beloved “Democratic” party. Some sources trace it all the way back to before 1900. You are getting desperate, aren’t you?

    Yes, occasionally jousting with nitwits in blog comments sections makes me so desperate. Oh, the desperation!

    Anyway, I see you consulted Wikipedia (liberal bias!!!!11). Let’s see what it says, shall we?

    “Democrat Party” is a political epithet used in the United States instead of “Democratic Party” when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.[2]

    Yes indeed. Shitbird Republicans have been using the wrong name for the Democratic Party for 70 years. And you’re just following the tradition, shitbird that you are. It doesn’t really matter if you’re a Dittohead, part of the Beck Crybaby Squad, a Bircher, a Birther, or a Teabagger. You all speak the same language, and you’re all part of the new Confederate Party.

    Here’s a bit more from Wikipedia:

    Modern usage of the term has been traced by William Safire to Thomas Dewey who he credits with its creation.[2] The term gained popularity during the 1940 presidential campaign of Wendell Wilkie. Wilkie’s campaign manager Harold Stassen said, regarding his use in the 1940s, that because the Democratic Party was controlled “by Hague in New Jersey, Pendergast in Missouri and Kelly-Nash in Chicago, [it] should not be called a ‘Democratic Party.’ It should be called the ‘Democrat Party.'”[16]

    The noun-as-adjective has been used by Republican leaders since the 1940s in most GOP national platforms since 1948.[17] By the early 1950s the term was in widespread use among Republicans of all factions.[18] In 1968, Congressional Quarterly reported that at its national convention “the GOP did revert to the epithet of ‘Democrat’ party. The phrase had been used in 1952 and 1956 but not in 1960.”.[19]

    So you just do it to be a pissant, like Limbaugh and the rest, or you do it because you’re stupid and just now realized the party’s name, and looked to Wikipedia to justify your stupidity.

    Oh and by the way, I don’t watch or listen to either of those two gentlemen except on infrequent occasions

    Yet you constantly repeat their talking points. Curious, that.

    The idea that all of us stupid people are feel this way out of inner conviction rather than indoctrination is a little scary for you, huh?

    You don’t, and it isn’t.

    It’s OK, we only want to have the “Democratic party” – which has been co-opted by gibbering liberals – to be stripped of any meaningful power. Forever.

    Good luck with that. Considering you’re a member or supporter of the new Confederate Party, I think you’ll be disappointed with what the future brings.

    Btw, you don’t have to put Democratic Party in scare quotes, because that is the actual name of the party. Dumbass.

  40. If Bruno could draw eight million eyeballs, do you think that makes it ok?

    Everyone should show respect for the office of the president, including the president.

  41. Trueofvoice says:

    Obama can’t take dignity away from an office completely trashed by its last two occupants. If his appearance reveals anything, it’s his administration’s obsession with “messaging” over real substance.

  42. HankP says:

    When I was a kid, Presidential candidate Richard Nixon went on Laugh-In and said “Sock it to ME?”. It probably helped him more than any speech he gave, in that it showed people that he had a sense of humor (which was not something he was known for). I don’t remember any scandalized people complaining about how improper it was for him to do so.

  43. Nikki says:

    Didn’t Cheney go on Rush’s show? And isn’t Rush an entertainer, too?

  44. An Interested Party says:

    “Of course he does, he’s the President.”

    Ahh, now I see…you find it amusing that some others are “obsessed” with Sarah Palin considering she isn’t much of anything, especially compared to the president…glad we could clear that one up…oh, and the idea that 8 years of this president will somehow destroy the future of the “Democrat” Party is as foolish as the idea that the last two election cycles somehow meant the end of the GOP…but hey, as you wrote, a person has to have dreams…

  45. Juneau: says:

    My goodness, mantis, did you blow a gasket or something there?So… this peevishness and lack of control over your emotions is a widespread liberal disease, then? And here I thought it was strictly an Obama character flaw. Or perhaps it’s contagious? The next week is going to be so much fun…

  46. Leo Sigh says:

    I just can’t stomach watching Obama any more, and I’m a Democrat. With the constant lies about what he’ll do, then going back on everything he promised, the man is even more untrustworthy than Bush and that’s saying something.

    What I think is the worst thing about him though, is he looks down on everyone else, even his own supporters (telling them to stop “whining” and vote!), and is so absolutely sure he’s always right, it leaves no room for anything to really get done.

    I’m hoping for either Hillary in 2012 or, failing that, I’d even vote for Palin as, with her, you KNOW she’s a liar and an idiot, so you get exactly what you expect. Obama is the same, he just pretends he isnt.

  47. anjin-san says:

    > The next week is going to be so much fun…

    Not nearly as much fun as the Giants post game party over at the pier was 🙂

  48. john personna says:

    There is the aspect that the more informal a setting is, the more we see (or think we see) of the individual.

    You don’t like a President on The Daily Show, but would you like to talk to him at a party? Do a round of golf? Would you like informal access, but just not for other people?

    From my skim the Obama critics are critical of Obama on The Daily Show. Big news. For them “Obama on TV” is bad enough.

  49. Mart Martin says:

    As has been said before, “There was a time when silly jesters courted kings; now, an enfeebled king courts a silly jester.” No, it was not a presidential appearance at all. Far from it; more akind to sophomoric silliness. What’s next for Obozo? Jerry Springer would seem the logical answer.

  50. James says:

    @ Dr. Steve Taylor
    Campaigning in general is an inane enterprise on many levels (it certainly isn’t an especially serious one from an intellectual POV).

    Enlighten me, ( What is the remedy)?

    James, Flat land of Texas

  51. @James:

    I am not sure that there is one. My point is that the campaigning in general is hardly the most dignified and intellectual of pursuits and it often requires a fairly simple approach to communicating one’s views. I see an appearance on the Daily Show to fit within the broad rubric of campaigning/mass communicating. As such I see hand-wringing about being undignified to be a bit silly.

    In other words: if one is going to get upset over the POTUS appearing on the Daily Show, there are a whole lot of other things that one ought to be upset about.

  52. James says:

    @ Dr. Steven Taylor, (inane) Silly, Stupid, not Significant,………lost for words.

    Paul Revere……

    They stood in the Snow with no Shoes so we could vote……

    James

  53. @James:

    Let me try one more time, as it would seem you are utterly missing my point:

    1. People are upset that Obama went on the Daily Show because it is “undignified” or somesuch.

    2. My point is that Presidents engage in campaigns constantly, which are often even less dignified than such an appearance and yet they aren’t upset about the campaigning.

    3. Yes, campaigning is sometimes “inane.” Are you going to suggest otherwise?

    4. I did not use the word “stupid.”

    5. I said it was “silly” to fret over Obama appearing on the Daily Show–I am unclear as to your position, but you disagree?

    6. I honestly have no idea what Paul Revere has to do with this.

    7. I fear I am somewhat at loss over the fellows sans shoes as well. Valley Forge? I am more than pleased that the US gained independence for Great Britain back in the day, although in honestly even if we had lost the Revolutionary War, I would suspect that we would still be able to vote now (see, for example, Canada, Australia and other commonwealth countries).

  54. James says:

    @ Steven you are all to Painfully correct.

    Paul Revere: Patriot

    Stood in the Snow: Veteran

    Inane: Silly, Stupid, not Significant (Oxford dictionary & Thesaurus)

    James (Patriot, Veteran)

  55. sam says:

    Hey James, anyone ever tell you your posts look like those old Burma Shave signs that used to populated highways?

  56. James says:

    Hey James, anyone ever tell you your posts look like those old Burma Shave signs that used to populated highways?

    Complement:

    I’ll take it,

    it’s conservation

    when your read

    at Hiway speed :))

    Now I’ll say

    Berma Shave

    James :))

  57. Eric Florack says:

    Of particular interest to me were the clips showing the audience laughing loudly as Obama tried to make excuses for his failures.

    if I’m a democrat I’m looking at that interview as an unmitigated disaster.

  58. An Interested Party says:

    Oh please, you’d probably consider each breath the president takes to be an “unmitigated disaster”…

  59. Eric Florack says:

    OK, AIP… Let’s hear about what he’s done right. What do you consider a success in these last two years of lurching left, hmmm?

    Let’s hear it.

  60. An Interested Party says:

    Oh, excuse me, I forget how the president pushed through the Public Option…ended the Afghanistan War…had his Justice Department prosecute illegal actions done in the Bush Administration…yeah, he’s really “lurched left”…