Comments on: Big Man for Prez

By: Luka

Luka — Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:00:22 +0000

Sorry. I just realized that the quote is from the recent concert in Washington.

By: Luka

Luka — Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:57:37 +0000

I’m a bit confused about the quote in which The Boss is introducing Big Man in Washington. It seems like you’re saying that that happened in 1999. But that can’t be, right? Bush and Cheney weren’t elected until 2000 and didn’t take office until 2001.

By: carla

carla — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:02:58 +0000

SpringSTEIN?? Did Joe Piscopo-doing-Frank-Sinatra suddenly start posting here? And they pointed out that he was joking because the people who were making big claims about what Springsteen was saying apparently chose to report it rather differently (and make up the part about chanting “Impeach” and the crowd booing same). As jroth noted, Springsteen has been pointing out that governments shouldn’t lie about war, especially when the people in charge are sending other people’s sons and daughters off to die and kill. In Chicago, too, this sentiment was cheered.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:17:05 +0000

Well, maybe. I’d need a more serious investigation into whether Bush’s behavior before the war included any criminal lies to congress, or whether he did anything criminal (as opposed to massively wrong) with respect to his energy policy. Otherwise, de-elect him instead of impeaching him. Of course, there’s no way an impeachment resolution would get any GOP votes unless something huge happens, so the whole discussion is quite moot.

By: phil

phil — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:10:00 +0000

Matt: lying a nation and Congress into war isn’t good enough? How about his own TeapotDome energy policy? I don’t use “impeach” lightly either, but there’s a very strong case for using it here.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:40:57 +0000

people. It would surprise me — strike me as odd — if Jon actually disapproves of those people. I would instead have expected Jon to say something like, “So what if Springstein was serious? Maybe Bush should be impeached!” And I’m left wondering, “Does Jon think Bush should be impeached?” I can’t speak for Jon, but I would not say Bush should be impeached, and I dislike him about as much as anyone. The reason is, I don’t think that it has been shown that Bush has committed any crimes of the sort that call for impeachment. And, unlike most of the right (or, let’s just say, most GOP congressmen and senators in 1998), I don’t think a president should be impeached just because I don’t like him.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:41:47 +0000

jroth writes: Is the right wing agenda now just reduced to intentionally misconstruing what other people say at public events? “Thou shalt not make political statements at a politician’s memorial.” “Thou shalt not joke about this administration at a rock concert.” That’s not remotely close to what I said, and indeed quite contrary to it. Ad hominem attacks really weaken your, or anyone’s, arguments. Unrelenting sarcasm becomes cloying. And making up things I didn’t say, so that you can refute them what you’ve made up, also scores few points. My point wasn’t to argue that Springstein was serious. Certainly he could have been joking. I repeat, I don’t know, and I don’t much care. But what struck me as odd is that someone from a left-of-center perspective would feel any urgency to point out that Springstein was joking. This seems odd to me because there are indeed people on the left who argue that Bush should be impeached — and who are not joking at all. They’re very serious. That’s a view I disagree with, but I recognize that they’re absolutely entitled to hold it and to express it — jokingly, or satirically, or seriously, or in feathers and maple syrup. It seems to me, though, that Jon’s original post impliedly disapproves of those people if he felt the need to point out insistently someone else’s error in assuming that Springstein is one of those people. It would surprise me—strike me as odd—if Jon actually disapproves of those people. I would instead have expected Jon to say something like, “So what if Springstein was serious? Maybe Bush should be impeached!” And I’m left wondering, “Does Jon think Bush should be impeached?” But I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. Anyway, of all the things I can think of that are not worth arguing further about, this whole topic is very near the top of the list. Happy trails.

By: Indigo Ocean

Indigo Ocean — Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:23:13 +0000

The right IS getting desperate. Check out this great post from guest blogger Steve Almond at BookSlut for more on the anger of the right. url: http://www.bookslut.com/blog/archives/2003_09.php#000646 Here’s an excerpt: “If you listen to any of the hate-mongers on AM radio, or the barking fat mouths on Fox TV, this is more or less what you’ll hear, day after day, an uninterrupted river of rage. And it may occur to you at some point to ask a very simple question: why so angry? This is the same conservative movement that managed to steal the White House in the last Presidential election, with an assist from the Supreme Court. Their candidate lost by half a million votes, but has still managed to push through virtually every major policy aim, from massive tax cuts for the rich to environmental rollbacks. They’ve fucked the state and local budgets for schools and social programs and launched one war after another, on behalf of big business. They have the Democrats kowtowing to their every whim. Shouldn’t they be happy? What I’m suggesting here is that we are best to view the rage of the right not with bafflement, but with suspicion. The truth is that conservatives live in a constant state of terror and guilt-denial – an internal, unconscious state. They know precisely what they’re doing, just like any greedy bully does. And they know how shameful their behavior is, and, more so, how shameful their feelings of hatred and bigotry are…. Us liberals will never be able to muster the brutality required to put these psychos in their place, because we’re simply not pissed off enough, because we’re simply not psychologically damaged enough.” So let ‘em pick on musicians. Every time they distort the truth they weaken themselves a little more. Their veneer is wearing thin. And the spit flying in the wind is turnin’ back.

By: JRoth

JRoth — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:21:09 +0000

Oh, and one more thing: I’m surprised you’d feel the need to defend him, though, and to argue that he was joking. Beautiful touch. ‘While we on our side show no sense of humor or perspective, and intend to use this essentially imaginary incident to prove, um, something nefarious about the left, it only proves that the left is touchy/humorless/nefarious that they would “feel the need to defend him”.’ ‘If you were really the strawman pacifist I’m painting you as, you wouldn’t have hit me back; what a hypocrite you are.’

By: JRoth

JRoth — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:15:57 +0000

I was at that show, and no one chanted “Impeach, impeach.” Nor did anyone boo (not loud enough to be heard, anyway). A lot of people laughed. Apparently, unlike beldar, they understand the concept of humor. Actually, can we bronze beldar’s post for posterity, so that we can reference it next time some nimrod claims the right has a sense of humor but the left doesn’t? Did he say afterwards, “I’m joking, of course”? Are you joking beldar? Lord, I hope so. It’s worth noting that when Bruce did turn serious, and talked about the need for truth when the nation is being taken to war, people did take it as serious statement. And when he said, “Lying about war isn’t a Democratic issue, and it’s not a Republican issue, it’s an American issue,” people cheered. It’s almost as if people who are actually at an event understand what happens there better than a bunch of distant nimrods typing away about it. Is the right wing agenda now just reduced to intentionally misconstruing what other people say at public events? “Thou shalt not make political statements at a politician’s memorial.” “Thou shalt not joke about this administration at a rock concert.” Conservative crack-up, anyone?

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:19:52 +0000

‘It’s also possible that they were saying “Boo-urns”.’ They want Mr Burns from the Simpsons as President? But he’s evil. He’s also only a cartoon. Home-r. Home-r.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:19:50 +0000

‘It’s also possible that they were saying “Boo-urns”.’ They want Mr Burns from the Simpsons as President? But he’s evil. He’s also only a cartoon. Home-r. Home-r.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:53:28 +0000

Did he say afterwards, “I’m joking, of course”? Has he not made clearly political, nonjoking statements in the past that have been critical of President Bush? I haven’t looked for something to link, but I seem to recall that he has. That he was smiling, or that he’s made in the past or made again jokes about a band member becoming President, doesn’t seem to me very conclusive. I don’t care a lot one way or the other—I’m not a fan of his music, and the idea that I’d model my politics after any “rock star” is ridiculous. He’s entitled to chant what he likes, but if it’s on political topics, he runs a risk of being misunderstood, and perhaps boycotted by people who (unlike me) would otherwise have bought a ticket. I’m surprised you’d feel the need to defend him, though, and to argue that he was joking.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 06:42:19 +0000

The obvious comeback is: they weren’t saying “boo” they were saying “Bruce”. It’s also possible that they were saying “Boo-urns”.