pageok
pageok
pageok
The Missing SNL Skit:

Last Saturday, SNL ran a funny skit about the passage of the bailout bill. It poked fun at the President, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Barney Frank, George Soros, and others. (Transcript and screenshots here.) Now the skit has vanished. (It used to be here.) It is the only skit from last week's show that is no longer available on SNL's website (or other sites at which SNL skits are available), and questions about the skit have apparently been removed from NBC message boards. It's also been pulled repeatedly from YouTube due to copyright concerns.

What's going on? Michelle Malkin suspects that NBC was subject to political or legal pressure, possibly from Herbert and Marion Sandler, a couple portrayed in the skit who owned a mortgage company that aggressively promoted subprime mortgages and was sold to Wachovia for over $20 billion in 2006. Even if the Sandlers objected (see also here), I see no reason for SNL to pull the skit. If, as Jeff Mapes suggests, it was pulled because the skit identified the Sandlers as "people who should be shot" in text along the bottom, that could be easily scrubbed. And if SNL pulled the skit for such reasons, why wouldn't they release an explanation? Perhaps one will be forthcoming.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, I do not think any reasonable person would view the skit as "inciting violence" against the Sandlers. But even if the brief appearance of one line of text could be viewed in such a fashion, it would be easy to remove without deleting the entire 6-7 minute skit.

SECOND UPDATE: According to this story, NBC edited the skit to take out the screen shot calling the Sandlers "people who should be shot."

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. The Missing Edited SNL Skit:
  2. The Missing SNL Skit:
Viceroy:
That's ridiculous. Of course they have no obligation to release an explanation (being a private entity and all).
10.7.2008 2:28pm
Per Son:
Damn. That was the best skit of the night. Although, I have the bailout song stuck in my head: "John Boehner Republican, yea! . . ."
10.7.2008 2:30pm
Cityduck (mail):
Seems responsible to pull a skit that said the Sandlers were "people who should be shot."

What is up with our society? Why does everyone seem to think it is appropriate to incite violence. Yesterday we saw Palin not condemning the suggestion that Ayers or Obama should be shot, and today we see Adler outraged that NBC (rightly in my opinion) pulled a video off its cite that was advocating the shooting of two citizens.

Weird.
10.7.2008 2:31pm
Sammy Finkelman (mail):
I didn't know taht Herbert and Marion Sandler weer real people.

They are public figures. It would have to be malice - which means basically completely false - to be libel. Well, not reckless diosregard is a defense. If false but NBC can't be blamed then they could be blamed for not pulling it.

But this is clearly parody anyway. Would anybody believe because of the skit that George Soros has converted all his Dollar holdings into Swiss francs? Or that Nancy Pelosi had whispered to Barney Frank that "he doesn't know" (George Bush doesn't know when Nancy Pelosi contradicts him that is right)

Nobody would expect the SNL description to be comopletekly accurate. Were they called as witnesses ? The only thing people might believe is that they did not lose money. Nobody would think the amounts are correct.
10.7.2008 2:32pm
c.gray (mail):

What is up with our society? Why does everyone seem to think it is appropriate to incite violence.


What you are observing is the simple fact that most people are capable of easily distinguishing between a figure of speech and a genuine incitement to violence.
10.7.2008 2:34pm
Per Son:
Oy vey. No violence was incited apart from laughter so violent that I cried a little.
10.7.2008 2:35pm
hattio1:
I want to know who's finding the veep debate skit. I keep trying to load it, including at the SNL site and it never downloads.
10.7.2008 2:35pm
smitty1e:
So, if someone is listed as owning a political party,
and that party wins the election,
is the party owner the King, and the President actually a Prime Minister?
Just sayin'
10.7.2008 2:36pm
KeithK (mail):

That's ridiculous. Of course they have no obligation to release an explanation (being a private entity and all).


Legal obligation? Probably not. But an obligation to their viewers/customers? Maybe. There's certanily nothing wrong with pressuring NBC and SNL to explain their actions.
10.7.2008 2:40pm
BobVDV2 (mail):
The NBC comment boards have some links to bootleg copies of the "banned skit".
10.7.2008 2:43pm
Pete Freans (mail):
I'm curious whether NBC pulled the foul SNL skit (I have not seen it) where it was suggested that Todd Palin was molesting his children.
10.7.2008 2:43pm
Jon Roland (mail) (www):
Never fear. Copies exist and will be propagated despite attempts to suppress them, and perhaps even faster and to more people in response to the suppression. The people who pull these things, thinking they will go away, are commanding the tide to stop coming in.
10.7.2008 2:45pm
OrinKerr:
What did SNL know, and when did they know it?
10.7.2008 2:48pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
I had heard some criticism from the left that the skit was anti-Semitic. I don't know if any of the mainstream Jewish organizations, like the ADL, took a position on it, but that might have something to do with it vanishing as well.
10.7.2008 2:51pm
Melvin Fairuse (www):
Can I post a link to the vid?
10.7.2008 2:51pm
Kent Scheidegger (mail) (www):
Huh? Anti-Semitic? How on earth could anyone infer that? Unless we are going to have a society where members of certain groups are sacred cows, exempt from any criticism under any circumstances, we need to be much more careful before slinging allegations such as that.

The skit is very funny, and it makes important points about the present crisis that the Democratic Party does not want made. This raises the very strong suspicion that it is being spiked for the same reason that ABC has withheld the movie "Path to 9/11." Politics has trumped not only art, but also the company's economic self-interest.
10.7.2008 2:57pm
Working guy (mail):
Sounds fishy to me. Some bigwigs like soros put severe pressure. Censorship it appears is alive and well.
10.7.2008 2:58pm
Spitzer:
As long as we're on the general subject of Free Speech, what about today's detention by the Kenyan government of Jerome Corsi?
10.7.2008 2:59pm
GSC:
Pete Freans--
SNL did not suggest that Todd Palin was molesting his children. The skit you refer to was mocking/attacking the NY Times/mainstream media for willing to believe/claim anything about the Palins and Alaska. Some reporter throws this out as one of the wacky ideas. Another keeps asking about polar bear attacks. For the record, Kathryn Jean Lopez loved the skit, and her endorsement means little in my book, but for once it accurately reflects what that skit was targeting. That CNN (and perhaps others) ran stories on the Todd Palin/molestation angle means they either didn't see or didn't understand the skit.
10.7.2008 2:59pm
hawkins:

The skit is very funny, and it makes important points about the present crisis that the Democratic Party does not want made. This raises the very strong suspicion that it is being spiked for the same reason that ABC has withheld the movie "Path to 9/11."


Please
10.7.2008 3:00pm
Robert Arthur (mail):
NBC will be aggressively chasing this video from the standard video sharing sites for the next few weeks, I'm sure. However, you can download (and share) the SNL C-SPAN Bailout sketch via bit torrent here: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1885620

Bit torrent isn't for everyone, but it is a lot easier than you think. You'll need a good client link uTorrent or Azureus, but it is real easy to set up. The torrent has a very healthy swarm of seeders right now, ready to distribute the file. Once widely distributed, it isn't coming down.

Also, the file is small enough to fit throught most email gateways. I'm not suggesting you spam everyone in your address book with it (please, don't do that)... but you can email it to your parents and a few close friends, probably.
10.7.2008 3:03pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
hattio1,

If you can't find the debate skit, just watch the actual debate. They're just about the same.
10.7.2008 3:05pm
Per Son:
Now it is a liberal conspiracy? That is a wacky one. Anti-semetic - even wackier.

The skit was funny, and it cut pretty hard against everyone.

Why Kent sees some conspiracy is beyond me.
10.7.2008 3:08pm
TPJ (mail):

The people who pull these things, thinking they will go away, are commanding the tide to stop coming in.


More people will now see it than had they left it alone, and more people will now know who the Sandlers are because of it. Had they let it be, nothing would have happened.
10.7.2008 3:11pm
Per Son:
Given that the producer donates to Republicans, and last time I checked, Dems are often parodied (heck, I even recall a few skits about President Clinton) by SNL - people need to chill (me included).

But I do want to know beyond conspiratorial conjecturing.
10.7.2008 3:11pm
Jon Roland (mail) (www):
Having just watched the skit (and saving a copy) it is obvious why it would be pulled: it conveys the fact that some (not all, but including McCain) Republicans have been trying to warn of the coming financial crisis, and rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for six years, and that it was the Democrats who blocked such oversight and intervention. If the people realized that, they might blame the Democrats and vote for McCain instead of Obama.

Or, of course, for Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party, which has been warning of the problem of credit-based currency and other securities for decades.

Here is the Wikipedia article on Herb and Marion Sandler.
10.7.2008 3:13pm
Per Son:
I heard it got banned because it made Frank sound funny and Bush look like a dummy.
Then Soros pulled it, because he is connected to everything, and then Pelosi did not appreciate something or other.
10.7.2008 3:16pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
You can download the skit here as a wmv file.
10.7.2008 3:19pm
Jon Roland (mail) (www):
Robert Arthur:

you can download (and share) the SNL C-SPAN Bailout sketch via bit torrent here.


You can download and install a free bittorrent client called utorrent (the leading letter is actually the Greek letter mu).

However, the Firefox browser lets you download the file from the previously provided link. . Just select "Save page as" to save it to your local disk.
10.7.2008 3:24pm
TPJ (mail):

Given that the producer donates to Republicans, and last time I checked, Dems are often parodied (heck, I even recall a few skits about President Clinton) by SNL - people need to chill (me included).


In one of the SNL anthology shows a while back, Lorne Michaels commented that when SNL skewers Democrats he almost always hears about it. They feel betrayed and surprised as they think SNL is "on their side." He never hears from Republicans as they often expect the ridicule.
10.7.2008 3:33pm
A.W. (mail):
Malkin managed to find a few copies that made it through the massacre.

And interestingly, for the record, just the other day, i watched an old Wayne's World where they mocked Chelsea Clinton as a dog, or something to that effect. They cut it out, both the moment they made the joke and even the words on the babe countdown they were holding up.

So obviously they could do that if they wanted to.

I am guessing that someone at NBC realized this might actually hurt their guy.
10.7.2008 3:35pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
What a stupid move on NBC's part. Now they have created forbidden fruit and they will never get it off the Internet, no matter how many judges issue restraining orders or lawsuits get threatened. If it gets to Wikileaks, then it's virtually impossible to put the toothpaste back into the tube.
10.7.2008 3:38pm
Frank M Howland (mail):
The skit was antisemitic. In the piece the politicians and citizens are all idiots and the villains (people who should be shot and who control things behind the scenes) are the Jews, real people, Herbert and Marion Sandler and George Soros. NBC and SNL should be ashamed.

A previous poster says:

"Huh? Anti-Semitic? How on earth could anyone infer that?"

Let's see. The villains are Jews. The subtext is straight from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For you it is not antisemitic, but the anti Semites out there will understand what's being said and others will be more receptive to the message of those who spew such nonsense.
10.7.2008 3:48pm
Per Son:
Regarding the Wayne's World sketch, was it scrubbed because she is a Dem's daughter, or was it scrubbed because young kids should not be targets of SNL?

I did some research. Lorne Michaels has given to McCain and Obama (and Nader, and Dodd). SO I take back my comment about him.
10.7.2008 3:50pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Frank.

It's not the viewers' fault the perps are Jewish.
Somebody asked up thread if there are certain individuals against whom nothing can be said, no matter how legitimate, because of their membership in an Accredited Victim Group.

Does this get deep-sixed when, if the perps were atheist it would fly?

Um, no. How about Baptists? Yeah. That would work.
10.7.2008 3:53pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Huh? Anti-Semitic? How on earth could anyone infer that?

Here's Mark Kleiman making the argument that it is.
10.7.2008 3:53pm
Per Son:
Dude - so should we not be allowed to criticize people who lend money/invest if they happen to be Jewish.

I would have a problem if they picked a fake person and named them Herschel Schwartz and he had a keepah and was a dangerous lender.

Saying the sketch is anti-semetic is like saying . . . is like saying Dangermouse and Smokey think the Warren Court was the best period of the Supreme Court.
10.7.2008 3:54pm
A.S.:
But does Lorne Michaels controls which SNL skits are posted on Hulu.com? I wouldn't think so.

In any event, wouldn't it be interesting if McCain brought it up at the debate, moderated by NBC's own Tom Brokow?
10.7.2008 3:57pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"The skit was antisemitic."

I don't think so. You're letting your imagination run wild here. Even if under some bizarre logic we could call the skit anti-Semitic, so what? That's no justification for censorship. No one in his right mind would think this satirical venue in any way constitutes incitement to violence.

The skit is:

1. Funny
2. Makes an important point.
3. Portrays the characters as the buffoons they really are.
4. Might actually start people thinking about how both political parties have failed them.

Your comment inspires me to share it agressively.

BTW I'm Jewish.
10.7.2008 4:01pm
Sarcastro (www):
It's the Internets! They're going liberal!

Soon Free Republic will start having trouble posting stuff, then it'll be Michelle Malkin. Then...well, I'll just say post now, while you still can!
10.7.2008 4:02pm
Kent Scheidegger (mail) (www):
Dilan, I've read Kleiman's piece and did not see anything I would dignify with the term "argument." There is nothing here other than the fact that the people targeted happen to be Jewish, as is producer Lorne Michaels, nee Henry Abraham Lipowitz. As I said the first time, unless we are going to have sacred cows, we need to stop inferring bigotry from mere criticism.
10.7.2008 4:05pm
A.S.:
Hey, you know what else was anti-Semitic: the Waxman hearings with Richard Fuld yesterday. Fuld is Jewish, therefore the hearings were anti-Semitic. All Waxman - the heinous anti-Semite - could talk about was how much money Fuld made at Lehman Brothers. Pure, unbridled anti-Semitism from Henry Waxman.
10.7.2008 4:05pm
Dan Weber (www):
Lorne Michaels has given to McCain and Obama (and Nader, and Dodd). SO I take back my comment about him.

When a mob war starts, you make sure to pay your protection money to all parties. The worst thing is to find out what you weren't supporting the winner.
10.7.2008 4:07pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"Here's Mark Kleiman making the argument that it is."

Kleiman is already beating a retreat. Read this.

From our "Eeeew, ick!" Dep't.: Michaels turns out to be Jewish, at least ethnically: he changed his name from Henry Abraham Lipowitz. (See, I told you I didn't run in those circles.) For my money, that aggravates the offense. Clearly he doesn't really hate the Sandlers and Soros because they're Jewish; he's prepared to use anti-Semitic tropes against them because they're liberals and Democrats.
So now the issue isn't so much ant-Semitism, but an attack on "liberals and Democrats" (he really means socialists and fellow travelers) and in his own words we see that's actually worse than anti-Antisemitism.
10.7.2008 4:11pm
Elliot123 (mail):
The Sandlers sure looked like performers in a comedy skit. What's the beef? I just received a link to the skit on an email list. That toothpaste just won't go back in there.
10.7.2008 4:15pm
edward (mail):
link still working as of this posting...
SNL bailout skit
10.7.2008 4:19pm
Asher (mail):
I saw a sharper argument than Kleiman's somewhere for why the skit was anti-Semitic- ah, here it is.
10.7.2008 4:21pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Huh? Anti-Semitic? How on earth could anyone infer that? Unless we are going to have a society where members of certain groups are sacred cows, exempt from any criticism under any circumstances, we need to be much more careful before slinging allegations such as that.
Kent, I actually thought that while the skit was funny, the Sandler part of it seemed to be anti-semitic to me. Now that I know that they're real people, I no longer think that, but before I knew that, when I was watching it, it seemed like they had chosen to make the greedy banker characters stereotypically Jewish for no reason.
10.7.2008 4:31pm
Per Son:
I propose to start a new organization that invites people from every walk of life:

Jews Against Calling Stuff Anti-Semetic When It Is Plainly a Parody on People Who Happen to be Jewish. You can also refer to us as JAM! Jews Against Morons.


It is non-partisan with a few requirements:

1) must be Jewish; and
2) must abhor real Anti-Semitism; and
3) must abhor people who say stuff is anti-Semitic that is merely parodies of people who happen to be Jewish.
10.7.2008 4:35pm
Jacob T. Levy (mail) (www):
I was more uncomfortable about the Soros bit-- because Soros was portrayed in an exaggeratedly threatening/ exotic way, because he was portrayed as a shadowy mastermind, and because to a first approximation Soros has nothing to do with current events. The Sandlers struck me as WASPy, not Jewish, money, and while they were 'people who should be shot,' they weren't scary villains the way Soros seemed to be. And even before I knew they were real people, their business as described was a relevant business to the crisis. Soros, known to be a real person, hasn't been a consequential player here; why should he be the person who now owns the missing $700 billion?
10.7.2008 4:41pm
Per Son:
Video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILIvPzyK_8I
10.7.2008 4:52pm
richard cabeza:
"why should he be the person who now owns the missing $700 billion?"

I can't believe this thread is real.
10.7.2008 4:52pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Dilan, I've read Kleiman's piece and did not see anything I would dignify with the term "argument." There is nothing here other than the fact that the people targeted happen to be Jewish, as is producer Lorne Michaels, nee Henry Abraham Lipowitz. As I said the first time, unless we are going to have sacred cows, we need to stop inferring bigotry from mere criticism.

Kent, bear in mind I have a pretty high tolerance for satirical humor and am not taking a position that this skit was anti-Semitic. I was just noting that I had heard this position taken and could imagine that if enough people were expressing this claim, it could affect NBC's decision to take the video down.
10.7.2008 4:52pm
Michael B (mail):
10.7.2008 4:54pm
just me (mail):
I thought this piece was the funniest of the night. Frank's parody was a hoot.

My guess is that it is the anti semitism charge that scared SNL-I don't think they would have folded to a "You are picking on democrats" charge, but I could see running scared from the anti semitism.

However I didn't see anything anti semetic and if somebody think it is, they probably need to learn how to laugh at satire.
10.7.2008 4:55pm
just me (mail):
I thought this piece was the funniest of the night. Frank's parody was a hoot.

My guess is that it is the anti semitism charge that scared SNL-I don't think they would have folded to a "You are picking on democrats" charge, but I could see running scared from the anti semitism.

However I didn't see anything anti semetic and if somebody think it is, they probably need to learn how to laugh at satire.
10.7.2008 4:55pm
Dan M.:
I didn't see any suggestion in the skit that George Soros was related to the crisis. Merely that he owned the Democratic Party (he does, essentially, or at least he owns their talking points), and that as a financier he would find some way to profit from the disaster, and that since the $700 billion will be going to greedy bankers, it might as well all eventually end up in George Soros' hands.
10.7.2008 4:56pm
Elliot123 (mail):
How many people here went to schools where they stressed deconstruction? It's OK to stop now. Really.
10.7.2008 4:57pm
soccerfreakbob (mail):
Found it...

10.7.2008 5:02pm
Jaime non-Lawyer:
As a WASP I am deeply offended by the portrayal of the couple that bought 20 timeshares. This skit was blatantly anti-WASP.
10.7.2008 5:06pm
Per Son:
I am changing the subject. Fannie and Freddy are/were a problem, but you have got to be smoking something really good to think that was the sole reason for these problems. You have financial firms and other entities peddling investmnet vehicles like CDOs when they did not know what they were (heck, my wife (a securities attorney) got lambasted in client meetings all the time when asked them to describe CDOs, and refused to say deals were legit and passed legal muster when the business people suggesting the deals could not even explain where the money was coming from or what was being purchased.

You also had the huge problem of funds, firms, and what not over investing in mortgage backed securities - knowing that they were risky. Then we got the consumer borring issues, and lax accounting schemes.

Thus, we are here because of a tangled web that includes lack of oversight, deregulating, federal banking regs that set ceilings rather than floors so states can protect citizens against predatory practices, wild speculators, etc. Fannie and Freddy were problems, and Dems were wrong with how they treated them, but they are hardly the only reason why banks and financial institutions are failing today. I wish it was that easy.
10.7.2008 5:08pm
Bill Twist:


Lorne Michaels has given to McCain and Obama (and Nader, and Dodd). SO I take back my comment about him.



When a mob war starts, you make sure to pay your protection money to all parties. The worst thing is to find out what you weren't supporting the winner.


Add up the amounts Michaels has given to Democrats, and to Democratic organizations.

Now do the same for all the Republicans and Republican organizations he has donated to.

Which one seems to be a tad bit larger?

I suspect that Michaels merely donated to McCain to try and get the most moderate Republican nominated. He hasn't donated to McCain since the primaries.
10.7.2008 5:12pm
Michael B (mail):
Per Son,

The Fannie and Freddie aspect, however, was positively huge, was mammoth.

See reports here and here, the latter a lengthier pdf doc. Excerpt from the former:

"In June 2003, in the wake of the failures of Enron and WorldCom, Freddie's board of directors suddenly dismissed its three top officers and announced that the company's accountants had found serious problems in Freddie's financial reports. In 2004, after a forensic audit by OFHEO, even more serious accounting manipulation was found at Fannie, and Raines, its chairman, and Timothy Howard, its chief financial officer, were compelled to resign."
10.7.2008 5:13pm
Per Son:
Maybe, but he has given to McCain since 2000.

My point was that I was calling him a Republican, and graciously took it back noting that he gave to Ds and I's too.
10.7.2008 5:15pm
A.W. (mail):
Frank

Are you joking, like a parody of all those racism charges?

Per Son

Well, the official story was that Chelsea was just a teenager and thus it was cruel. And since I agree, I accept that. I didn't intend to insinuate an agenda, just to point out how easy it would be scrub out an offending moment.
10.7.2008 5:19pm
Per Son:
Michael B:

I agree that there were huge problems at Fannie and Freddy, and am not quite sure why Raines is not in jail, but I honestly see them as players in a giant web.

As for some of the Dems who felt Fannie and Freddy did no wrong - I'll give you this: I can come up with many excuses for Biden's gaffes, but when Maxine Waters talks - I cringe and shove a Twix in my mouth.
10.7.2008 5:22pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):

For you it is not antisemitic, but the anti Semites out there will understand what's being said


A dog whistle argument. Code words that only the "right" people can understand.

You know the "real" Protocols are not a dog whistle at all. They are openly anti-semitic.


I saw a sharper argument than Kleiman's somewhere for why the skit was anti-Semitic


Anything is sharper than Kleiman's argument. But Heer's argument is little better. It boils down to Lorne Michaels is an evil right winger, who like all right wingers, is hopelessly anti-semitic.

BTW, Kleiman's blog is called "Reality Based Community"? Too funny because "reality" has nothing to do with his screed.
10.7.2008 5:22pm
Per Son:
If you watch Mr. Sandler's right hand, it can be seen spelling out: "I drink the blood of Christian Babies, and I grub money."
10.7.2008 5:26pm
Michael B (mail):
Per Son,

Yes, a wider or giant web is the right way to frame the Fannie and Freddie aspects, though the latter arguably comprise anywhere from 25% to 40% or more of the fiasco. Additionally, if Fannie and Freddie would have been properly addressed even as late as 2003/2004, it probably that other, related, systemic problems would have been addressed as well, either as a direct or indirect result of addressing Fannie and Freddie.

But yes, a wider web is unquestionably at issue. Indeed, it's arguably systemic not only within finance and the economy more formally understood, but within the body politic - i.e. the nation, the demos - more comprehensively understood.
10.7.2008 5:44pm
common sense (www):
I think they may have included Soros both due to his prominence within the party in general, and because of his role in Black Wednesday in relation to the Bank of England. Hence the currency shorting.
10.7.2008 6:12pm
Frank M Howland (mail):
I am amazed by many of the replies to my post. I expected better.

You seem blissfully unaware of the past history of anti-Semitism.

The skit blamed the Jews for the financial crisis. They are portrayed alternately as people who should be shot and people who are masterminds of world finance that manipulate the rest of us (and who buy women).

Sure there are plenty of Jews who are in the financial world and have made lots of money. Sure everybody should be subject to criticism.

But with distinct echoes of past slanders against the Jews this is not as funny as it is disgusting.
10.7.2008 6:34pm
Mark A. Adams JD/MBA (www):
Here's another short funny video about the Neo-con plan posted this past March: If I were a Terrorist, I'd Throw Millions Out of Their Homes and Devalue the Dollar
10.7.2008 6:43pm
MPerry (mail):
According to Nikke Finke they are going to edit out they chyron about the Sandlers being shot and put the video back up.
10.7.2008 7:30pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
Funny how none of the anti-Republican skits seems to run into "legal concerns." Of course, if I am mistaken, someone will point it right out to me. Somehow, I doubt I will hear any response.
10.7.2008 7:42pm
Chris Bell (mail) (www):
It has been my experience as an SNL fan that they do NOT post every video. There are always one or two that are missing. Why? I don't know. Some stupid marketing decision I assume.

For example, did anyone see Andy Sandberg make out with that dog a while ago? I nearly wet myself. Yet that vid is not on the site.

So consider that before jumping to conclusions.
10.7.2008 8:54pm
Joel H (mail):
The video appears to have been replaced by NBC at the original location. It doesn't have any "people who should be shot" captions.
10.7.2008 9:01pm
wuzzagrunt (mail):
Lessee...they made fun of an Italian-American woman, a gay man, stereotypical white and black dumbass losers, WASPy yuppies, a Methodist Texan, and a couple of jewish financiers. Obviously, the skit was anti-semetic.

Perhaps your beef is with the Sandlers for playing the part--in real life--that feeds into the stereotype and validates the views of jew haters.
10.7.2008 10:05pm
Psalm91 (mail):
"Republicans have been trying to warn of the coming financial crisis, and rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for six years, and that it was the Democrats who blocked such oversight and intervention."

Does Tom Delay know about this? Was the Hammer broken or neutered? Were there bills proposed that the Democrats defeated in up or down votes?
10.7.2008 10:58pm
Lev:
As of about 8PM EDT today, the full skit was on youtube as linked to through the Rush Limbaugh site.
10.8.2008 12:44am
smhc (mail):
Drop the anti-semetic thing. Soros is a Nazi-collaborating Irsrael-hating Islamic-terrorist-group-funding self-loathing Jew. Do your homework.

The Mansourian candidate is supported by American-hating Israel-hating Islamic-activist terrorists.

Wake up.


And since most of you never heard if the Sandlers (and maybe not even Soros) before this SNL skit, you better start wondering about exactly how uniformed you are.
10.8.2008 9:31am
smhc (mail):
You can see it here:
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/030929.html
10.8.2008 9:32am
Bob from Ohio (mail):

You seem blissfully unaware of the past history of anti-Semitism.


We disagree with you and it is because we are ignorant?

I can't speak for everyone but I am quite aware of the history. I was pretty well aware before I got married but having a mother-in-law who fled Germany in 1938 made it more personal.

I just don't see every unflattering reference to Jewish people as anti-semitic. The Sandlers were not slammed because they were Jewish, they got slammed because they helped creat the mess.

The skit hit various people including Jews. If it was only about Jews, you might have a point. It was not, it was an all purpose slam.
10.8.2008 11:52am
Thales (mail) (www):
I thought the Soros bit was funny as a capstone of escalating outrage, just because it pointed to him as an archetype of someone who is fabulously wealthy and smart and able to profit from global economic events that are swamping everyone else (vide the very real incident of him breaking the British pound in 1992, but more power to him for being that saavy and calling the Exechequer on its b.s.), but I don't think a reasonable viewer would regard the skit as making a serious argument that he had anything to do with this credit crisis--there's zero evidence he did. It was a deliberately ludicrous answer to the "where the hell did all that money go" question that everyone has been asking. Soros could just as easily have been a WASP and it would have been just as funny--he just happens to be a real life, recognizable figure. Warren Buffett wouldn't have worked as well, because he doesn't have the reputation of profiting when everyone else is swirling in chaos, lacking the dramatic single event of Black Wednesday (though he no doubt has many times, which is why he's still around and Berkshire Hathway continues to make money).
10.8.2008 1:13pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Were there bills proposed that the Democrats defeated in up or down votes?
Yes, in committee.
10.8.2008 6:29pm