White House Correspondents Dinner
I’ve been invited to the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday.
Reasons not to go:
- I have to rent a tux.
- I have to wear a tux.
- Valerie Plame will be there.
Reasons to go:
- It is an honor to be invited and to turn it down would be rude.
- I might get a chance to be rude to a famous person I don’t like.
- Anna Kournikova will be there (those keywords should boost my traffic).
I decided to go, after everyone I knew told me I was a fool for not accepting immediately.
related articles
- Suzannah the mom (October 16th, 2008)
- Fifteen Years Years Ago, Today (July 10th, 2007)
- New Beginnings (Whew! That was close.) (June 8th, 2007)
- Yes, we’re still here… (February 8th, 2007)
- I guess they really aren’t there to socialize (January 26th, 2007)
April 27th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Hopefully you will get a nice elegant meal. And tell them to throw in one of those banned-in-the-U.S.A. Cuban cigars
April 28th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Congratulations! I am thoroughly jealous. What a cool thing.
Have fun, remember everything, and do not bring a camera (that’s just gauche).
By the way: It’s time to buy a tux. Now that you are a shaker and a mover, you need to have a tux at the ready.
Peace.
BG
April 28th, 2006 at 8:22 am
One more thing: Please! You’ve got to tell us the name of just ONE famous person you’d love to be rude to.
BG
April 28th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Have a great time. I’ll have you know that you have caused me to sin (envy).
Jeff
–
April 28th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
You’ve arrived, congrats! Of course, we’ll all be waiting with bated breath for a post-dinner blog. I suppose Bill is right about the camera, but still it would be nice if you could surreptitiously snap a few shots (eg Anna K, oh, and the POTUS too, of course) to share. Perhaps one of those little spy cameras would do the trick. I bet Valerie would have one in her little purse–just ask her.
April 29th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Thank you all.
Bill: I’m sure it will be a target rich environment.
Mike: Alas, we don’t really have a camera both small enough to be unobtrusive and good enough to be worth it. Maybe I can make the same assumption you did and rudely demand to borrow Ms. Plame’s.
April 30th, 2006 at 8:03 am
I only caught the tail end of your, well, evening of tux and tales as broadcast on CSPAN last night. I watched Stephen Colbert’s performance and I have to say, it actually began to irritate me. He is a brilliant guy; he is a great writer and a great speaker. But, there was something indefinably insipid about his act; or something very hollow and empty. He rather quickly became not only irritating but tediously so; I was waiting for a crescendo, even a high note, but it never came. Yes, I laughed at much of it (he is brilliantly silly), but there was a tremendous amount of cynicism and loathing in his words. In short, I found him profoundly disrespectful of the President (and even me). I laughed more out of courtesy: I was laughing because I knew he was SUPPOSED to be funny, not because he was (like my favorite comic Stephen Wright would have been).
Look, I know that the guest comedian/speaker for that sort of thing traditionally roasts the President. I recall how Don Imus made everyone squirm when Clinton was president (and Imus, as a result of Clinton’s reaction, turned against Mr. Clinton). But we are at war; people are fighting and dying; America, as an ideal and as a nation, is under seige on many fronts. George W. Bush is a man constantly derided not just by a few malcontents, but by countless malcontents. As I watched him leave the dais last night, after he graciously shook the hand of Mr. Colbert, I simply could not help but think how tremendous a man he must be: for he takes a beating (and Colbert really did rip him) and yet daily maintains poise and decorum; all with a grin and a laugh.
But what do you think he and his wife spoke about last night afterwards? Or have they become so thick-skinned that they just sloughed it all off? Man, what if all of his critics were to learn, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what they’ve been saying about Bush, his policies, his War; what if they learned that their criticisms were all wrong, that Bush is not a liar, a demon, a fascist, an idiot savant? Would they then be able to see just how cruel they’ve been, how grossly unfair?
Who was the man with power at the podium last night? Who was the underdog? Was it Colbert, or was it George Bush? My impressions (and that’s all I have) is that George W. Bush is an underdog; that Colbert is the man, a man who can do and say no wrong: a new media darling lauded by the left not merely for his talent, but for his penchant for abusiveness. Perhaps I know too little of him to satisfactorily understand his role in shaping American culture. Perhaps I should keep my thoughts to myself.
Lastly, Colbert’s little video as “Press Secretary” was patently awful. My freaking word! That piece could not have been worse.
But, in the midst of all my jaded commentary, do know that I was thinking of you, whoever you are. I was hoping that you were not only having fun; I was praying that you would have an impact on the cynicism and the disrespect that permeates the press. I pray you had a delightful evening; that you found interesting people to talk with; that no one made you feel less than human; that the food was wonderful, and the laughter rich and real.
Peace.
Gnade
April 30th, 2006 at 9:59 am
I agree. Colbert was not nearly as funny as the President(s) was(were). The evening went about as I expected. I will post more details later today, after church.