Right-Wing Audience Laughs At Comparison Of Obamas To Sanford And Son Characters, But Not Pleased With GOP Jokes

Reggie Brown, the man paid to impersonate President Barack Obama, was welcomed with open arms as he made fun of the Barack and Michelle Obama and at one point likened them to Fred Sanford and Aunt Esther Anderson fighting from the old Sanford and Son show (you know ... because black couples are supposed to fight, be loud and act obnoxiously ... black marriages are not supposed to stand the test of time and challenges). Apparently, it was funny to laugh at a black couple fighting, but it was not so funny to hear stereotype jokes of Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and other jokes about GOP presidential candidates.

There were a few laughs with the Romney joke, but it clearly did not go over well with the right-wing audience and right-wing organizers.

Go on Reggie ... I guess you gotta get paid.

Long Island, N.Y. Newspaper Compares Obamas To Fred Sanford and Aunt Esther

A Long Island, N.Y. newspaper, the Smithtown Messenger, took a racially-tinged shot at President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama.

In an apparent attempt at satire, the weekly newspaper portrayed recent former presidents and their spouses in before-and-after photo contrasts. In fact, the header on the page was titled "Before and After." Portrayed are President Jimmy Carter and first lady Rosalyn Carter, President Ronald Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan, President George H. W. Bush and first lady Barbara Bush, President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton and President George W. Bush and first lady Laura Bush. In these photos, there are nice and flattering photos of the couples.

Then, the final photo shows President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama next to a photo of Fred Sanford with sister-in-law Aunt Esther, who are black, fighting in the old 1970s sitcom Sanford and Son.

Was this an intentional and racially-tinged shot at the Obamas using negative stereotypes of black people as a weapon.

Here is a statement released by the newspaper's publisher as the controversy blew up:

The publisher of the Smithtown Messenger regret[s] any offense taken by our readers at the photographic political satire depicting the current and past presidents on the editorial page in the April 29th, 2010 issue. While we have grave disagreement with the policies of the current Administration, we hold the office of President of the United States in great respect.'

We also hold dear the principles of freedom and tolerance upon which our great Nation was founded. We are mindful that the satire seemed to some in poor taste. At the same time, we reject the notions that elected officials, at any level of government, or any race, creed, or color, can hold themselves above the law… or immune from satire. This week the President himself caused some controversy by joking about sending deadly 'predator drones' against the Jonas Brothers. We are confident he was not serious, as we are that our satiric content meant no disrespect. We Thank you for your continued readership, and as always, invite your comment or constructive criticism. Our apologies to all concerned.

The beginning of the statement confirms the political bias that might have been somewhat obvious.

This, however, is more than political bias.

What is interesting is that there were two white Democrat presidents (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) who were not attacked with disparaging "after" photos. There were also white Republicans (Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush who were not portrayed negatively in photos). Had the newspaper attacked all of the Democrats then they might be able to skate by on a charge of political bias. This, however, seems to move behind mere political bias.

The paper's statement offered little in the form of an apology, and was more so defiant.

The outrageous comparison to President Obama's jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner would seem to indicate a true lack of remorse, and that includes the hollow apology at the end. (As a side note: I deem it outrageous because the president joked about people from both sides of the political middle.) On the one hand, it appears that the newspaper is apologizing, but then defends itself by attacking the victim as if to say, "see, they did something very similar so what we did is not so bad."

Is satire, in this case, a shield to attack President Obama in a racial way?

It's quite likely the editor(s) and publisher of this paper new exactly what they were doing.

Considering the other president's were not attacked it would seem to indicate one of two things: 1., there was a racial motive or 2., the paper had no "grave disagreements" with the policies of presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George. H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

That is a wide range of political agendas swinging from left to right.

As for this paper, I saw little regret in that statement.