Rich Little tells The New Yorker about his upcoming gig entertaining at the White House Correspondents Dinner.
The gent who made the selection says that the White House didn't complain about last year's Colbert extravaganza. Yeah, but they didn't have to complain. Everyone knew the prez was uncomfy and if you're in charge of that dinner, your number one priority is to make certain the President of the United States is present and doesn't find something more pressing to do that evening. The event derives all of its importance and purpose because the Chief Exec puts in an appearance. Picking someone like Rich Little is cowardly, yes. But I don't think the person making the decision really has a lot of freedom to say, "I want Michael Moore and if Bush doesn't like it, too bad. He doesn't have to show up."
Another point: If you decide to re-watch Colbert's speech, as I did the other day, see if you don't agree with this observation. The audience wasn't that bothered by the shots at Bush. To the extent the mood in the hall turned icy, it was because of Colbert's shots at the Press Corps. Some of them probably complained.
I also don't believe that, as Little claims in the article, Bill Maher wouldn't have him on because, "He didn't want to take the chance that I would be funnier." I mean, I believe Rich Little said that but Maher routinely books Robin Williams, Chris Rock, Ben Affleck and other people you wouldn't let anywhere near your show if you were worried that someone else might be funnier. The reason Maher hasn't booked Rich Little is probably the same reason that the White House Correspondents Assocation did. Oddly enough, Bill might just invite him on because of that boolking.
Thanks to Craig Robin for calling the article to my attention.