By John Q. Hosedrinker 
David Letterman responded to Donald Trump’s recent attacks, particularly Trump’s comments about Letterman’s appearance. Letterman labeled Trump a “big tubby goofball” while discussing Jimmy Kimmel’s return to late-night television. Letterman critiqued Trump’s “lunatic behavior,” calling him a dictator and highlighting the “cowardice” he perceives in Trump’s attempts to influence late-night television. Letterman also emphasized Trump’s self-serving actions, asserting that Trump prioritizes his own interests above all else.
Read the original article here
David Letterman Sounds Off on ‘Big Tubby Goofball’ Trump: The Return of the King of Late Night Jabs
David Letterman’s recent comments about Donald Trump, specifically the phrase “big tubby goofball,” have ignited a flurry of reactions, and it’s easy to see why. For those who grew up with Letterman, the quip landed with a familiar resonance. It’s a callback to his signature brand of offbeat humor, the same kind that once famously labeled a baseball player a “fat tub o’ goo.” This isn’t a new tactic, but a continuation of his long-standing style: belittling, mocking, and, most importantly, getting under the skin of his target. This approach is designed to be a direct hit at Trump’s ego.
Letterman’s choice of words, particularly “goofball,” is significant. It’s a subtle insult, a way of undermining Trump’s carefully cultivated image of strength and power. It’s the kind of barb that’s likely to infuriate Trump more than a direct, harsh attack. He craves approval, especially from the kind of people who have traditionally been associated with the elite of America. This kind of commentary from Letterman is a classic David Letterman move. It’s a way of acknowledging Trump’s presence without directly engaging in the political theater.
Some find the “goofball” descriptor insufficient, a tame assessment of Trump’s actions and impact. They argue that it diminishes the gravity of his actions. They prefer harsher, more direct labels – “dictator,” “fascist,” or worse. There is a reasonable argument to be made that it’s too light a touch for such a serious subject. Yet, this misses the point of Letterman’s comedic approach. His humor isn’t always about direct confrontation; it’s about finding the absurdities and vulnerabilities in the situation.
In this context, it’s worth remembering that comedians often have a different relationship with public figures, even those they may disagree with. There seems to be a fascination with Trump among comedians, a sense of amusement and bewilderment that he is simply a comical figure. Trump himself, is often seen as an unintentional comedic genius. His mannerisms, his pronouncements, and his reactions all provide ample fodder for comedic commentary. Letterman’s “goofball” is just another offering in the comedic buffet.
The effectiveness of this type of ridicule is up for debate. Some believe that it’s a powerful tool against authoritarian figures, that it exposes their vulnerabilities. Others believe that such insults, no matter how well-crafted, will often not move the needle. However, it’s important to distinguish between Letterman’s role as a comedian and the roles of political commentators or news media. Letterman is not a news anchor, he’s a provocateur.
The core of Letterman’s persona is, and always has been, irreverence. He delights in poking fun at the powerful and the pompous, and Trump is a prime target for this kind of satire. For those who appreciate Letterman’s unique brand of humor, this is not a sign of weakness, but a testament to his comedic mastery. It’s a reminder of the late-night landscape he helped shape, where no one was truly safe from a well-aimed, absurd jab.
The fact that it may rile Trump is the point. The hope, of course, is that something as seemingly innocuous as “goofball” makes him lose it. Letterman knows what he’s doing. He’s leveraging his decades of experience in the art of comedic humiliation. In the context of a comedian, it’s not necessarily about changing minds; it’s about creating moments of shared absurdity.