|
The
Wisdom of Don Imus
May
12, 2001
by Bradford Shaw
As repulsive as it may sound to liberal or progressive people
familiar with the political attitude of Don Imus, he may have
been partially correct with his assessment of our election
choices last year. Imus, who hosts a popular radio show on
WFAN radio as well as the simulcast on MSNBC cable, has been
known for many years as a closet conservative. His often-nightly
on-air love affair with John McCain during the primaries last
year was difficult for some Democrats to sit through to say
the least. He would call McCain, or vice-versa, and exchange
right wing, anti-Clinton opinions, pausing only to play his
homemade song parodies, skewering Clinton and Gore at will.
In addition his often heard rant against Al Gore seemed disingenuous
and deliberately vague. He would call Gore an evil person,
a skunk, and other phrases that seem tailor-made both for
morning radio, and for old, scruffy cowboy wannabe's like
Imus, and yet he offered no concrete facts to back up his
ire. It almost seemed that he was trying to appear hip to
his staff, which were backing McCain.
The staff of the Don Imus Show had a field day last year
making fun of Democrats. They jumped at every opportunity
to make Clinton or Gore look as bad as humanly possible. Charles
McCord, who attempts to read the news without having his own
conservative, right-to-life attitude pop through, actually
did his best to stay above the fray as Bernard McGuirk and
Lou Rufino sank again and again into the sea of Clinton-Gore
bashing. A typical show last year would begin with Don mentioning
something in the news that he thought was interesting as it
related to the ongoing political process. In the midst of
his quirky observations, Bernard would chime in some bit of
vitriol about the Clinton family or Al Gore, not bothering
to check the facts of his statement or even the legality in
some instances.
Don would then chide Bernard for his mean spiritedness, while
still managing to quietly agree with him. Then, after a quick
break provided by a lame musical parody authored by Rob Bartlett
and or Larry Kenney (possibly the worst impressionist known
to mankind, it's generally a good idea to listen carefully
to Don's introduction of the character, or you won't have
the vaguest idea of who Kenney is trying to impersonate),
they would end that segment and, after seven or eight commercials,
they would either resume the Democrat bashing, or introduce
a guest who would continue the bashing. This staff was, and
still is, anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, and pro-business. Imus
surrounded himself with these people, and as a result, was
influenced into following the same political ideology that
was filling his day-to-day working environment.
As I stated earlier, it was difficult for a sensitive Democrat
to witness. The old adage, 'Know thine enemy!' is of course
true, so I, as a strong Democrat, continued to watch and listen
in order to form an intelligent opinion of Imus and his staff.
Every dog has it's day, they say, and John McCain's flag was
flying high for a little while, until George W's machine rolled
over him with it's well financed series of unfounded attacks.
McCain fell out of the race, Imus fell off his horse, and
the process lurched forward.
After that, when Don seemed to be in the doldrums of a man
who backed a failed candidate, he made a wrong decision based
on a right assumption. His wrong decision was to back George
Bush. His right assumption, however, still is true. He stated,
after McCain's defeat, that he would back Bush simply because
W was a gold mine for future comedic material. This choice
of candidate based on what some might call "The Idiocy Quotient"
seemed off based and somewhat self-serving at the time. After
all, Don Imus, however misled, does indeed hold some influence
with his many fans throughout the country, and he wouldn't
sacrifice the future of this country just for the sake of
acquiring a never-ending source of White House humor. Or would
he?
Nonetheless, after witnessing the first one hundred days
of the administration put in place by people such as the "I-Man",
we find that Imus was indeed correct. His assumption that
Bush would be a blunderer in the league of Dan Quayle, was
insightful, intelligent, and tragically true. All one has
to do in order to prove that the theory proposed by Imus was
and is correct, is to turn on any late night television talk
show. From Politically Incorrect, to The Tonight Show, to
Late Night or the Letterman show, you can find a plethora
of Bush jokes and routines, and it's not a rare occurrence,
it's happening every night. The airwaves are inundated with
conservative skewering and bashing of the Republican administration,
the likes we haven't seen since the Nixon era.
Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, Bill Maher, Conan O'Brien, and
Jon Stewart are constantly filling most of their monologue
time with acerbic and often accurate observations of the day-to-day
bumbling of the business model that is the Bush Administration.
Comedians and writers are finding it easier to farm jokes
and routines from the Resident-In-Chief, than OJ, The Royal
Family, or even Bill Clinton's penis. With the OJ case, comedians
risked offending people of color who had a hard time seeing
a lifelong hero's image fall to pieces. It was just too unpredictable
a subject to be able to expect consistent results. With the
Royal family, humorists had a hard time getting the public
exited into frenzy on this side of the Atlantic. Often they
would have to reacquaint the audience with which family member
were who, and just what the current scandal was. It was just
too time consuming and wordy for some American venues. With
Bill Clinton's penis, comedians and writers would not only
risk offending the large percentage of people who voted for
Clinton twice, but they would risk the outward appearance
of being un-hip and pro-establishment. How many successful
un-hip and pro-establishment comedians and writers have emerged
from the entertainment field in past history? The list is
small, if at all.
With Bush, his own stupidity as it relates to the act of
communication alone is worth several years of parody and laughter.
In addition, Bush himself seems to be going along with the
program by providing new examples of his lack of command over
the English language with every new speech or interview granted
since his selection last year. So hidden amongst the piles
of dusty, out-moded and time worn opinions and routines seen
and or heard on the 'Imus in the Morning' program was an actual
truth. Even the most dedicated of Gore haters would have to
agree that he was, and is a better speaker. Al Gore is familiar
with and fluent in the English language, to the point of being
one of the most feared debaters going into last year's election
process. His familiarity with the international scene and
his own political savvy were demonstrated on Imus' own show
when, during a phone appearance, he recited the names of several
leaders of nations that the average American has little knowledge
of, with humor and self depreciation.
Would Al Gore have provided the nation with material for
comedy in such a rapid pace as Bush? The answer is obviously
no, in that Gore wouldn't open the door for jokes regarding
his environmental stand, in that it would be consistent with
the pro-environmental policy put in place by the Clinton Administration.
Al Gore would no doubt be a fuddy-duddy where political humor
was concerned. His comedic contribution during 'The Al Gore
Years' would have been related to his stuffiness in office,
and looseness at home. He is a solid guy, a great leader,
and very boring where controversy and confrontation are concerned.
This simply pales in comparison to the Texas Talk Twister.
His occupation of the White House has been manna from heaven
for jokesters and stand up comedians.
Most comedy writers would acknowledge that when Bill Clinton
left office, they were almost afraid of a Gore Administration.
With the President well informed, articulate, and reasonable
in his decision-making and policy setting, satire could possibly
become an endangered species. Thus, an Al Gore Whitehouse
could set comedy back to it's political infancy, a future
not well received by people who make their daily bread by
finding humor in the behavior and attitude of our leaders
in Washington.
The comedy community could ill afford four years of intelligence
and understanding in the executive branch. It occasionally
needs a Dan Quayle, a Spiro Agnew, and yes, perhaps a George
Bush to reap unbounded comedic treasures. In this one area
of politics, it is undeniable that Bush beats Gore. There
was never a doubt that lil Shrub, with his lack of political
and intellectual sophistication could run circles around Al
Gore in the "providing unintentional comedy material by public
blunder" department. It is a new comedy renaissance out there
in entertainment land, and we can acknowledge the fact that
Don Imus saw this satirical paradigm approaching many months
ago.
Though his show is undeniably offensive on a day-to-day basis
for many even-tempered and tolerant Americans, a final conclusion
can be drawn. The I-Man, though thoroughly unlistenable most
of the time, was right. Once.
View
All Articles
|
