BlackPerspective.net
Discussing the Diaspora as seen through an internal Black lens
SNL Paints Obama As Do-nothing President - Video And Reality Fact Check
October 5th, 2009
Saturday Night Live Paints Obama As Do-nothing President
The SNL skit painting Obama as a do-nothing president is predicated on being rife with factual incorrectness. Not only does it not correct, as if they fudged around the edges for comical effect; most of it doesn’t resemble the truth in the slightest at all whatsoever.
Actually the skit piles lies on top of lies. Lets take them one by one.
1. I’ll skip the first lie, that he’s done nothing; and come back to it last.
2. The second contention is that it’s been almost a year since Obama took office. LIE: At the time of the skit it had been 8 months and a week. 66% of time isn’t almost. It’s closer to half a year than a full year.
3. The skit says he promised to close Guantanamo Bay on his first day in office. LIE: He said that closing Guantanamo would be one of the first acts of his presidency, not that it would happen the first day. And on the second day of his presidency (Jan 22) he signed an act to do just that.
What kind of moron thinks you can shut down an operation like Guantanamo in one day; plus ship all those people to wherever they have to go, whether is back home, or into other detainment?
[we've even got a picture of him signing the Guantanamo closure order]
4. The skit says “I’d said we’d be out of Iraq”. Yeah, he said we’d be out in 16 months; and then it was always clear that that would be with a minimal force remaining. Well, it hasn’t been 16 months, only half that. In June there was a large reduction towards that end.
5. “I said I’d make improvements in the war in Afghanistan; is it better? No, I think it’s actually worse”. Can’t say that’s a lie, just a retarded moot point. A multi-ton object rolling down a hill at breakneck speed can’t be stopped on a dime, and then just turned around going the other way.
There are things that have to be done and accomplished toward making that happen. By nature that doesn’t’ just happen cause you blink your eyes. Do folks really think he was magic Obama that was going to just make shit come about by showing up?
Fact of the matter is he’s been, and remains head-on engaged in Afghanistan, and has started the process of turning the wheels. I could get into those specifics, but some people just need to go read.
6. “How bout healthcare reform; hell no?” Again, who are the idiots that think this could magically happen over night. Another moot point. He’s in the process of doing it. He didn’t give an 8th month deadline, or anything like it on the campaign trail. You can’t say he hasn’t done it, if and until healthcare reform is dead.
7. Then the skit list 5 things which it says the Left should be made that he hasn’t “addressed” even one of those yet. LIE: one of those five are torture prosecutions. Uhh, Eric Holder has been putting together possible cases on that for months now, and it is still in progress. That’s the very definition of addressing something. Secondly, the stimulus bill had all kinds of global warming stuff in it, including the cash for clunkers project that everyone on the Left seemed to hail, that just wrapped. What the hell do people think the purpose of that was? So that’s a double lie.
The one thing on that check list that he did indeed outright dodge was caps on executive power; not only did he not do anything he did the opposite; he further empowered them by giving them hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money with no strings attached; where he had all the power in his court to make that happen.
8. “So looking at this list I’m seeing two big accomplishments: jack and squat” Yeah, that’s because things like cutting the monthly job lost rate by approximately 70% wouldn’t fit into their meme, for instance. How about outright banning torture like the Left wanted; forgot that one too, hun? Along with the realities of the things I mentioned above.
9. And remember, I can do whatever I want; I have a majority in both houses of congress.” O’rly? Then why hasn’t the Senate passed a healthcare bill with a public option like the president asked them too if he has the power to make them do whatever he wants. Maybe because there are some powerful people in congress in their own right who vote their own convictions or political interest (more the latter than the former), and don’t just cowtow behind the head of their party. You know like the Blue Dogs in the Senate that the same type of liberal who wrote this piece to bash the president, bash as sellouts to the corporations for not agreeing with their positions.
Now which is it, is it the Blue Dogs that are holding things up, or is it Obama? At least get a consistent bat shit crazy position.
Conclusions
Whoever the ultra liberal extremist are who wrote this script, who thought Obama was going to be some marauding liberal hatchet man; despite the fact that there was nothing to suggest so, and everything, namely his own words that suggested otherwise; are the type of idiots that make politics so poisoned.
Not to mention the fact that anyone who doesn’t know that the president is not a dictator, and that congress actually passes laws and funds government initiatives; so even if he wanted to just do all of these things in a hap-hazard world wind he wouldn’t be able to; are persons not intellectually capable of participating in political discourse, including doing decent political satire.
What makes political satire actually funny is it’s actual resonance with the truth. I’m all for a good laugh at Obama’s an anyone else’s expense; but a false political hatched job disguised as satire isn’t going to fly.
The one salient satirical point, which got the one laugh out of me: “The cash for clunkers program really stimulated the economy. Unfortunately it was the economy of Japan.” Now this was good satire, based in the truth that the vast majority of cars bought in that program were foreign models. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t academically rigorous in the point that there was significant stimulus for U.S. auto dealers, and the for the U.S. plants where most of those cars and parts for the cars, and transportation of all the above were actually produced. It actual had a foothold in reality, so it’s funny; rather than just banal like the rest of it.
Back to #1, “when you look at my record, it’s clear what I’ve done so far; nothing.” Well, we dispelled that throughout the post; which was why I left it for last.
posted in Humor/Satire, MSNBC Videos, News & Events, Politics, Racial Injustice, Social Commentary | | | View blog reactions |
20 Responses to “SNL Paints Obama As Do-nothing President - Video And Reality Fact Check”
Leave a Reply
About The Blog
Yobachi Boswell is creator and publisher of BlackPerspecitve.net. I’m a writer, activist and political watcher based in Nashville, Tennessee. I’ve also been know to do some spoken word and MCing in my day.
I created this site to give new voice to socio-political issues that are in need of thoughtful consideration and redress.
Click the "More About The Blog" link for rest of this statement.
Also, if you like what you see, subscribe for a once a day email to be sent on days when we post by entering your email address in the feed burner subscription box below.
- More About The Blog...
Subscribe via email
Blogroll
- Abagond
- AfroSpear Blogs & Info
- All About Race
- All Africa
- BlackPerspectivenet @ Youtube
- BlackPressUSA.com
- From My Brown Eyed View
- Redding News Review
- Sojourner’s Place
- Trini Gourmet
- UltravioletUnderground
Site Meter
Meta
Subscribe Via RSS
My Twitter
Recent Posts
- Jasiri X - What if the Tea Party was Black?
- Video: Strong Independent Black Woman = Bamboozled
- Celebrating Wyclef’s Failure? Denied Haiti Ballot Spot
- Investigation of the case of the Scott Sisters
- August 2010 National Unemployment Numbers
well, let’s just HOPE he gets nothing accomplished! he seems intent on screwing up everything from national security to health care…the less damage he does, the better!
2013…2013…2013…just keep repeating it….
SNL is tired and worn out, plain and simple. They are clearly at the desperate point of making shit up in order to salvage some of their crappy ratings.
This one though? Beyond ignorant.
Come on SNL has said nothing bad about Obama before this. They have really painted him in the most positive light, more so than any other President ever. Even before he was President handled skits about him with kid gloves while nailing everyone else to the cross.
This is what they do and I was starting to wonder about SNL because they have never given any President so much positive skits before with out some kind of hard line punches. So President Obama has gotten off easy with SNL if you reflect on how every other President has been made fun of.
It’s SNL let’s not act like a bunch of cry babies.
Pam, SNL has been worn and tired since the Phil Hartman and company left. Last years election satires where an aborition of good material. Now that the elections over, they’re back to their boring, culture irrelevancy.
This isn’t your farthers SNL.
Kim, can you tell me of 1 other presidential satire snl has done where they made up a bunch of factual lies as the basis of the skit?
And they could of made fun of Obama personally all day, like they did with Clinton; but this was a policy skit. Most of the Clinton stuff was about him being fat, eating a lot McDonald’s french fries, and chasing women. Those are two very different arenas. They attempted to do a satire about stuff that actually matters; and lied!
That’s simply not acceptable.
All this shows is that no matter how hard they try, comedians cannot avoid the unwritten law of comedy. ALL COMEDIANS HAVE TO BE CURRENT!!! My curiosity is why is everybody getting so bent out of shape over a skit? Why is CNN picking the skit apart on its accuracy? Why is Boswell picking the skit apart to prove its inaccuracy? It is just a SNL skit. Grow some thicker skin. We right-winged terrorist racist types have callous. Welcome to politics…get used to it…you have 3 more years to go. Excuse me…you have 3 years, 3 months, 3 weeks and 52 seconds to go.
Yobachi, I just don’t get why it’s a big deal SNL said Regan had his finger on the button and that he was so brain dead the his wife was making all the decisions for the Country using a astrologist and it was funny but didn’t take to heart because it was lies of course.
I didn’t think the one on Obama was funny but didn’t get upset. Why when anything bad or negative is said about him people go crazy it puts a bad light on it like he can’t take it.
I guess I just don’t get it sorry.
Kim, we have a different perspective.
I see an attempt to influence political perception, for the purpose of a political agenda; so I feel the need to correct the record, so that such a meme doesn’t take hold as reality (being that perception is reality).
Randall, what does just a skit mean? A skit as compared to what? It’s a political piece, the form of the political piece is irrelevant. It’s depth of reach, however is relevant.
And Conservatives calloused; in what country?
Was it not a few weeks ago Conservatives losing their shit over a personal, (not public policy) slight against Sara Palin’s daughter by comedian David Letterman?
Make fun of Obama all you want (making fun of Obama is hardly my issue, as one will see if they actually go by what I wrote); but don’t try to influence the political discourse with lies about important issues.
skit:
1. A short, usually comic dramatic performance or work; a theatrical sketch.
2. A short humorous or satirical piece of writing.
(www.thefreedictionary.com/skit)
Politicians are fair game for skits (yes, skits) and mockery on SNL and David Letterman. Kids have and should be off limits because they have no control over their parent’s political asperations or beliefs or their decision to be in the spotlight. I believe the Clintons declared Chelsea off limits in the very beginning of Bill’s first term. That unwritten rule should be bipartisan. I don’t believe any child of Obama has been attacked by the media. It is a double standard.
The issues by which the politician stands and promotes are supposed to be the very target of comedians. If they were to take your stand and make fun of Obama himself then the shit would really hit the fan. Warner Brother’s banned 11 of their cartoons that were made back in the 1930s and 1940s from distribution or viewing because they made fun of black people. Not black people’s politics but black people themselves. Everything we know about Obama is what defines his politics. Staying away from his politics means that we would have to delve into the PC “no-nos” of our times to make fun of him. And as we are witnessing, making fun of his politics alone is cause for the left to lob the “R” grenade as though they were water balloons.
We cannot make fun of anything but his politics (and political history). Anything else would not be funny and would be dragging us decades backward.
Right? I don’t give a damn if they have given him positive light up until now…even though I’m not sure if I agree making him look like a pop star type celebrity is a positive light.
Lying just to scrape up a few laughs is bullshit.
Hey Yobachi! Hope all is well…know its been a bit…sorry bout that…
Now on the SNL skit. You had to know that it was only a matter of time before the “doubting Thomases” reared their heads. Hey! Anything for a buck and ratings.
I hear you - but, believe me its bound to get worse before it gets any better…
[...] last week’s SNL Obama opening; I took issue with the factually devoid, poor political hatchet job, disguised as [...]
@ SjP
We just can’t let such nonsense go unchallenged. I’ve seen where that leads.
That’s why despite the protest above, I overstand what’s going on here, and know it to be more than some light thing.
I am gonna be a talking head, but when has CNN or any other form of media picked apart a skit on SNL like the skit on Obama. This reeks of Hustler magazine’s parody of Jerry Falwell in the mid-1980s. They made an “ad” of a alcoholic drink being endorsed by a drunk Falwell where he describes having an incestuous encounter with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell got pissed and sued Hustler. The case, “Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46″ made it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled in a unanimous 8-0 decision against Jerry Falwell.
The court held: “In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with “actual malice,” i. e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State’s interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a “public figure” for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts’ finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be [485 U.S. 46, 47] accepted. “Outrageousness” in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here.”
Public figures are fair game for parodies from sources that are clearly “not meant to be taken seriously”.
Wow, Randall; when are you going to stop ranting with your irrelevancies that have nothing to do with what I’ve said, or my positions; and instead actually address where I’ve come from.
I ignored your last comment because you’re so far off in tangent land; but you choose to keep coming with your condescension; defining words for me like I’m some idiot. But I guess it was all you had since you could not addressed what I asked which was “what does just a skit mean”; not for you to define the word skit. That amongst your many other tanget treks off the beaten path in that comment.
Now you come back talking about it being legal to do parodies. Whether or not SNL doing the skit being legal is NOT an issue I brought up, and is a complete red herring designed to be further condescending (as if you put one thing in that comment that I didn’t know), and do distract from the actual issue.
I’ll wait until you actually address anything I say or any of my actual issues. Until then I have to assume you just don’t understand what I’ve said; and there’s no point in attempting any discussion, as you are arguing about things I’m not even talking about.
I’m not sure where the problem lies.
SNL, Mad TV, et al have always hit politicians (and others) with every thing they have - and have rarely stopped to check the facts. The slightest mannerism, most coveted program, most inconvenient verbal slip-up all becomes fodder for their skits. And repeating what Randall said, his politics are almost his ONLY target because it would be too contiversial to discuss anything about the man himself. I am old enough to remember the skit with Garrett Morris and Julian Bond, where Bond comments that the impression that whites are smarter than blacks is because lighter skin blacks are smarter than darker skin blacks. True commic gold that can in no way be repeated today.
To leave comment on one more topic discussed, if anyone is forming their political impressions or getting their decision making news from a “reputable news source” like SNL, we’ve got more serious issues to deal with.
SNL is a supposed to be humorous - whether it actually is humorous or not is in the eyes of the beholder (ususally not funny these days). If you don’t like it, don’t watch. It’s not news.
@Martin.
Okay. I was very clear about where the problem lies, and it had nothing to do with “hit[ting] politicians”; so there’s nothing else for me to respond to, as your comment doesn’t address the issues of my post.
Thanks for commenting.
Your whole discourse is about the factuality of the skit. Skits are a form of satire (as defined in my “condescending” reference to definition 2 of the dictionary. History has shown (until now) that skits are not bound by truth. A program like SNL is given even more lenience to satire (until now) due to the nature of the beast (just like Hustler). They are not bound by the same rules as legitimate news organizations (until now), so they can do almost anything they want (until now). Quoting the Supreme Court decision drives home my point. Read the last part of my quote starting with “outrageousness” and replace “jury” with “a person”. What SNL did was a skit by any definition but yours (don’t know what that is, yet). Satire is usually directed at politicians AND their politics…this is the norm (until now). It is not the job of SNL to treat any political figure with “kid gloves” (until now). Obama has gotten a free ride from almost all arms of the press. Be happy about that.
Still proud???
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-administration-tries-to-ban-fox.html