When “Daily Show” correspondents do their presentations, they typically adopt a sort of faux arch attitude, leaving Jon Stewart looking bewildered (and I have to say, it is amazing to watch Stewart go from being joke-deliverer to straight man with such facility.) It is that archness that makes much of the material work, because what they’re saying is incredibly sarcastic, but it’s presented as if they’re unaware that what they’re saying is sarcastic at all.
Not so with Rob Riggle last night in discussing the Bush build-up.
Typically the DS comes up with nonsensical areas of expertise for their commentators: When Bush nearly strangled on pretzel sticks, it would be discussed by their “Senior Junk Food Hazard Analyst.” But Riggle is an ex-marine, so he really *is* something of an expert on military affairs, especially in discussing boots-on-the-ground tactics.
And boy, did he look pìššëd.
I think the audience sensed it. The laughter from what he said was more uncomfortable than it typically is. He came across to me like a guy who was absolutely incensed, doing his best to try and make it comically appealing, and not quite managing. I can’t blame him: This is a guy who, unlike the commander-in-chief and the VP, has genuine on-the-ground experience. He does not take life as cheaply or consider it as disposable as America’s leaders apparently do. And, to me at any rate, it showed.
PAD
• 
Bah, who needs on-the-ground experience when you have the received wisdom of the neocons. After all, they’re proven you don’t need any real combat experience to run an occupation, right?
But Riggle is an ex-marine
PAD, might I recommend you not use this phrase in the future, particularly around Marines.
Because, as Jeff Shaara found out at book signing for one of his novels, there are no ex-Marines. 🙂
My impression was just that Rob isn’t as good as their other guys. It didn’t seem like he was messing up jokes because of any particular emotional baggage, I just don’t think he has very good timing.
Yeah, last night he had a particular gleam in his eye, and Stewart saw it as clear as day.
I did enjoy his bit about the surge is something we can succeed at.
It’s not the timing, it’s the delivery. It was lacking in irony. He was basically just telling you how he felt (see the line about Bush trying to crush the spirit of the troops). My sense was they brought him on because he’s a Marine aspiring to be a comic, rather than a comic who happens to be a Marine. Marines are trained to give it to you straight, so they probably just don’t make very good comedians.
That depends on the Marine. Lee Ermey has great comic timing and a wonderful sense of humor.
But…
There’s some šhìŧ you don’t laugh about. This is one of them. Bush is throwing away twenty thousand lives. He could care less about those troops. All he cares about is the oil.
I knew when we went in that destabilizing Iraq was going to have disastrous consequences. I’m just a peon, though. No one was going to listen to me. And even in here, what I say means nothing. I’m preaching to the choir, something I’m really good at.
Buggrit. Talk amongnst yerselves.
Miles
“Lee Ermey has great comic timing and a wonderful sense of humor.”
That’s true, though it’s definitely not Daily Show type humor. Maybe it would work on Colbert 🙂
Drew Carey is a Marine, no? Though I imagine he’s not everyone’s cuppa.
I saw Rob on DS last night. He seemed even more sarcastic than usual and I wondered about that.
So is Jonathan Winters.
I have to check out the replay to see this.
By the way, speaking of pìššëd of Daily Show guys what about Jason Jones? That guy’s comedy seems to come from a very angry place.
FYI, there’s nothing “ex” about Rob’s Marine status. – he’s a reservist who still does work for the NYC public relations/media affairs office.
And if you watch his earlier pieces, including the first one (where he was brought out as a senior military analyst), you’ll see that they tend to shift the dynamic a bit with his “reports” versus the others, and he and Jon often switch the host/correspondent role. I think it works remarkably well – Jon takes on the mantle of everyday logic, and Rob gets the view of the experienced out there. It’s a rather devastatingly effective way to send up certain stupid things, because it cuts off the avenue of “well you don’t know how people who’ve really been there feel”.
I’ve seen Rob Riggle perform at the UCB theater in New York back in 2002. Being in the front row, a couple of feet from him was a little intimidating. He’s a total riot and great at using anger as comedy.
“‘But Riggle is an ex-marine’
PAD, might I recommend you not use this phrase in the future, particularly around Marines.
Because, as Jeff Shaara found out at book signing for one of his novels, there are no ex-Marines. :)”
A very good friend of mine spent 20 years in the Marine Corps and he allows that Lee Harvey Oswald was an ex-Marine.
I worked for a retired Marine general some years back, and he told me there are *two* ex-Marines: Oswald, and Oliver North.
Can’t say that surprises me. For as much as convicted felon (overturned) Ollie loves to wave the flag and remind everyone he was a marine, most marines who knew him in Vietnam don’t seem to have many positive things to say about him.
I thought I had seen all the recent DS shows, including the one produced on the heels of the troop build-up announcement, but I don’t recall seeing a Riggle segment. Now I can’t wait to see it. Riggle, like many people who passed through Saturday Night Live without finding a niche that exploited their talents to the fullest, has been really enjoyable on DS. His segments leading up to the Midterm election showed that he’s really funny.
I think Riggle has been pretty funny of the DS. But last night both my wife and I thought he was a bit off. PAD’s explanation seems plausible.
I have no love of Oliver North (I pretty much think he’s reprehensible). But a felony conviction, or the fact that he was and still is an áššhølë, shouldn’t lose him the honor of his service. Marines, like every other group, have members that are no good. I think the bar is pretty high for the corp fellows to disown them.
Oh, and another thought a few hours later:
The Daily Show films in a deceptively small studio.
Rob Riggle is a very big man. I don’t intimidate easily, and when I found myself next to him at a benefit a while back, I was… intimidated. (And he was in a good mood!) The TV makes him look a wee bit pudgy, but in person, he’s well over six feet of very big muscle.
I can just imagine the vibe he must give off when pìššëd – and imagine that in a tight space, it would be pretty… intimidating.
For those who haven’t seen it:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=80774
For those who haven’t seen it:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=80774
For those who haven’t seen it:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=80774
Bah, who needs on-the-ground experience when you have the received wisdom of the neocons.
Of course, Rummy did have on-the-ground experience, being a veteran himself. And about 30 percent of the Bush administration has military experience, which is right in line with the previous two administrations. Plus, once again, it was Bush and not the Democrat, who got most of the military popular vote in 2004.
But why bother with facts when you can effectively cry out chickenhawk like so many other mindless lefties these days?
-Dave OConnell
You know, Pete, I totally got that as well. Just saw it over here in Britain, and really liked the answers Riggle was giving to the increasingly worried(but understanding) Jon Stewart.
I liked that he mentioned 20,000 troops won’t make any difference. He basically said that Bush has no strategy in Iraq, and that he’s simply sending in the troops BECAUSE HE CAN.
He highlighted the idiocy at work there, and I liked that. It was awkward, but watchably awkward.
I felt real sorry for Rob, as well. Nobody in the White House cares about their fellow man…the point of governance is lost.
I love how people pick and choose which of those with “on the ground experience” count. I could present one supporting the war/president, but he;d be ignored/dismissed.
and polls before the 2004 election showed veterans, military families suporting Bush over Kerry, and those currently in the military trusting Bush over kerry by a wide margin (not to mention of those who are political the large majority for 30 years have been republican) but none of that would matter. It doesn’t fit the preconceived notion that you already have. there is no logic or debate. Whatever demonizes, good, whatever doesn’t ignored or in turn demonized. That’s why we never here about, but they are there, of the people who have sons and daughters over there, or even have lost one, and still support the president (to a large or small degree). We hear about cindy sheehan
Buzzzzt!!!! Wrong!
Rummy had not real combat experience.
You can pull all the people you want, it won’t change the fact that was the most poorly planned and executed war since the Spanish Armada smashed on the White Cliffs of Dover.
I realize it’s painful for you bushapologists to sit there, having lorded it over those of us in the reality-based community for years about you had won the elections and, therefore, we should just sit down and shut up. And now, with less than a third of the country still believing the fantasies Team Bush is trying to sell about this fiasco and the clear majority now sees it as the çlûšŧërfûçk that it is, you’ve lost the Congress and in 2008, the eventual GOP nominee is going to have to run away from Bush’s record faster than Rosie O’Donnell inhales a buffet, all you can do now is cry about how mean the Democrats are to you.
Sorry, but I’m tired of being called anti-American, of being accused of wanting my own country to fail, of being a terrorists sympathizer just because I saw the writing on the wall four years ago.
Excuse while I have absolutely no sympathy, for the poor, crybaby neocon. God, I hope you bášŧárdš never get elected so much as the head of a city sanitation department again.
Just clarify: Rummy was in the military, but he’s never been in combat.
Facts are fun.
Yeah. because Republicans are never called”nazis, imperialists, racists, sexists, fascists” and the like. No, of course not. Only one side is good-your side, and one side is bad, the other side.
Of course, it could just be reasonable, informed, reasonably intelligent people who, I don’t know, disagree but are capable of talking, debating, and discussing issues with out name calling, and glee when the other side stumbles, because we all want what is best for our country????
Of course not. Demonization of the other side is where it is at, especially on this blog. Name claling, belittling, etc.
Den, lets say you are right and all that was done to you (BTW, Bush has always said “reasonable people can disagree and not engaged in that name calling, but ok, judge all by the limbaughs of the world, of course there are none of those on the left) -why would you want to become the thing you hate?
I’ll give you a quote from another man who gave into hate, paranoia and anger, and became what he always accused his enemies of and who did not live up to this sage advice he gave here, upon resigning, to his staff:
“Remember, always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty. Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.”
richard Nixon
You guys are at that point. and beyond.
Den are you in the miltary?
under your definition, if no, wouldn’t rumsfeld trum0p you, and those in combat trump him?
So by your definition, your opinion would be worthless, unless you’ve been in the military.
of course, john mccain was in the military. he was in combat. he was a pow. he supports the war. he wants even more troops to fight it. so he trumps rummy.
But then, there are those who were in combat who opposed it. So, under your standard, how to choose between those in combat with different views? The impossible question under your views.
and my grandfather in law was in combat. he wants to nuke iraq. Under your view, he should be listened to more than someone not in combat. Interesting.
My father in law was in combat too. Heavy combat. He supports Bush. OMG what do we do? He was in combat eek.
Not to mention the military went for Bush in 2004 apparently according to several times. Overwhelmingly. OMG but many of them were in combat too!
and what if Kerry faces Mccain in 2008? Both have been in combat. They’ll surely have identical views on foreign policy and military force. What an easy choice
I never said democrats didn’t engage in mudslinging, too. Politics is a dirty business.
But, on balance, the GOP has been the more arrogant, condescending, and yes, insulting party over the past several years, going back to their days of trying to get Clinton (A president I didn’t admire either, BTW) at all costs.
It is the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, and the Coulters that have been the spokespeople of GOP thought in recent years. And they’ve found a ready audience and multi-million dollar income peddling their hatred of anyone with a differing opinion.
Sorry, but after being called a traitor for the past several years, you’ll excuse me for not feeling all warm and fuzzy towards the GOP and Bush in particular as they rush to through more bodies on the fire of their raging egos.
As for Bush being all about “let’s get along”, well, first of all, that’s why he has Karl Rove to launch his smear campaigns from behind the scenes while Numbnuts tries to look presidential and above it all. Second, it’s pure Bushit anyway, since Bush’s idea of everyone getting along is everyone who disagrees with him can shut up while he listens to his kissass Smithers wannabe abvisors.
And finally, I think I’ll skip advice on how not to be petty from Richard “enemies list” Nixon.
They’ll surely have identical views on foreign policy and military force. What an easy choice
Okay, Spiderrob, I’m going to say it now:
You’re an ášš.
Where have I have said that everyone in military, past or present, has the same views on foreign policy or military affairs. Go ahead, find where I said it. No, huh?
Now, get this through the neocon blanket you’ve wrapped around your brain: I’m not talking about political opinions or viewpoints, I’m talking about expertise. Hence my construction analogy.
Bush systematically ignored those who had actual combat expertise and experience in favor of those who told him what he wanted to here. That has been corroborated by numerous sources. Maybe you paused to take Bush’s çøçk out of you mouth long enough, you’d understand what I’m saying.
I realize it’s hard, after believing that Numbnuts was annointed by God to protect you from the imaginary WMDs for so long to admit that he’s an incompetent šhìŧ who didn’t know what he was doing, but that’s how we got into this mess in the first place.
Now, I’ll repeat more earlier question: Can you name one thing, just one thing, that would lead any intelligent thinking person to believe that this idiot has suddenly developed the competence to solve this problem that he created?
Anything at all?
1And finally, I think I’ll skip advice on how not to be petty from Richard “enemies list” Nixon.
****
See reasonable people can recognize wisdom in someone else’s advice, even if that same person never even came close to living up to it. In a broken moment, Nixon for once saw a truth-don’t hate others or you destroy yourself. He never lived up to that moment before or after, but it was good advice nonetheless.
And of course, its only republicans who have extreme personalties who say things to sell books or just because. Michael Moore, Al Franken, much of Air America, Jeanine Garofolo, Howard Dean, Barbara Streisand, et al are nothing like that.
or perhaps, just perhaps, you only see it when it is directed to people with your views, and not to others. that would be a common psychological thing. Ideally, though, people would see it as wrong no matter who it effects, and who does it. I do. Sorry you can’t. the name calling, though, really elevates the level of discourse and improves your arguments though. All those who disagree with your are bášŧárdš, and not “reality based” remember that. You’re so smart and informed anyone who disagrees must be delusional or bad people. Good way to live life.
Den’s greatest hits:
You’re an ášš
get this through the neocon blanket you’ve wrapped around your brain
Maybe you paused to take Bush’s çøçk out of you mouth long enough
after believing that Numbnuts was annointed by God to protect you from the imaginary WMDs
incompetent šhìŧ
this idiot
I like your argument style. it would do Karl Rove and Nixon proud. Hannity and limbaugh couldn’t get away with it on the air though, but coulter could probably get it into one of her books.
Three are ex-Marines. Charles Whitman.
The war was piss poor planning from the get go. Everything from the beginning just seemed wrong. First of all, the plan was to go no matter what the League of Nations did. I think this was the first mistake. I was a believer. I watched Colin Powell go in front of the U.N. and declare that Saddam was building up his WMDs again. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t doubt that Saddam had WMDs, but he did not have the huge stockpiles that Rush, Sean and every other neocon believes he had. He had enough to maybe gas the Kurds and Shiites.
What makes our decision to go in alone wrong (200 Spaniards are not re-enforcements) is the fact that this has become a mess that only rest on the U.S.’s shoulders and the Brits index finger. We are screwed.
Second, this is not an island hopping campaign where we can cut off supplies to the bad guys. We did not secure Iraq. That left every single muslim extremist with a gun and a hatred for the US free reign. Of course, being from Texas I know that our goverment knows how to keep a border secure.
WE ARE STUCK THERE. Have you ever gotten stuck in mud and the more you give it gas the more stuck you get. I think that is what is going to happen. We send more troops, attacks go up.
I support the war because I know we can win. We will just have to wait two years until this knucklehead is gone.
I have one last comment about the popular vote thing. I remember election night 2000. I know I am beating a dead horse, but the governor of the state with election issues is Jeb Bush. Ðámņ, I am now part of the conspiracy thoerists who believe Bush stole the election with a little help. Anybody have spell check?
For folks interested in military polls, the Military Times has a poll from 2005 and 2006 of active-duty servicemen here:
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_chart2.php
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php
The 2006 poll shows 52% of those who responded approve of the way Bush is handling his job as a president. However, the answers to poll questions #6, #7 and #10 suggest a drop in military approval since 2005 for both the Iraq war and the way Bush is handling it.
Kelly: The TV makes him look a wee bit pudgy, but in person, he’s well over six feet of very big muscle.
Luigi Novi: That’s exactly the impression I get from him on TV. I never got the impression that he was pudgy.
spiderrob8: polls before the 2004 election showed veterans, military families suporting Bush over Kerry, and those currently in the military trusting Bush over kerry by a wide margin (not to mention of those who are political the large majority for 30 years have been republican) but none of that would matter. It doesn’t fit the preconceived notion that you already have.
Luigi Novi: An accurate description of the tactics of the swift boat veteran propagandists whose smears of Kerry may have very well contributed to those poll numbers you site. But hey, why bring that up when it may serve to mitigate your preconceived notions? 🙂
spiderrob: BTW, Bush has always said “reasonable people can disagree and not engaged in that name calling, but ok, judge all by the limbaughs of the world, of course there are none of those on the left
Luigi Novi: A hollow bit of moralizing on Bush’s part, given that he is the direct beneficiary of the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Reillys, Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth”, etc., who far outnumber and out-organize any equivalent personalities on the left.
spiderrob8: And of course, its only republicans who have extreme personalties who say things to sell books or just because. Michael Moore, Al Franken, much of Air America, Jeanine Garofolo, Howard Dean, Barbara Streisand, et al are nothing like that.
Luigi Novi: Please. In the first place, none of these people are as well-organized or systematic as the right-wingers are. In the second place, just how much power do you think someone like Barbara Streisand has? The fact remains that liberals have not made “conservative” into a dirty word, or have “demonized” those who are pro-war the way right-wingers have done with those who are anti-war. Right-wingers have operated under the assumption that “against the war” is synonymous with “traitor”, “coward”, “pro-Saddam”, and “unpatriotic”. The same does not hold true with liberals, even despite the occassional excesses I see from some of them (and this is coming from somene who spent much of a thread picking apart Michael Moore and the material in his films with one of his fawning apologists on this blog years ago).
The issue is not whether anyone in the administration has combat experience, since that would simply be an ad hominem argument. Clinton had no combat experience, and I didn’t hear a lot of complaints from his supporters of Kosovo. Bush’s dubious motives for going to war, and his lack of combat experience aside, the issue is people like him, Cheney and Rice either have none, and/or have not relied on the advice of those who do have experience, by ignoring their advice, and botching up the war. Whether Bush used familial connections to get into a National Guard unit flying an obsolete plane that would never see combat is secondary to the fact that he did not prepare an exit strategy, did not account for riots and looting amid Saddam’s fall, did not even bother knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, and so forth.
Den, your language toward spiderrob, in particular your allusions to where he puts his male organ, does not lend credence to your position.
Rob Riggle? Who cares? Yeah, I’m terrified. Watched John Stewart and the other clown a number of times. Not funny. Overrated. Loved by a small number of smart áššëš who enjoy listening to other smart áššëš with a microphone. Real clever. Yippee. Har, har! Yeah…hysterical.
“Rob Riggle? Who cares?””
Apparently you do, if you’ve bothered posting on this thread.
Posted by: Luigi Novi, Union City, NJ resident at January 12, 2007 08:02 PM
Den, your language toward spiderrob, in particular your allusions to where he puts his male organ, does not lend credence to your position.
Den, I’m gonna echo what Luigi’s saying, and I’m gonna amplify it: I wouldn’t have expected you to go for the low road like this. I honestly think you’re better than this.
If that doesn’t sway you, chew on this: you’re not acting that much differently than I did when I began feuding with Mike Leung. Have you yet equalled my stupidity? No, not even close. But why even start down that road? I honestly do think you’re much, much better than this. You’re an intelligent person with a lot more to contribute than just mixing it up with a rabble-rouser.
Dude, you’re an adult. Ultimately, it’s up to you. But I thought I’d provide some unsolicited advice. It’s yours to think about — or ignore — as you wish.
Ðámņ, I really think I had too much wine with dinner. 😛
I admit I came out swinging tonight and it was cathartic for me to let that out. Something I hadn’t done for a while. If anyone besides spiderrob was offended by it, then I apologize. Technically, I never told spiderrob anything about where he puts HIS male organ, though. 🙂
Anyway, I’d like an answer from someone why we should believe that an administration that has been wrong on everything about Iraq for the past six years is suddenly going to get this new slogon, I mean plan this time. How many more chances should we give them before we say enough?
Den, I certainly wasn’t “offended.” Just dismayed that someone may have been repeating my mistakes.
I have no answer for your inquiry. The midterm elections were a referendum on the Iraq war as much as anything else. The people spoke loud and clear in November. But Bush is tone deaf to their cries for change.
Okay, I didn’t read the passage close enough. I should’ve said, “allusions to him performing sex acts on Bush”. Mea culpa.
I have no quarrell, however, with your recent question.
Posted:
spiderrob8: And of course, its only republicans who have extreme personalties who say things to sell books or just because. Michael Moore, Al Franken, much of Air America, Jeanine Garofolo, Howard Dean, Barbara Streisand, et al are nothing like that.
Luigi Novi: Please. In the first place, none of these people are as well-organized or systematic as the right-wingers are. In the second place, just how much power do you think someone like Barbara Streisand has?
Guys, what I’m about to post is most assuredly a nitpick, but the woman’s name is BARBRA. For crying out loud, people, she’s only been in show biz for 44 freakin’ years, earning Tonys, Grammys, Oscars, and Emmys in that time (as well as dozens of RIAA-certified Gold and Platinum records), so you’d think her spelling her name correctly wouldn’t prove so daunting a task.
(For the record, the other female celebrity mentioned is Janeane Garofalo, but I’m not going to be so nitpicky over this one.)
>>Guys, what I’m about to post is most assuredly a nitpick, but the woman’s name is BARBRA. For crying out loud, people, she’s only been in show biz for 44 freakin’ years, earning Tonys, Grammys, Oscars, and Emmys in that time (as well as dozens of RIAA-certified Gold and Platinum records), so you’d think her spelling her name correctly wouldn’t prove so daunting a task.
I think SHE’S been spelling her first name wrong for 44 years. Think she’d finally get it right after all this time.
I assume that Ms. Streisand changed the spelling of her name for the same reason many big musicians change their names or spelling of names.
To paraphrase a Great American:
I’m ashamed that George W. Bush is from my country.
Guys, what I’m about to post is most assuredly a nitpick, but the woman’s name is BARBRA. For crying out loud, people, she’s only been in show biz for 44 freakin’ years, earning Tonys, Grammys, Oscars, and Emmys in that time (as well as dozens of RIAA-certified Gold and Platinum records), so you’d think her spelling her name correctly wouldn’t prove so daunting a task.
Well, as a further nitpick: Barbra Streisand hasnt earned “Tonys” plural. She’s only earned one Tony Award (thus far) and that a special, non-competitive award; for that reason, some people don’t include Streisand in the infamous trivia-question list of people who’ve won the Tony, Oscar, Grammy, and Emmy awards.
I love Spiderrob’s logic: because your party engages in mudslinging, it’s perfectly okay for my party to do so. Two wrongs make a right! Right?
Where did spiderrob say or indicate that?
Actually, spiderrob8 was saying the exact opposite: that people can and should be able to disagree respectfully.
While I believe he is often more combative than he realizes, in retrospect I am forced to acknowledge that his heart is in the right place. I think he truly wants to have a respectful conversation. It’s just that he, like me, often overreacts to perceived insults. But, y’know, it’s not like some of us (like me, f’r’instance) didn’t provide fuel for his fire.
I disagree with a LOT of what he says, and I believe many of his arguments are logically flawed. But that’s no reason to put words in his mouth.