karlrovebookofmormon.jpg

Sounds like a joke—maybe a joke Sloggers might wanna write—but it actually happened at tonight’s performance of Book of Mormon. There’s Karl, slithering in the door. I had way better seats than Karl, Keith had way better seats than me. Unfortunately the audience didn’t boo Karl like they booed Condi back the in the day.

Oh, and: Book of Mormon exceeds the hype. It’s a-fucking-mazing. Hilarious, smart, hilarious, entertaining. Go, go, go.

42 replies on “Keith Olbermann, Karl Rove and Dan Savage Walk Into a Broadway Theater…”

  5. @3, booing is only rude if you’re doing it to performers. It’s totally appropriate to boo people who lied to millions to gain support for a pointless war which killed hundreds of thousands.

  7. I find the idea that one could bump into Karl Rove just going about your daily life as a decent human being deeply unsettling.

    It feels like a misfortune that should only be the result of poor life choices.

  9. My brother and I passed you and Terry walking down 45th yesterday eve. So excited you guys are grand marshals this year!

  10. Keith Olbermann, Karl Rove and Dan Savage Walk Into a Broadway Theater…

    Rove, being a Republican, heads to the men’s room where he takes up a wide stance.

    Keith takes up a post in the lobby where he can scan the crowd for the worst person in the world.

    While Dan enjoys the show.

  13. #14 – Yes, the vast majority of Democrats revealed themselves to be the spineless, craven shills we all knew they were. But the United Nations? Explain, please.

  14. …and Rove says to Olbermann “I hear Santorum will be here.” And Dan chimes in “Ooh, who’s ass is getting fucked?”

  15. @13, Dan didn’t make shit up to convince people to support the war. Dan merely made the mistake of believing the government when it said we had to go to war. Not a good comparison.

  17. @14 and 6 did contribute something useful? I don’t see the difference.

    @18 – so credulousness is fine? That’s funny, The Stranger spends a fair bit of energy attacking other people for credulousness – and that’s what got us into that war – the credulousness of the masses who believed the lies without subjecting them to reasonable critical analysis, and in particular the “left” media who bought in in a very mindless way and did a fair bit of cheerleading. I think it’s very fair to compare.

    There was (albeit not as much) information out there at the time of the run up to the war – ready and available – that exposed the lies and exagerration – but people ignored it for a number of reasons.

    I don’t know what Dan’s reasons were (probably well intended if credulous and poorly thought out) but I think it’s fair to respond to 6’s comment with my take on it, and it adds nor more (or less) than other comments.

  18. @14 – with respect to changing your mind, it is of course a good thing, and a number of the people you listed also did that. they all deserve continued criticism and scrutiny since it’s clear their judgment (or lack thereof) was lacking and their motives suspect (everybody wants this, so I want this) as primarily political, which I believe in the matter of war is pretty despicable.

  19. raindrop: you know what’s more rude? war profiteering and lying to get a nation into war. [dan’s actions encouraging support of the war are in no way comparable to this.]

    it’s not only rude, it’s treasonous and they’re lucky they get a public reception as nice as boos rather than gallows.

  20. @20, of course credulousness isn’t fine. And it is absolutely a major problem here at SLOG. But you compared a person with great power manufacturing lies to create support for a war to a citizen believing those lies to voice support for the war.

    What Savage did was to make a common mistake (which I hope he’s learned from). What Rice did was simply evil. So, I still think it’s a bad comparison.

    I do think it’s fair to compare Rice to Clinton, who is presently spouting hypocritical hyperbole and highly questionable assertions to garner support of our thoroughly illegal war in Libya.

  21. @23 I actually think Clinton is worse because it is hypocritical hyperbole. Her political pandering is so transparent it’s disgusting.

    At least Rice was a consistent war monger, regardless of her criminal methods.

  23. @26 on that we agree – the booing is rude – save it for the rally or the public political appearance – it would have to be a pretty serious evil in the audience to make it okay with me at the theater – in which case it probably wouldn’t pay to be seen booing 🙂

  24. @23 I commented on a comment, I didn’t directly and qualitatively compare them – nonetheless – one manufactured lies – the other, with a platform of some significance locally at least – accepted and promulgated on behalf of those lies, and did so without apparent scrutiny that might reasonably be expected of a person in that position. Dan is subject, in my opinion to greater accountability than an individual with an opinion – because he actively seeks to influence the opinion of others through the media – I’m not saying he’s equal in responsibility to Karl Rove, Rice, Bush, Cheney – I never stated that – but I do think he’s held to a higher standard and is fair game to criticize.

  25. @26 Valid point that it’s rude to others in the audience (or theatre cast) to boo. IMO, it’s still not rude to boo war criminals. I don’t care how obnoxious Code Pink is, they serve a purpose and recognize a responsibility that isn’t fulfilled by other citizens in this country.

  26. @29 Also, I have to say: it’s amazing to me that people are very concerned about manners and politeness and seem much less concerned that war criminals and murderers are allowed to walk free.

  27. @26 War criminals shouldn’t be able to enjoy a show in peace. They shouldn’t be able to enjoy anything but the cell where they’re waiting to hang for their crimes.

  28. So is this thing ever going to tour? Because the odds of me actually leaving a 2000 mile radius of Seattle in the next decade are quite slim.

  30. Oh Raindrop, concern trolling for power mad Republicans against those boorish liberals calling them on their shit again?

    I’m beginning to think this is a fetish and these comments are the only way you can get yourself off.

  33. @35: Yup, the Libyan war which has killed exactly ZERO of our soldiers and has a clear objective, a war in which the oppressed people of the land called for international assistance against their despotic ruler. The one that there’s no clear consensus as to its legality. That one.

  34. Indeed, @37 (venomlash). I think people compare Libya and Iraq without a good appreciation of the details of each situation. A pity.

    But then again, it’s not all morality and legality in this kind of situation. When Russia invaded Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Georgians — hell, even their president in a TV broadcast — asked for help and intervention. None came. Only negotiations, phone calls, talks, and Sarkozy.

  35. Is it just me or is Savage Blog, the best sex-fun blog out there, turning into Savage Blog, a gay rights and theatre/media blog? The politics has been thick as thieves and the sex has been near-as dammit invisible of late.

  36. @16: …and Rove says to Olbermann “I hear Santorum will be here.” And Olbermann replies, “I don’t think so, Dan and Terry know not to have oral with food in their mouths and not to have anal. . . “.

  39. @42: But we haven’t declared war, and the President IS the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and it is on his authority that they are deployed and commanded. Whether or not it is legal depends on the extent to which we are involved.
    Not surprisingly, Democrats are defending President Obama’s actions, while Republicans are having a cow and trying to raise issues.

  41. @44: It IS a war, between Gaddafi’s government and the rebels based in Benghazi. We haven’t declared war on anybody in Libya.
    This is not a difficult concept, Alleged.

Comments are closed.