How to tell a joke -- Red Bull version

Posted at 9:22 AM on November 2, 2006 by Bob Collins (17 Comments)

Purported to be taken by the Red Bull battalion of the Minnesota National Guard. Source unconfirmed.

update Here's the story in the NY Post (h/t PB)

Comments (17)

Bob,

Go to the New York Post for the story....

Posted by PB | November 2, 2006 9:37 AM

I guess the Red Bull battalion, like much of America, was only exposed to the carefully edited clip of Kerry's statement that could be used to imply that Kerry was insulting the troops. Even local conservative columnist James Lileks recognizes that Kerry was insulting the President, and not the troops. As Keith Olbermann pointed out in his special comment last night, the President is either being dishonest about his understanding of Kerry's statement, or is actually too stupid to realize that Kerry was calling him stupid.

Posted by Albatross | November 2, 2006 9:40 AM

OK, so which is it? Did Kerry "botch" the joke as he claims in his apology. Or is it because everyone -- except for the soldiers in Iraq, of course -- are too stupid to have gotten it?

In order to accept Kerry's explanation -- and I do, by the way -- you have to give him the benefit of the doubt first. Why would you expect almost half the country who didn't vote or him to do that?

Posted by Bob Collins | November 2, 2006 9:45 AM

Newt Gingrich has also admitted that he believes John Kerry was talking about the President.

The botched joke was the comment made in California, Kerry left the word "us" out of his speech. The "too stupid to realize that Kerry was calling him stupid" refers to Bush's insistence, after having the misstatement explained to him, the Kerry was attacking the troops.

He was selectively quoting Kerry for the sake of misrepresenting him to America. In doing so he is trying to make November 7th an election between himself and John Kerry, and that race has already been decided.

Posted by Willie Stark | November 2, 2006 10:25 AM

I don't think one can accept as a matter of fact what Kerry meant to say. What you CAN say as fact is the words he used AND what HE SAYS he meant to say.

As far as I know we have no original notes on the speech to confirm what he says.

So as a result, those who are inclined to believe John Kerry will believe John Kerry. And those who inclined NOT to believe John Kerry will NOT believe John Kerry.

And each side will insist the other side doesn't get it.

But that doesn't mean they don't. There's no real way of knowing.

and the more people kick it around trying to defend John Kerry, the more attention gets pulled away from the Democratic candidates.

that was my point a couple of days ago. Do Democrats have the discipline to...well... shut up about a distraction in the face of being goaded into it by the Republicans?

Do they want to win the battle? Or the war?

The answer to that will likely determine several races.

Posted by Bob Collins | November 2, 2006 10:34 AM

I am sorry, but Keith Olbermann cannot be cited as source material for anything. It would be like a righty using Ann Coulter as a primary source....

I also think that Olbermann is doing this as an act to gin up his ratings. Much like Morton Downey Jr in the 80's.

Posted by PB | November 2, 2006 10:59 AM

Bob, you say:

"and the more people kick it around trying to defend John Kerry, the more attention gets pulled away from the Democratic candidates."

No, you've got it wrong. The more people in the media like yourself keep kicking these non-issues around, the more they will ignore the real issues at stake in this election--and the voters are the losers. Who gives a flying f*** what John Kerry says? He's not running for office.

Move on, Bob.

Posted by Karl | November 2, 2006 11:53 AM

Well, you're confusing the role of people running campaigns -- and the supporters -- with , in this case my roll. Believe me, if people want to keep chatitng and responding and -- I think -- digging the hole .... I have no problem talking about it. I don't really care wins.

But, yeah, I've seen the blogs and the new talking point seems to be, for example, "why was John Kerry leading the news last night?" Personally, I find it interesting -- and therefor worth talking about -- that people profess not to know the answer to that question. I think, in fact, they do know why it's interesting in the same way that they found it interesting when Reagan said, "the bombing starts in fiveminutes."

I like to see how people react to things in politics. That's my *thing.* That doesn't, for the record, mean it's wrong becuase you think it's wrong. It means only that you think it's wrong, and I don't.

It's sort of like accepting as truth that which one believes to be the truth, as opposed to actually setting out and acknowledging the truth.

The truth is that John Kerry tried to tell a joke and messed it up. The truth is that John Kerry says he was making fun of the president. That's a different truth than "John Kerry was telling a joke about the president." It's a rather important distinction, one which I recognize some people would like other people not to make.

But to answer your question ...

IF nobody cares what John Kerry says... then why were Democratic candidates bringing him into Minnesota to say something on their behalf?

Could it be ... possibly... that they THINK some people DO care what he says?

It's possible.

And, by the way, John Kerry *is* running for office.

Or, at least, he was.

Posted by Bob Collins | November 2, 2006 12:03 PM

OK, so which is it? Did Kerry "botch" the joke as he claims in his apology. Or is it because everyone -- except for the soldiers in Iraq, of course -- are too stupid to have gotten it?

In order to accept Kerry's explanation -- and I do, by the way -- you have to give him the benefit of the doubt first. Why would you expect almost half the country who didn't vote or him to do that?

Because anyone, even admitted staunch conservatives, who listens to THE ENTIRE STATEMENT understands that Kerry was talking abou the President. What else would you like explained - that up is up, that water is wet? No evidence will convince you of the obvious if you refuse to acknowledge it.

What appalls me is that someone in the media would be unaware of or uninterested in the deliberate misrepresentation of Kerry's words by the White House for its political ends. The only way that Kerry's comments can be twisted as they were is if the recording is cropped to remove all preceding and subsequent sounds and statements: to literally "take it out of context." How far is it between that, and simply cutting together words to create entire statements out of whole cloth? I'd think anyone working in the media would be mortified.

As for comparisons of Ann Coulter with Keith Olbermann, they do not hold up. Olbermann is a career broadcaster and journalist with multiple awards in sports- and newscasting to his name. Coulter is a comparative newcomer to broadcasting with a trail of firings and scandals behind her, the latest being the investigation into illegal voting practices. You are free to your opinions regarding his political views, but you are not free to invent your own facts regarding their comparative qualifications, and by any comparative measure Coulter is not and will never be an Olbermann.

For which he is no doubt grateful.

Posted by Albatross | November 2, 2006 12:04 PM

Lessee.

non-issue = makes Democrat look bad.

issue = makes Republican look bad.

Ok, got it.

Posted by Jeff | November 2, 2006 12:19 PM

This is somebody who is drawing a parallel to Vietnam to insult the president. I call fair game, but at a bad time. Kerry was an idiot for not having the foresight, but Bush is an idiot for making this a big deal. Kerry isn't up for election, so why is it relevant? Bring it up when he's running again. Then we can argue about something as ridiculous as a lame joke.

Posted by Mike | November 2, 2006 12:30 PM

Albatross: Why don't you post the entire statement and then we can determine EXACTLY where he makes CLEAR that he's talking about Bush.

I'll tell you what threw me off: he was talking about folks that don't study hard and end up stuck in Iraq.

Didn't it come out in 2004 that Kerry's grades were about the same as Bush's?

Posted by Bob Collins | November 2, 2006 1:12 PM

//Because anyone, even admitted staunch conservatives, who listens to THE ENTIRE STATEMENT understands that Kerry was talking abou the President.

Earlier, I talked about truths and the difference between opinion stated as truths.

What you can actually say is that YOU think anyone.... who listens....understands.

But I don't think you can claim that -- as fact -- ANYONE would find that....

One can quibble about whether they should or not but in the subsequent spin on the events of the day, I'm always alert for when someone bases an argument on an opinion stated as a fact.

Posted by Bob Collins | November 2, 2006 1:16 PM

What, now I'm Google? "More information about the Kerry statement can be found on the Internet."

As far as Kerry's grades compared to those of Bush, I think Kerry has by now aptly demonstrated that he is just as stupid as Bush.

Posted by Albatross | November 2, 2006 1:31 PM

And, by the way, John Kerry *is* running for office.

Or, at least, he was.

I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is, eh Bob?

Posted by Karl | November 2, 2006 1:36 PM

Far as I know, Kerry is not on a ballot this year. Which makes one wonder why anyone is paying any attention to him. So the question becomes, who ran with the story of Kerry's mealy-mouthed 'joke' about education vs. getting stuck in Iraq? I have my suspicions, but do not know for certain.

Posted by bsimon | November 2, 2006 2:08 PM

Bri, what made the story interesting to me was simple: Kerry was due in Minnesota the next day to campaign at relatively large public events for Klobuchar and Walz.

So, yeah, he became Polinaut material because it was a chance to observe how campaigns work and react to it.

The Democrats, of late, have done a pretty good job of screwing up campaigns. Case in point: Kerry leaving campaign money in the bank while Ohio goes for Bush. They have a knack for pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. So lots of folks -- including me -- were waiting for the inevitable opportunity to behave differently.

And, as I wrote, I think they did. In the past, the Democratic Party would've forgotten that the goal of the election was to win and if you have to run over your mother to do it, that's what you have to do. They would have brought Kerry in just to show how they were going to stand up to the Republicans on an attack and they would have made their point, even if it cost them the election.

Yeah, it is kind of hard to hold your tongue to help the story go away -- or to cut ties with a guy who -- whether warranted or not -- wasn't going to get you any publicity about YOUR campaign. But politics is a tough business and nobody is making any candidate run.

Posted by Bob Collins | November 2, 2006 2:46 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories