The Aftermath of the White House Correspondents Dinner



My acidic thoughts on the White House Correspondent's Dinner are out there for all the world to see (The Corsair sips an insouciant little Louis Jadot Pouilly Fuisse 2005). It was a tragic opportunity lost for The President to bring a divided DC -- if on ly for a night -- together. Be a "Uniter."

Brian Montopoli writes on CBS News Public Eye Blog of the immediate media aftermath:

"As you may have heard, the New York Times has decided to stop participating in the White House Correspondents' Association dinner. (The news was buried in the 13th paragraph of Sunday's Frank Rich column.)

"There has been much debate about the dinner over the years, with many outside the media establishment citing it as evidence of a too-cozy relationship between the media and the administration.

"While one can certainly make the argument that the media need a more adversarial relationship with the government, I've come to question the significance of the dinner in making that case. One night of revelry, after all, does not constitute a compromised relationship. One can certainly argue that the dinner is a symptom of larger problems. But reporters need to have a civil relationship with those they cover, and for all involved to have a night out just doesn't strike me as that big of a deal.

"To be clear, I'm not a fan of the dinner – I certainly wouldn't want to have to suffer through the hobnobbing and awkward speeches that mark the event. It's just that it strikes me as far less significant in the grand scheme of things than some people seem to think."

The Corsair agrees that the dinner is not something that merits this Cosmic Overreaction by the Times. In this hyper-partisan era, for example, it is not necessarily a bad thing for a festive "Oscars-in-Washington" one off of an evening, as a psychological release-valve for the overheated Partisan tensions that will, no doubt, resume -- enginelike -- on the Hill the day following.

We have to take some time out, however, to hurl criticism at the Correspondence Dinner staffers who booked Rich Little, though (Said with an air of restrained laughter). This was such a lost opportunity. We are entirely convinced that that horrendous booking and the subsequent, predictable bombing ruined a real chance at creating an American tradition of Presidents facing strong satire in front of the DC Establishment at the WHCD. Annually.

And by strong satire, The Corsair doesn't mean Don Imus; The Corsair means someone funny, tart and, above all fundamentally Decent. Wouldn't it have been magnificent if they had booked someone like, say, Bill Maher, or Florence King, or Jon Stewart or even paleo-conservative Joe Bob Briggs to truly "roast" the President of the Last Standing Superpower in DC? All Presidents have a thick skin; if The President could take a proper satirizing, what a cleansing example that would send to the corrupting influences of Partisanship and Gridlock presently at play in DC. It would say: Even though we may not agree, I can take your criticisms because we are all Americans and we believe in Freedom of Speech and I, The President, have a sense of humor about Human Frailty and can takle it. It would set an example -- if for only on e day -- of American unity; and in these days of hyper-partisanship -- of Red and Blue America -- that would have been tonic.

Alas, an opportunity lost and a NYTimes overreaction gained.