Text of Imus' infamous Clinton speech

[deutsey]

I don't know if this has been posted here at DU or not, but with people here referring to the Imus speech in '96 in reference to the recent Colbert speech, I thought I'd post a link for it here:

http://imonthe.net/imus/ispeech.htm

SNIP
You know I think it would be fair to say, back when the Clintons first took office, if we had placed them all in a lineup -- well, not a lineup -- if we were to have speculated about which member of the First Family would be the first to be indicted... I don't mean indicted -- I meant to receive a subpoena -- everybody would have picked Roger. I mean, been there done that. Well, in the past 3 years, Socks the cat has been in more jams than Roger. Roger has been a saint. The cat has peed on national treasures. Roger hasn't. Socks has thrown up hairballs. Roger hasn't. Socks got his girlfriend pregnant and hasn't... oh no, that was Roger. And as you know, nearly every incident in the lives of the first family has been made worse by each and every person in this room of radio and television correspondents -- even innocuous incidents. For example, when Cal Ripkin broke Lou Gherig's consecutive game record, the President was at Camden Yards doin' play by play in the radio with John Miller. Bobby Bonilla hit a double, we all heard the President in his obvious excitement holler "Go Baby!" I remember commenting at the time, I bet that's not the first time he's said that. <Turns to President> Remember the Astroturf in the pickup? And my point is, there is an innocent event, made sinister by some creep in the media.

In some cases, the Clintons have not exactly helped themselves. Imagine if back in 1978 Mrs. Clinton had NOT said to Mr. Clinton, "Honey, Jim and Susan are here and they've got some river front land for these great vacation homes, maybe we can make some serious money. And he said "God I love this Reaganomics!" Or later, she'd said, "Bill, I talked to Web and he said 'put down 600 hours' and he'd said, "well, that's a lot," and she'd said, "yes, I think 60 makes more sense." And recently somebody said, "I don't know, I left them on the table in the book room."

MORE...



For me, Imus' speech was not satire, it was personal insult. Colbert, on the other hand, was lacerating political satire.

[Guaranteed]

1. See, the difference I see between these two speeches is the difference

between a WELL-DESERVED thrashing, taken by Chimpy, and a bunch of exaggerated characterizations and other such garbage made up by simple-minded people- such as Don Imus- who can't stand the sight of those who are just clearly better human-beings than they are.

[madokie]

2. imus is to be tolerated, Colbert is to be envied

[bigscott]

5. why?

Why does Imus have to be tolerated? I have a remote - I would never choose to watch this whining sack of shit

[ixion]

3. yes, the media loved to bash the Clintons...because they took it so well

all in good sport, and all that. Clinton took it in stride, IMO.

But Bush...well, Bush...yes, and then there's the Bushes.

Look crossed at this fascist, or any member of 'the family' and you make 'the list'.

Colbert made 'the list' w/o question.

If the MSM had any guts, they'd be on 'the list', too, IMO.

[Berry Cool]

4. Jeez. Tacky and not funny.

Not even the jokes about Rush or Newt or any of those guys. It was all just so bitter and nasty. For crying out loud, man, show some cleverness and wit.

That's the problem with Imus. He knows how to call people cruel names and say insulting things, but that alone is not comedy. Playground bullies know how to do that too, but that doesn't make it funny.

[ixion]

14. yeah, I've never found RW 'pundits' funny in the ha-ha sense

only funny in the deluded idiot sense. :evilgrin:

[KharmaTrain]

6. Nothing Like Roasting On Ice Skates...

These dinners are a trip into the sublime. Somehow, for one night, the lions and sheep not only lie down, but get shitfaced and then make fun of one another. Well, they don't do it, they bring in a "professional" to do that...a comic who is supposed to do all this barbing and then do the "just kidding folks routine". Since he's a professional and not part of the lion or sheep sect, he's either immune from being a partisan or attacked depending on whose ego is soothed or ruffled. Lions and sheep are both very ego-driven ya know.

The text of Imus' speech doesn't really do justice. I'm not sure if the video is online, but I recall Imus being very "faced" that evening...and was attempting to do a stand-up at a bachelor party. But then that's what Imus is...he and his hyenas were and always have made their "fame" by being over-aged frat boys who can't pass up a sexist, racist or obscene reference when one is handy. Clinton's people knew it and he was prepared that night...and he got a couple of good shots in that night. Imus thought he was at a Friar's roast...and that's what was the initial buzz. The Clinton angle was piled on afterwards by the wingnuts.

Colbert, unlike many others who've worked that room, knew this was his one and only shot. It was sorely obvious that whoever booked him really didn't understand the Colbert character and thought it'd be a bunch of Henny Youngman one-liners. They didn't look at the concept of "Truthiness"...and how the Colbert Report plays off on the corporate media's own self importance and distortion of reality. He showed them how Truthiness works...and they didn't like. It wasn't funny. Maybe to them it wasn't, but to millions of us outside the beltway, the barbs not only made us smile, but let up pent up feelings.

I suspect we'll see a "format" change on these events in the future. The "professional" will be replaced by the "entertainer"...we'll see Charlie Daniels or Patricia Heaton as the featured "speaker". :rofl:

[Gin]

7. I think the outgoing president booked him....he mentioned that.....

and he is also the guy that shrub made the comment about "having a face for radio"....I wonder if he knew exactly what he was doing when he booked Colbert!

[KharmaTrain]

12. These Are The Same People Who Accredited Gannon

What's that tell you about the due dillgence they perform?

Face for radio? How about face for bird cage liner!

[Ian David]

8. Colbert was political. Imus was personal

All the things Imus accused Clinton of were things that didn't much effect America.

It would be as if Colbert spent his ten minutes talking about how Laura killed her ex-boyfriend in a traffic "accident," and George's alcohol and drug addiction and DUI, Cheney's two DUIs, etc.

Brutus let Mark Antony have the last word Saturday night.

[spooky3]

10. Well said. This is a critical difference.

A second, less important difference, is that Imus criticized ("lampooned" implies it was funny, which it wasn't) acts that turned out not to have occurred, or not to have been wrongdoing at all. This is a backhanded compliment to Clinton as apparently he did not provide enough political fodder for a comic to fill 10 minutes. Colbert could have spoken for hours about real wrongdoing for which * is responsible.

[Guaranteed]

13. And Imus was just- well...wrong.

He was just characterizing, with nothing really good to back it up. Where he was right, our country had no business meddling.

If you watch his show, every single person he brings up in conversation ends up with some kind of label, either as "a good guy" (a very common phrase on the show) or a "criminal" or whatever his ignorant, judgmental mind wants to put on them. Even when he talks trash about the Bush Administration, he doesn't really seem to understand WHY they are so horrible.

That's what stupid people do. They talk about and characterize other people constantly, often showing more of what they WANT to think about the person- out of their own insecurities- than how the character of the person at issue should actually be judged.

In Imus' case, I think that he was quite envious of the Clintons, who, while I disagree with their approach to politics, are pretty good people. They don't do things that hurt others. They're better than Imus, and he probably knows it, so he tears them down in his own mind.

Colbert was spot-on correct in everything he said, and virtually all of it was relevant to the health of our country. Further, the worst things that Bush has done, he didn't even bring up. 2,400 dead Americans- never even mentioned.

The difference between Colbert's and Imus' performances is a chasm.

[deutsey]

15. There's no comparison between the two, and yet Imus keeps popping

up in reference to Colbert.

I personally have no problem with what he did (I also didn't think it was funny or thought provoking, though), but there's no real reason to compare it with Colbert beyond both said things that unsettled the elites in attendance. What was unsettling about each, however, is worlds apart.

[Grateful for Hope]

9. Yes, this is definitely personal insult

I had never seen text of the speech -- thank you for posting this.

[Ian David]

11. Mrs. Imus has a new line of feminine hygiene products...

for example, a combination flavored sexual lubricant / leather conditioner that comes in both jalapeno and chipotle.

She got the idea one night when Don was going down on her.

[Catherine Vincent]

16. Yeah, Imus's speech is what you said, it was personal insults

and not satire. But the Clinton's took it better than the Bush's.