I totally agree about Tiger and Phil's long-term records not being commensurate with their skill levels. I think part of the blame lies with them not rising to the moment, and partly with the 'traditional' approach the U.S. captains (not just Sutton) had in the past. I think more of it had to do with the Euros just being hungrier and more familiar / comfortable in the format and having a smoother team management approach.
My example of Toms and Furyk (both excellent at making pars / avoiding bogies) in fourball speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of what's important in that format. As the Euros got more competitive and deeper with talent, it was no longer enough to just be a top-ranked stroke play golfer and waltz over there and play a few rounds together before the event. Match play is not stroke play and fourball / foursomes is even different. When the U.S. had a huge edge in relative talent depth no extra thinking or planning was needed to win. As the Euro team got stronger, the U.S. side failed to adjust / adapt its thinking.
The thing is, it WAS a joke!. Sure, many (most?) Americans don't like being on the receiving end of joking stereotypes, but it was a joke. Anyone too dim to realize it was a joke deserves to be made fun of! Anyone who looks around and doesn't see at least a few people who fit the stereotypes that were used isn't really looking. I think this bit from Andrew Johnson, printed in Golf Digest this month, is pretty appropriate:
To me, the Tiger/Phil partnership was a too big to fail type situation. If they won, they should have, but if somehow the European beat them the momentum they would get from beating the #1 and #2 player in the world would be enormous. I think it could have only worked in the European's team favor.
This combined with your spread the wealth comment made it a very poor choice.