Snl on The Huffington Post

SNL Takes On Tiger Woods Scandal (VIDEO)

2009-12-06T10:31:28Z

(AP) NEW YORK - Tiger Woods and his marital problems proved a tempting target for "Saturday Night Live."

In both a skit and multiple "Weekend Update" jokes this weekend, NBC's comedy institution took on the golfer, who has admitted to letting his family down with "transgressions" that came to light following a strange Thanksgiving weekend incident outside his Florida home.

In one skit, actor Jason Sudeikis portrayed Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Situation Room" reporting on a news conference that Woods (played by Kenan Thompson) and his wife (played by host Blake Lively) were holding outside his home. After Woods admitted to "multiple" transgressions, his wife looked surprised and the screen quickly shifted back to Blitzer.

"Breaking news," Blitzer said. "Tiger Woods is back in the hospital. "Apparently just hours after a press conference where he confessed to multiple transgressions, Woods had an accident in his home where he fell down a flight of stairs then inadvertently threw himself through a plate glass window."

WATCH:

Woods returned for a later news conference, his wife brandishing a golf club next to him, where he said, "Wow, I've been really clumsy this week."

He had more such "accidents," then returns to read a prepared statement with the words "help me" and "I'm scared" written on the back of the papers for the audience to see.

In "Weekend Update," anchor Seth Meyers peppered Woods with one-liners.

"Last Friday Tiger Woods hit a tree and a bunch of ladies fell out," he said.

Meyers noted that Woods and his wife were in negotiations over their prenuptial agreement, and "what's really weird is he presented her with one of those huge, oversized checks."

Woods' sponsors are sticking with him, Meyers said, "a gesture that only means one thing -- women don't watch golf."

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Gossip Girl Staten Island: SNL Takes Hit Tween Show Out Of Manhattan (VIDEO)

2009-12-06T09:52:36Z

Blake Lively hosted "Saturday Night Live" this week and the writers jumped at the chance to mock her hit TV show "Gossip Girl." They did so by creating a spin-off: "Gossip Girl: S.I." which takes place in New York's outer-most borough. The two locations they shoot in are a pizza parlor and the bathroom on the public ferry. "We'd call it risque but they'd beat us up for sounding gay," the announcer says.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Shy Ronnie: Rihanna & Andy Samberg's SNL Duet (VIDEO)

2009-12-06T09:03:38Z

Rihanna was SNL's musical guest this week and in addition to performing solo she unveiled a world premiere duet with "Shy Ronnie" aka Andy Samberg. It did not go well. Every time Rihanna threw to Samberg he mumbled incoherently into the mic. When she finally gave up on him and stormed out, Ronnie got awesome.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

SNL Salahi Skit Spoofs Party Crashing Couple, Secret Service (VIDEO)

2009-12-05T18:47:39Z

SNL opened last night with a sketch mocking the White House party crashers (aka Tareq and Michaele Salahi), the Secret Service, and Vice President Joe Biden. Obama (Fred Armsien) was just trying to give his Afghanistan speech when the crashers appeared on stage, taking pictures and goofing around. Soon the Secret Service got in on the fun, despite knowledge they weren't supposed to be there. And, of course, Joe Biden followed.

There were reports that the Salahis were set to appear in person, but they were no where to be seen last night.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Fact-Check Fetish Now Being Applied To Sketch Comedy

2009-11-23T13:43:27Z

I missed the latest Saturday Night Live, but by the next morning I had received an email from a concerned citizen about the content of its "cold open," in which Fred Armisen, as President Barack Obama, is assailed by Will Forte's Hu Jintao over America owing China money. The emailer was angry at Saturday Night Live for reinforcing flawed media narratives to the effect that the stimulus package has not created any jobs and that health care reform will not save any money -- and overall getting facts wrong. "This is really the wrong time for SNL to be getting basic facts so sorely wrong."

WATCH the sketch in question:

Does anyone actually expect Saturday Night Live to get its facts straight? Well, yes! Very recently, the show ran another sketch that featured Armisen as Obama running down a list of achievements -- and finding that none had been accomplished. This actually led to CNN factchecking the show:

CNN's judgment was subsequently skewered by The Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

CNN Leaves It There

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Now, I am basically of the mind that holding Saturday Night Live up to some high level of fact-check scrutiny is more than a little absurd. The traction point of this Saturday's cold open was simply that lots of people joke about China holding so much of our debt. The writers basically take this fundamentally oversimplified idea to give the Jintao character room to complain about how America is spending money to ameliorate social problems and bail out banks while China has an outstanding IOU. I suppose that Armisen could have launched into a lengthy analysis of how the stimulus package is rolling out, or delivered a treatise on how reforming health care could keep people out of crippling debt, allowing them to purchase more Chinese exports, but doing so would commit the comedy crime of "negating the premise" -- the premise being that America is literally screwing China. This whole sketch is nothing more than a vehicle for the comedians to make a broad anal sex joke. They even follow the "rule of three," to maximize it's accessibility.

I'm not sure that we want to go down the road where we factcheck Saturday Night Live every Sunday afternoon. But for what it's worth, comedian Andy Cobb offered me some food for thought, via Twitter on this matter, saying, "I actually think it's fair to factcheck comics doing topical bits. Otherwise Limbaugh gets a pass, yknow?" and "I mean, you can't factcheck a joke or a punchline, but you might factcheck a premise and a setup."

All of which is true, I suppose. But it's worth pointing out that the sort of comedy Cobb makes is a unique animal. Cobb's Public Service Administration produces hilarious satire, but it's comedy that hinges on being well informed about a topic. For instance, their take on Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza's "Mouthpiece Theatre" is fantastic, but wouldn't work with an audience unfamiliar with the two reporters' callow belief that their journalistic perch makes them funny, or the Washington Post's struggles with creating a web-based brand identity. I suspect this joke would not play well on NBC's affiliate in Des Moines:

On top of that, Cobb often lends his considerable talents to advocacy. His comedic premises account for facts because he is in the business of "making the case" for things. That's what's on display in this spot for Health Care For America Now, sending up the way insurance companies arbitrarily change the rules on their consumers:

Of course, the mass consumption version of this comedic ethos is seen on Comedy Central's The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, both of which do a great job of informing their viewers because their stock in trade is penetrating and demystifying media narratives and laying them bare.

Everything I've read from SNL writers describing how their comedic sausage gets made indicates that they do not feel any sort of higher obligation to "making the case" for one particular point of view. Similarly, they don't often apply themselves to decoding media narratives -- because that would get in the way of the anal sex jokes. We could argue whether SNL is passing on the chance to create a better or more trenchant or more "dangerous" brand of sketch comedy, but I think what's unavoidable is that Saturday Night Live has its own unique set of priorities, and they include preparing a show that puts their guest host to his or her best use and putting the talents of their own character-driven comedians on display. (I think if we were to fact-check Kristen Wiig's "Penelope" character, many of her claims would not hold up to scrutiny. Still, LET'S NOT GET WOLF BLITZER INVOLVED, OKAY?)

Nevertheless, I think that going forward, we're going to see the factcheck fetish continue to be applied to Saturday Night Live. There are two things that are driving this. First and foremost, legitimate news organizations are, more and more, repurposing SNL's content as a cheap way to kill a few minutes every hour. For example, ABC News's This Week devotes a whole portion of its weekly broadcast to the antics of late-night comedians. By the end of today, MSNBC might well show that cold open three or four times, unless their prudishness gets the better of them. No one intends SNL's content to stand in as the literal truth, but as long as comedy is appearing on the same platform as news, people are going to treat it as fair game for high levels of scrutiny.

The other reason new outlets are likely to fact-check comedy shows is that it makes them look tough, at a time when the public does not have a lot of faith that they are capable of holding anyone accountable anymore. Organizations such as Politifact and FactCheck.org have risen to fill that gap. And now, we're often treated to the spectacle of news organizations citing these outside political factcheckers, which always makes me wonder what's wrong with their own stable of journalists! Watching a spokesman for Politifact come on teevee to talk about what's true and what's not is a lot like walking into a Starbucks and finding out that they've outsourced the boiling of water to a contractor.

That might be a pretty good premise for a joke actually, but I'm not sure it would play all that well at 11:30pm, live from New York.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Al Gore On "Saturday Night Live:" "I'm Just Going To Start Acting Crazy"

2009-11-22T10:36:09Z

This week on Saturday Night Live, Al Gore appeared with Seth Meyers on Weekend Update for a hilarious segment for NBC's Green Week. He announces that he's come up with a new tactic for getting people to care about green issues, which is to start acting crazy. One idea he has is to tape toy guns to trees so politicians know that the forest is coming to get them.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!

Palin 2012: SNL Gives Viewers A Glimpse Of Horrifying Future (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

2009-11-22T08:59:37Z

"Saturday Night Live" combined Sarah Palin and the disaster movie "2012" last night to imagine a world in which Palin had won the presidency. They used footage from the '08 race and Palin's recent publicity blitz along with the trailer for the John Cusack post-apocalyptic action film to create a harrowing end-times scenario in which Glenn Beck is one step away from the presidency.

WATCH THE VIDEO OR BROWSE THE STILLS:

Frank Rich: Sarah Palin, The Pit Bull In The China Shop

2009-11-22T01:12:15Z

AT last the American right and left have one issue they unequivocally agree on: You don't actually have to read Sarah Palin's book to have an opinion about it.

Ian Gurvitz: The Audacity of Dopes

2009-11-18T14:17:32Z

Once upon a time in America there was at least a tangential relationship between fame and talent. Actors could act. Writers could write. Singers could sing. Of course, there were always freaky novelty acts, but they were in the sideshow, not the main arena. But now we live in the world of "reality stars" -- individuals with little discernible talent beyond a hunger for self-promotion so insatiable that they allow cameras into their private lives to document their personal failings, which then gets fobbed off as entertainment to a voyeuristic public. Infamy has become the new fame. Reality shows the venue for aspiring media monsters to strut the stuff they imagine they've got. A place for Gosselins and Kardashians to wallow in their 15 minutes and, once there, claim it as a right of entitlement.

But now, out of the west, or northwest to be precise, has come a relatively new phenomenon: the reality politician - Sarah Palin. A novelty act governor who was plucked from obscurity and placed on the national stage. A campaign gimmick. A Hail Mary pass by a veteran politician so desperate to win he would try to fob off a grinning dumb belle as a Vice Presidential candidate. Someone who proved not just in those few short months, but since, that she would never let her ignorance get in the way of her ambition.

Thankfully, it didn't work. But now ... she's back ... with, well, it's words on paper between two covers so I guess technically one has to describe it as a book. One that it seems should have been titled Profiles in Carnage because apparently her failure to catapult McCain to the White House was everyone else's fault. Steve Schmidt. Nicole Wallace. Tina Fey. The SNL writers. Charlie Gibson. The liberal media. The AP. Apparently, all these people conspired to make her look stupid. It had nothing to do with her justification for her foreign policy experience being that Russian jets flew over her state. A response so inane that if a junior high school student on the debate team offered it up, she'd be laughed out of the auditorium. And the infamous Katie Couric "What do you read" gotcha question? Even your average idiot on the street trying to appear intelligent could've name-dropped the New York Times and Wall Street Journal and no one would have been the wiser. These weren't "gotcha" questions. These were softballs to anyone running for national office. And her answers were not up to par. But she thought they were. And that is frightening.

Ultimately, no one did more damage to Sarah Palin than Sarah Palin. She was handed a national platform on which she could dazzle the country with her brilliance. And she winked, smirked, and crapped all over it. Forget that she's a woman. Forget that she's from a more obscure state. Forget that she's got a voice that sounds like a dolphin with a sinus condition. She could've opened her mouth and demonstrated her intelligence and grasp of issues both domestic and international. And people would have rightfully taken notice and been impressed. And if a question momentarily stumped her, she could have honestly copped to a lack of familiarity with the issue along with the intention to look into it, and people would have forgiven her lack of knowledge and possibly even appreciated some refreshing candor from a politician. Instead, we got cutesy evasions. "I'll check into it and get back to ya." "Hockey mom" jokes, "bridge to nowhere" lies, and "pallin' around with terrorists" inflammatory accusations. "Pallin' around?" This is the appropriate level of discourse for a presidential election?

And what have we been treated to since, when given a chance to comment on policy? Health care? "Death panels!" Economic crisis? "Socialism!" She can commission a dozen ghost-written books and it will never change the simple fact that she is not capable of participating in a substantive discussion on vital issues because that requires having knowledge, thoughts, and ideas. Not just talking points, surface slogans, jingoistic nonsense, and fake, folksy cracker barrel chatter. She's the anti-Susan Boyle. She's physically appealing. But she can't fucking sing.

And, yet, despite her ridiculous campaign performance and subsequent lack of ability to stand up and take responsibility for her own shortcomings, once again we have to endure the interviews, and the endless news reports about the interviews, during her battleground state book tour, along with the Republican cheerleader chant of "underestimate her at your peril." Yes, we know, Mr. Gingrich -- everyone thought Reagan was an idiot, too. But just because she's shrewd doesn't mean she's smart. You can't teach intelligence. And the talking points of the week will eventually sound hollow when there's no legitimate thought behind them. If there were a God who was paying special attention to Sarah ... there isn't ... but if there were, His message to her would be to finish her smirkathon, sell some books, and then take that shit back to Alaska. Bad news for the moose. Good news for the rest of us.

And I would be relieved. Not that Mittens and Huck don't cause me to wake up with 3 a.m. flop sweat, but this woman scares me. She is, as Carl Bernstein so accurately described her, "an ignorant demagogue." But when so many people are out of work, they get desperate. And desperation is the demagogue's fertilizer. So, as much as I miss laughing at Tina Fey's deadly accurate lampooning of her --a performance as satirically brilliant as Dan Aykroyd's Nixon -- I would happily forgo seeing it again to keep Palin off the national and world stage. We have serious problems that need to be solved by serious people. Not politics answer to Kate Gosselin.

Tina Fey-Sarah Palin 2009? Will The "30 Rock" Star Reprise Her "SNL" Role After Palin Chats With Oprah?

2009-11-16T16:35:58Z

You betcha! Sarah Palin is back in the spotlight with the release of her new book "Going Rogue" and her appearance on "Oprah" today, but we here on the comedy page are most curious about whether or not this resurgence will warrant an appearance from the already-overworked Tina Fey on this week's "Saturday Night Live."

On "Oprah" today Palin referred to Katie Couric as "the perky one," called Levi Johnston "Ricky Hollywood," and talked 2012. She also addressed her meeting with Tina Fey on the set of "SNL" saying the pair standing next to each other confused Fey's baby:

"So yes, I meet Tina Fey, and she was funny. She said, 'Oh don't worry, they'll put makeup on me. I'll look different in a couple of hours.' She's holding her baby, Alice, and Alice is looking back and forth between the two of us, and I'm saying, 'We're confusing your child.'"

But is this enough to bring Fey out of "SNL" retirement? In addition to raising Alice and writing her own show, she stars in "30 Rock," is doing press for her upcoming film "Date Night," and is working on other film projects.

We can only hope she bites the bullet, but in the mean-time enjoy her last turn as Palin in the 2008-2009 season.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

"SNL" Skewers Lou Dobbs After Host Quits CNN (VIDEO)

2009-11-15T09:18:19Z

"Saturday Night Live" went after Lou Dobbs this week, claiming he retired from CNN because he thinks the "C" stands for the Spanish word "si." Dobbs, played by Darrell Hammond, went on to refer to his replacement, John King, as "Juan" King--a man he says may have paid for his dapper appearance with drug money.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Black Eyed Peas Beat Up Kathie Lee - On SNL (VIDEO)

2009-11-15T08:42:53Z

The Black Eyed Peas were the musical guest on Saturday Night Live, with host January Jones, and they also appeared in an early sketch skewering the 4th hour of "Today" with Kathie Lee Gifford.

In the last 30 seconds of the skit below, the Peas, who were supposed to be guests on the "Today" show, got sick of waiting and were angered by a drunken Kathie Lee (Kristen Wiig) singing.

Fergie comes out and punches her, Taboo takes of his shoe to hit her, and best of all Apl.de.ap displays some professional wrestling moves with flying elbow drops.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!

"SNL" Comes Down On Obama Administration For Caving On Public Option (VIDEO)

2009-11-15T07:44:29Z

"SNL" Opened last night with sketch mocking Joe Biden, the Obama administration, and concessions they've made to get the health care bill passed. "The president wants to pass a health care bill so bad that he will literally sign anything. You can water it down however you like--as long as it's a stack of paper with the words 'health care' on it he'll sign it," an eager Biden said from the Oval Office while President Obama is abroad.

Vice President Biden (played by Jason Sudeikis) went on to run down other concessions they're willing to make in order to get the bill passed. "For those Republicans who want the bill to protect doctors from medical malpractice suits, you win, we'll agree to a provision that makes it illegal to ever sue a doctor." He also agreed that no copies of the bill would be printed in Spanish, and that the first Republican senator to cross the aisle and sign the bill would get a secret provision attached that can be anything from banning gay marriage to making it illegal to be Nancy Pelosi.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Catie Lazarus: Top 10 Reasons This Woman Can't Write for Late Night Comedy Shows

2009-11-12T20:07:00Z

In the New York Times, Bill Carter writes ,"very few women make it inside the writing rooms for late-night television hosts, despite that women make up a larger proportion of their audience than men. There are no female writers on the new “The Jay Leno Show,” none on “Late Show with David Letterman,” none on “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien.”"

Based on his article and Nell Scovell's personal account in Vanity Fair, I have come to understand why the odds are stacked against my wedging my paw in the door. I still have hope (also known as delusion).

The Top 10 Reasons This Woman Can't Write for Late Night Comedy Variety Shows

10) I will be overcome by desire for my male comedy writing peers
and superiors, who are known for their off-white, pasty skin and muscle tonus
minimus, akin to albino, soft shell turtles.

9) My lady sensibility is limited to menstruation
(hilarious), babies (adorable), and unicorns mating
(adorably hilarious).

8) Due to my genetic make-up, I am physically incapable to
handle the job, considering the heavy manual labor required in touch typing.

7) The number one rule of comedy is fitting in and I sometimes buck the uniform of orthopedic New Balance sneakers,
hoodies, jeans, and t-shirts, with ironic catchphrases like, "Pro-Cashmere. Pro-Cotton.
Pro-Choice."

6) The only requests I get as
a female comedy writer are to discuss sexism in comedy, instead of political satire about how Sarah Palin is so sick she
gives swine flu or scripts like Crones:
The Musical! or commercials, maybe, Femedy: A bubble gum
birth control for tweens who don't want to ovulate. Period.

5) Late-night comedy requires a male point-of-view, and girls,
even ones closer to menopause than teething, can only express themselves in
glittery pink (which, fyi, typing in does
not fund cancer research).

4) As a lady, I automatically cost less, and in a business where money talks, how will I be taken seriously? I mean funnily.

3) I didn't graduate from Harvard so I lack the cultural capital to craft the erudite, intellectual fodder
typical of late-night comedies, like the masturbating bear or gift
wrapped genitalia.

2) Hollywood would have to make major changes to catch up with
medicine, law, even engineering, in its hiring practices, and we all know how open television is to change. It only took 30 years (and millions of dollars) before CNN let Native
American Lou Dobbs quit. (I mean, leave to spend time with his family.)

1) I'd have to be funny and learn
how to play Dungeons and Dragons.

Mike Ragogna: Standing on One's Principles: An Interview With Ron Reagan

2009-11-12T04:00:57Z

Ron Reagan is the son of a president and, weekdays on Air America, he's a voice of reason for many listeners who are trying to navigate the complexities of national and global concerns. Known for his progressive views and politics, Ron took a few moments to discuss some of the more pressing issues of our time and gave a shoutout to Elvis Perkins.

Mike Ragogna: When did The Ron Reagan Show begin broadcasting on Air America?

Ron Reagan: It would have been a year ago September, we started with an hour show.

MR: How did that come about?

RR: I had been at the Republican convention in Minneapolis, they (Air America) asked me to come there and be part of their coverage. I'd been doing some things with Mark Green who had a weekend show, a wrap-up kind of thing. I did some of those with him, so he invited me to the convention, and I spent a few days there doing shows. At the end of the week, they asked if I wanted to do an hour show for them, and I said sure, my having been between gigs at the time.

MR: How much time passed between then and when your first show aired?

RR: They said, "Can you start Monday?" and this was Friday evening. I said, "I guess I can, am I going to have a producer?" I met my first producer on the phone Monday morning, the day we launched the show. Not a lot of prep time to get things together, but it slowly evolved, and by the beginning of this year, I think it was in February, we went to the regular three hour format.

MR: Who's backing you up behind the scenes?

RR: Tina Nole, my executive producer, came on board in February, and Shelley Osterberger, the associate producer, came on during the summer.

MR: When you discuss topics, you've been very respectful and gracious to callers and guests with opposing points of view, although it's pretty clear where you stand on the issues. How do you find the patience to deal with your more challenging guests and callers?

RR: I'm not much of a yeller, I don't really get particularly offended or affronted when somebody takes even an extreme position that's opposite mine. I'm not a big one for personal attacks or rudeness. When somebody crosses a line where it's going beyond just stating their extreme viewpoint, like attacking me in a personal way, well then I'll take exception to that and come back at them.

But I don't see any purpose in yelling at the civilians who call in to the show. These are just folks calling in, regular folks, they're not professionals at this or anything. You know, some people have weird ideas, and it's often more interesting to tease out those ideas. For instance, we had a guy call in, and we were talking in general about the ramifications of the off-year elections. The subject of Maine's Question #1 on marriage rights for gay couples came up, and he was violently opposed to allowing gay couples to marry. I asked him, "Well, what would the harm be?" "It's terrible! It's an abomination! These people and their deviant lifestyles..." He was from Massachusetts, and I said, "That's you're opinion, but I want to know what negative consequences YOU'VE felt because of gay people being allowed to marry."

Then he went off again on how terrible gay people were which was all irrelevant, and at that point, he crossed the line and started talking about a Jewish/gay conspiracy. I was like, "Okay, now I've heard enough from you, now we can leave you alone because the entire audience knows that this is the kind of person who is opposed to allowing gay people to have the same civil rights as everybody else." This was a guy where there was no end to the bigotry. If I kept scratching, we'd find racism, we'd find everything else, and I think it was more useful, in a way, than me jumping all over the guy and telling him what an idiot he was. That would have been easy enough to do, but it would have been less educational for people.

MR: When you go home after a day of calls like that, how do you process it?

RR: That kind of stuff doesn't really wear on me at all. I admit it's pretty tiring doing a three hour show, where, generally speaking, it's pretty much ad lib five days a week. That's tiring for anybody to do. But dealing with folks like that is not really a problem. They don't wear on me, I'm aware that those people are out there, that's no secret, I've run into them before and I'll run into them again. They don't really suck the energy out of me. They're more amusing, in a way, and I guess a little depressing, too, but that stuff doesn't bother me.

MR: What are your thoughts on the defeat of Question #1?

RR: We've talked about it on the show before. I would put to the audience as a question whether people in this country should be allowed to vote out civil rights for others. I mean, if a majority of folks in a given state decided they didn't want free speech anymore, should they be allowed to eliminate free speech in their state? I think that most people would say no, and I see marriage rights for gay couples is pretty much in that territory.

This is a fundamental civil right that everybody in this country enjoys EXCEPT one group of people--gay folks. I don't think that should be left up to the vagaries of politics, out-of-state financing, dishonest campaigns, and the various lies that are told by opponents of civil rights. I think it's too fundamental. There's nothing in the Constitution that implies or says that gay people should be treated any differently than anybody else, and that's the document we should be relying on when we look at this.

It's no coincidence that people who want to deprive or keep gay people from having this civil right generally have to change their state constitution to achieve that. They have to literally write-in a specific amendment to their constitution that singles out gay people for this exclusion, and the fact that it's exclusionary is the point. These idiot arguments that come up about, "Well, if we allow gay couples to marry, then we have to allow polygamy and bestiality and things like that"--beyond the stupidity of these arguments--it's quite obvious that in the case of polygamy and bestiality, those laws are not exclusionary in any way. They apply to everybody. No one can marry more than one person. But when we're talking about gay marriage, then we're talking about an exclusionary law. Everybody can get married in this country to the person of their choice except gay people, they're excluded. That's a very different thing, it's an apples and oranges kind of situation.

MR: With all the ignorance and fear out there, it seems that the only way issues like this are going to be resolved is through the court system, and ultimately, by the Supreme Court. But that might not be such a good thing because of some of its hard right judges.

RR: Well, you've got Scalia who's a radical fundamentalist Catholic on the court. You've got Roberts and Alito who also have an agenda, though it might not be as socially extreme as Scalia's. I think they're more interested in protecting the rights of corporations and things like that. I mean that's why they were installed on the court. But yeah, you're quite right, it's not a gimme on the Supreme Court. It could very well be one of those unfortunate five-four decisions that would come down the wrong way.

MR: What do you think, if any, were the messages from last week's election?

RR: I don't think we can read the tea leaves and say because democrats lost the Virginia and New Jersey governorships that this portends all sorts of awful things for the mid-term elections. I don't think you can really say that there's that connection. On the other hand, I do think that the people widely, across the political spectrum, are becoming terribly dissatisfied with status quo governance in Washington, D.C., right now. I think you saw that, to some extent, even in the Tea Party stuff earlier this year. Now, some of these people were just, you know, kind of Glenn Beck idiots with their Nazi signs and all that kind of stuff. But there were people who were drawn in because they were upset, for instance, by the bank bailout and the lack of transparency at the Fed. I can't argue too much with that, they're not wrong to be worried.

I think with health care, we find progressives who are very disenchanted with the approach of this administration and, certainly, the approach of Congress to health care reform. It's really as if these people are bending over backwards to try and make as ineffective a piece of legislation as it can possibly be. You know, we've got people shouting about the public option being a government takeover of health care...hell, it's not even going to be available to most people. I mean, you and I, if we have health insurance through our jobs, we can't sign up for the public option. This is going to apply to maybe twelve million people in America. It seems to me this is the worst kind of incrementalism, and I think people are looking at that and wondering if our government is capable of dealing with really big problems that are all coming down the pike at about the same time.

MR: What would you say are some of those problems?

RR: Look at the environment, economic issues, social issues, health care of course, war and peace... We've got lots on the plate and it's pretty serious stuff, and we don't seem to be able to man-up and do something about it. And you think the health care fight was ugly? Wait 'til we get to Cap & Trade. We've got a bunch of people in Congress who are still denying that global warming even exists! These are Flat Earthers that we're having to deal with here. It's a little depressing, and it doesn't bode well for the future.

MR: Do you think that we've got a president who can tackle some of these issues?

RR: There's no question that this administration is a vast improvement over what we had before. My God, from torture to everything else, not only were they evil, but they were incompetent and evil at the same time. So yeah, I'm a supporter of Obama, I wish him the best, I think his impulses are good. My question--I think it's a question that many people on the progressive side have--is, does he have the stones to see this thing through?

He's not really a progressive democratic politician. He is a centrist democrat. He's cautious, he always has been. If you look at his history, it's one of always reaching across the aisle, always looking for the bipartisan compromise which can be fine in its place. But he's not as "left" as some people on our side thought he was during the election, and so we're seeing the real Barack Obama here--a cautious, centrist, pragmatic politician. That can often get the job done, but I'm a little nervous at this particular time in history, with all the problems we have facing us, that that approach really isn't going to get the job done. I think he's wasting a lot of time--a lot of time--with this reaching across the aisle stuff. He had to make the gesture, had to let people know that he would try in good faith with republicans; but we're long past the point where we realize that these people aren't reaching back. They just simply want him to fail. If they're reaching back at all, it's to stick a thumb in his eye, so the time for that stuff is just about over.

MR: And so many in Congress seem to be under the thumb of the lobbyists and corporations who have made large donations to their campaigns or causes.

RR: Let's not be naïve here. When you see that someone is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars over a few years to their campaign PAC or whatever from a certain industry, they're getting that money for a reason. People don't just hand politicians money because they kind of like their haircut or the way they wear a suit. They want something for that money. If you want to know the main thing we can do to put a stop to that? Campaign finance reform. Let's take the money entirely out of politics. If you get pulled over by a cop for speeding and you try to give him a twenty dollar bill to get off, well, if he's crooked, he'll take it and let you go. But you're really courting arrest there. That's bribery of a public official. Well, why isn't it bribery of a public official for individuals or corporations to hand them bundled checks for their political action committees. It's the same kind of thing here, and we need to eliminate that entirely.

MR: Challengers to reform insist this is a Freedom of Speech issue.

RR: Money is not speech. If you want to go out and campaign for somebody, speak on their behalf, tell everybody that you think they'll be a great congressman or president or whatever. You're more than entitled to do that. But giving them money is not the same thing. Money is property, money is a bribe, it isn't support, and that's what needs to be eliminated. There needs to be a level playing field and a regular manor in which we elect officials where everybody, maybe who've gotten enough signatures on a petition or whatever, can get on the ballot. Then you all play by the same rules and you have the same amount of money to work with. Free television time would be a good thing for TV advertisement...we give the broadcast networks our public airwaves for a song. They're supposed to do a public service in return--that used to be the news shows that they would produce. Well, you know, they can start giving politicians free ad time during election years for a certain period as part of that public service so that (politicians) won't feel pressed to spend billions of dollars buying time on the networks that should be free. This is how we can elect public officials in this country. It's an important thing, and the broadcast and cable networks can get on board with that. If we can have a level playing field for various sports teams, we certainly can have it for political races as well. Just take the money out of the system entirely.

MR: But sometimes a level playing field can work against you, like when the media gives equal weight to both sides of a story no matter how ludicrous one side might clearly be.

RR: Yeah, that's the fallacy of "fair and balanced." It's turned into literally, "Well, we have two opinions here--Joe says the world is flat, Bob says the world is round, YOU be the judge," instead of pointing out that one person is full of s**t, and the other person actually has it right.

MR: And there's so much damage being done and ignorance being propagated as a result of that approach.

RR: There have always been these carny barkers in American life. There have always been the crooked tent preacher or whoever who's getting people all riled up about stuff. Limbaugh and Beck are just those kind of clowns. There's not much you can do to stop that. It's not that they're promoting ignorance as much as the American public--actually, a fairly small percentage of the public--buy into this crap. You know, come on people...wake up! The Limbaughs and the Becks are charlatans. They're entertainers who are there to make money and nothing else. I don't even know that Glenn Beck believes half of the stuff he says, and he's just taking advantage of people's ignorance and gullibility and stupidity. Are people that naïve and stupid that they're going to be taken in by fools like this? Well, apparently some are. You can fool some of the people all of the time.

MR: All of this seems even more ridiculous in the face of real discussions we need to be having on dangers like global warming.

RR: Indeed, global warming is a perfect example of just the kind of problem that American politicians seem incapable of dealing with. It's long term, it's incremental, it's not going to show up in a big explosion tomorrow that knocks down buildings on the southern tip of Manhattan. We've got to think long term, and we've got to actually deprive ourselves of stuff. We're going to have to change our lifestyle, we're going to have to make do with less in certain instances, at least temporarily. And it involves nature instead of just people politics and money politics and things like that, and that's something that Congress also has a very difficult time dealing with. These are people who spend way too much time indoors...they need to get out a little more! They forget that nature doesn't really care what your political agenda is, nature doesn't really care that Jim Inhoff doesn't believe that the atmosphere is warming up. Nature is gonna do what it does regardless. The laws of physics are the laws of physics. But these people don't seem to get that, they think they can kind of spin nature their way somehow. It ain't gonna happen, you know?

MR: Sure, global warming is important, but what music are you listening to?

RR: I've been playing a lot of Elvis Perkins in my car on the way to work. My wife is very good about finding new stuff, I'm a little more boring when it comes to that.

MR: What are some of your favorite classic acts?

RR: I still will throw a little U2 on every once in a while, and I still enjoy The Beatles. My wife and I were talking about Sgt. Pepper the other day and what a great song "For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" was. We were trying to remember the lyrics. We had them all mixed-up and had to go online to find them.

MR: You sort of were introduced to America through your Saturday Night Live appearance in 1986, right?

RR: Yeah, that's pretty true.

MR: Your Risky Business parody is considered one of the show's best moments.

RR: I was a little reluctant to do it at first, I didn't want to be a conduit to ridiculing my parents. I knew, of course, there would be some fun poked at them, but I didn't want it to be vicious and mean and be a part of that. But I was assured I would have veto power over any of the skits if they got out of hand, that I could pull the plug on them. But it worked out well, it was a lot of fun. It was a good cast, and everybody was real nice.

MR: Were your parents okay afterward?

RR: Yeah, I think they were a little confused, they didn't understand the Tom Cruise thing. They'd never seen that movie, and they had no idea why I was in my underwear. So I had to explain to them that whole Tom Cruise bit and all. I was actually wearing three pairs of jockey shorts by the time we did the live show. The NBC censors said, "You can't go out there with just one pair of jockey shorts. God knows what might happen, he's moving around and dancing, we can't just have something fly out of there. Have him put another pair on!" I put two pair on and when we did the live show after we did the dress rehearsal, the edict came down, "He needs another pair!" So I had three pair of jockey shorts on just to be sure that nothing untoward happened.

MR: Having been a president's son, did you ever feel obliged to steer your career towards politics?

RR: No, from the time I was a little kid and exposed to politics, I pretty much knew that I was not interested in leading that kind of life. I'm just not that kind of person. There's nothing about that life that appeals to me. I guess it's an attractive enough notion to be in a position to get things done, that would be fun and challenging. But I'm no good at asking people for money, to get back to our campaign finance angle. It's not me, it's not my personality, it's not my life.

MR: You're probably contributing more by choosing the path you did.

RR: You do what you can do I guess. As I've told people before, I can't really be elected to any high office because I'm an atheist, and as we know, Americans won't elect an atheist to any high office. And I don't think I'd be a very good local politician because I don't know anything about local issues most of the time. You don't want me running your city or being in charge of your utilities or any of that.

MR: With all the current disillusionment in the way our government has been run for so long, what is your advice to anyone entering politics who wants to make a real difference?

RR: Well, cinch it up real tight because you're going to be buffeted by the forces of compromise, and I'm not talking about political compromise. I'm talking about compromise in principle. You can see some people in Congress today like Anthony Weiner from Brooklyn, New York, talk about health care, and, you know, Alan Grayson. He's ruffled some feathers, I know, and he gets right up in people's faces, but he seems to be doing stuff from the heart. There's Bernie Sanders, I talk to him a lot on our show. He seems to have his head screwed on right. These are people who follow their own principles, and they've probably gone about as far as they're going to go in politics being members of Congress. I would look to those folks who have identified principles they're willing to run on and stand on and do so consistently.

I was alarmed back in 2004 after the presidential election with Bush being re-elected. Nancy Pelosi, I believe it was, came out and said, "Well, the democrats have to sit down and decide what principles we really want to focus on." I thought, "My God, this is a woman who is in her sixties, she's been in government for a long time, and she's now saying we have to identify the principles that are important to us? Didn't you do that before you ran the first time?" What is wrong with THAT picture. So I would say identify those principles before you run. Make those the reasons you want to run, don't approach a career in politics as a sort of, "I'll see what happens when I get there, and I'll make it up on the fly," or anything like that. You need to know what you're all about before you set out on that first campaign.

MR: Congressman Alan Grayson sure did invigorate the health care debate with his passion.

RR: All too often, democrats play this soft game where it's always, "My friend across the aisle." Decorum is fine, but the fact of the matter is, half the time, they're not your friend, they don't wish the best for you, and half the time, they don't wish the best for the American people either. It's time to stop playing footsie with some of these people. There are some destructive forces out there in government, and they need to be confronted, and they need to be revealed for what they are. The corruption has to be exposed, the disinformation, the lies that are coming, health care being the obvious example--death panels, and all that kind of stuff. I mean that was such an obvious lie that was being told, and it needs to be exposed and those people need to be confronted in no uncertain terms. No more of this "my friend" and "we differ on..." kind of stuff. How about, "Congressman or Senator So-And-So is telling you a lie." If THAT'S the truth, it needs to be spoken.

Firelight: SNL's 'Twilight' Parody (VIDEO)

2009-11-08T08:44:44Z

Taylor Swift hosted SNL last night, and got in on the "Twilight" fun by teaming up with Andy Samberg and crew to bring us the world premiere of the "Firelight" trailer. In the sketch, Taylor falls in love with a Frankenstein (aka a "frank") despite the pressure from her normal world.

WATCH:

Seth Meyers & Amy Poehler Go Off On Goldman Sachs (VIDEO)

2009-11-08T08:40:25Z

While thousands of at-risk Americans wait, some big Wall Street banks have already secured the in-demand swine flu vaccine for their employees. Goldman Sachs has received 200 doses -- the same amount as Lenox Hill Hospital.

Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler devoted their segment "Really?!? With Seth And Amy" to the subject last night,

SETH: I mean I know that to you guys swine flu is almost as terrifying as drinking tap water or sending your kids to public school but really?

AMY: Can you not read how mad people are at you? When most people saw the headline 'GOLDMAN SACHS GETS SWINE FLU VACCINE' they were super happy until they read the word 'vaccine.'

SETH: Also, Centers for Disease Control, you sent the vaccine to Wall Street before schools and hospitals? Really? Were you worried the swine flu might spread to the Hamptons and St. Barts? These are the least contagious people in the world. They don't even touch their own car-door handles.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Taylor Swift Spoofs Kanye, Kate Gosselin On SNL (VIDEO)

2009-11-08T08:31:09Z

Taylor Swift, host of this week's 'Saturday Night Live,' didn't spend much time addressing Kanye West's stage storming incident. She made brief mention in an opening song that included all the topics she doesn't want to talk about.

"You might be expecting me to say something about Kanye and how he ran up on the stage at the VMAs," she sang. "But there's nothing more to say, 'cause everything's OK. I've got security lining the stage."

She also referenced her nasty breakup with Joe Jonas:

"You might think I'd bring up Joe Jonas, that guy who broke up with me on the phone, but I'm not gonna mention him in my monologue. Hey Joe, I'm doing real well. Tonight, I'm hosting SNL but I'm not gonna brag about that in my monologue. La la la. Ha ha ha. La la la."

Later she spoofed Kate Gosselin, complete with reverse mullet, on 'The View.'

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!

SNL Mocks Fox's Election Coverage, Glenn Beck's Spelling Problems (VIDEO)

2009-11-08T07:59:34Z

"Saturday Night Live" opened last night with a sketch lampooning Fox News's election coverage. Yes, the 2009 elections dominated cable news coverage consisted of exactly two gubernatorial races and two congressional seats, but that didn't stop Fox News from spinning it as a referendum on Obama's presidency.

SNL's sketch focused on a panel lead by Greta Van Susteren (aptly played by Kristen Wiig) of three conservative voices and Joe Trippi, representing all Democrats. The latter was not called on to speak once.

At one point, Greta threw to Glenn Beck--Jason Sudeikis's greatest role to date--who was crying, trying on hats, and having linguistic problems on a chalk board. "Oh, and Greta, I also realized you could rearrange the letters of your name to spell 'A Great' and it was a great night--a great great night for a great great nation."

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!