Colbert New Comic-in-Chief 939
scottzak writes "Hail to the Chief! Stephen Colbert addressed the White House Correspondents Dinner Saturday (attended by the President, the elite of Washington politics, and the White House Press Corps) and told the truth. Jaws dropped. Eyes popped. The live audience gasped. Scalia laughed his ass off. You want to see a brilliant comic display some real courage? Look no further. Enjoy the reaction shots, and Colbert's audition for Press Secretary job." The BBC covers the act just prior to Mr. Colbert's, where the President and a look-alike took turns making fun of his speaking skills.
Poor Colbert? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's sad is, once he does say it how it is, he loses the room...
Re:John Amato's C&L blog? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really quite fascinating (Score:5, Insightful)
Well done.
Isn't it funny? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:John Amato's C&L blog? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, no, I think you've nailed it already.
Re:John Amato's C&L blog? (Score:1, Insightful)
On the other hand, for most people a source is biased if they disagree with it. "Biased" is short-hand for "I don't like it". In politics, it's *very hard* to find an unbiased source, if at all possible. Why does it even matter and in which way does it affect the video?
Re:Funny? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignore the fact that Bush violates the law and constitution.
Kill the messenger, ignore the message. I'm sure those are tomorrows talking points.
The best part about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad that nobody will hear about this except the people who read Slashdot, the people who watch Comedy Central, and the people who watch C-SPAN on saturday night. In other words, the exact people who are most likely to already agree with what Colbert is saying. Everybody else, well, everybody else will just hear about that part the BBC covered-- you know, the bit where Bush demonstrated what a down-to-earth, wouldn't-you-just-love-to-have-a-beer-with-me kind of guy he was by getting up on stage with a body double and deliberately mispronouncing words.
Which means Colbert's little song and dance here doesn't really matter. All right, so somebody criticized the president to his face for the first time in four years. (No, Kerry at the 2004 debates doesn't particularly count.) Okay, so what? The 32% who still approve of Bush's job-- who are, after all, the only people who matter-- won't hear about this, and if they hear about it, they won't listen. The 2006 elections still will go to the Republicans, because even if everyone gets pissed off at Mr. Bush, they still won't like the incompetent, spineless democrats any better.
The Republicans will continue to hold congress after 2006; nobody will ever investigate any of the laws Bush has broken; Bush will quietly leave office in 2008, Iraq will someday eventually get electricity and running water, and talk show hosts and revisionists will nostalgically talk about what a great leader Bush was until nobody remembers him as anything other than a second Reagan. (And how well do you remember the Reagan administration? Yup, that's what I thought.) Nobody will remember that freakish, depressing third half of the Bush presidency where major american cities were destroyed and the President was admitting to impeachable offenses on national television and nobody did anything about it. Everyone will just remember that first, inspiring part of the Bush presidency after september 11, when Bush said that God told him how to lead the country, and everyone believed him.
Filter motherfucker, do you speak it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Strong precedence (Score:2, Insightful)
This is exactly the role that court jesters used to play. The only way for bureaucrats and lesser functionaries to get bad news and criticism to the King without losing their heads was to do the job with humor.
Just yet another step down the slippery slope to a Constitutional monarchy.
It wasn't just embarassing for Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Watch it, enjoy it, believe it (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, just fear from Bush supporters to allow criticism of Bush. I'm conservative, and I have some major reservations with Bush - but too many of my GOP friends really can't stand discussion. It is too bad that news agencies are too afraid to print accurate criticisms. Though with all the NSA wiretapping [google.com] and executive gag orders [eff.org] who can blame them?
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2, Insightful)
in case you haven't been keeping tabs on the "news", as it's so quaintly and nostalgially called, yes it has!.. doesnt that suck?
i mean if we had real news not only would this story not be in its current place, but neither would bush, our troops, or the DMCA be in their current place.
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's really quite fascinating (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:watch Colbert Report instead (Score:5, Insightful)
He made some brilliant remarks up there - and he held no punches. The "Scott McClellan can say nothing like nobody else" was terrific.
I hope this inspires more people to have the balls to say what they feel and know about the tyranny that has strangled this nation.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference between this and traditional presidential roasts (and I've seen more than a few - CSAN nerd here) is that this did not lampoon one or two or ten aspects of the Bush administration, but mocked it's very existence and legitimacy. To his face. In front of the Washington elite. For 30 solid uniterrupted minutes. Think about it: it's the difference between "Slick Willy got a BJ! Ha ha!" and "Monica knows the Clinton administration as well as everybody else - it leaves a bad taste in your mouth!"
Re:It's really quite fascinating (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, have you seen how horrible a job he is doing? 2/3 of the country disapproves of his job and, as Stephen said, the last 1/3 is backwash anyway. It is our job to call him on his wrong doings and try to get this country back in line.
Re:Isn't it funny? (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, doing exactly what he took them to task for doing?
More points for Colbert.
Re:Funny? (Score:2, Insightful)
If it bends its funny.... (Score:2, Insightful)
and I distinctly heard a snap.
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Liberal Bunk (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, fuckwit, who are YOU to tell God what to do? DEMANDING of God something? The PROPER phrase is, "MAY God bless XXX".
That is key. Anyone who demands things of God is a shithead. Whenever you see someone saying "God bless" without the proper qualification... well, you can safely discard anything else they have to say, for they are truly spiritually retarded, and are probably nothing more than a drone.
This cracked me up (Score:5, Insightful)
I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
medioc
I watched the bit live on TV after I got sick of listening to the draft coverage. I don't blame most of the dignitaries for not paying much attention. His whole presentation must have gone on for 20 minutes or more, with 6-7 minutes of it being about that crazy (and fugly) White House reporter that always asks really stupid questions. Well this bit had him running across the entire Eastern seaboard just to get away from her questions about Iraq. Ok... I can understand turning that into a 30-60 second clip, since there were a few funny parts, but the remaining 5:50 was just him running and screaming. It was very underwhelming. There was actually almost a minute of him fumbling with his keys, trying to get it unlocked and started, just for the punchline of realizing he had remote keyless entry (funny, but not worth 60 seconds of leadup).
As for the rest of his jokes, there were a few good ones, but they came after listening to a handful of poor ones. I actually wondered outloud to my wife that his normal writers must have been unavailable.
Keep in mind when you watch the video that 99% of the guests at the press dinner were press, meaning they probably agreed with most of the things he said. However, there was audible laughing only a handful of times during the whole presentation. It was really a poor comedy routine to say the least, even if it did "stick it to the Administration".
I totally agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Right on man. If he had lampooned Clinton for screwing up the war in Iraq, having a low approval rating, or generally being incompetent, no one would have found it funny. It's such a total double standard that it doesn't apply the other way around.
Seriously though, you don't need to *disguise* a GWB bash-o-thon as humor. It *is* humor.
Self-mockery: an American tradition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really! I've been saying that one thing that sets Canada apart from our important southern neighbOUrs is that we regularly have our leaders immolate themselves on the pyre of national comedy television, and you'll not see something like that in the land of the brave. I mean, it isn't entirely a hair shirt kind of penance that GW did, since it was an elite gathering for the Gang, and not explicitly a guest appearance at one's own national skewering, like Chretien letting Rick Mercer put extra pepper on his burger (Jean once commented on the pepper sprayings at APEC that he just liked it on his steak).
Giving Colbert the lectern without a trap door, and doing the mumbling chimp routine with his doppleganger, that really took cojones. I haven't had that much political fun since Mary Walsh got Chretien to whack her with a golf club, in his own office.
"By the way Mr. President, thanks for agreeing to be on my show" --one of the jokes. I mean why not? It's not like he doesn't have time. The guy gets more holidays than a perfesser.
Re:It's really quite fascinating (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank God for people like Colbert, who hasn't let himself be intimidated into silence like so many in the media and even the general public have.
State Secrets Privilege + EFF v. AT&T = (Score:5, Insightful)
One witness, one expert, and a few internal documents filed, and Bush asserts a State Secrets Privilege; the lawsuit cannot continue. What did he not want us to know?
I don't know how to connect the dots any more obviously. If you don't smell a rat, I suggest you update your BS detector.
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ [eff.org]
Colbert's humor is not for everyone... (Score:2, Insightful)
I for one find Colbert hillarious. His tone is such that you can never figure out exactly what he's saying and, with this particularly anal-retentive crowd, their confused reactions were priceless and precisely the mood his comedy hopes to invoke. That uncomfortable, "did-he-really-say-that", "am-I-supposed-to-laugh?", "is-this-politically-correct?", "Is-he-making-fun-of-me-or-agreeing-with-me?" tension was all too apparent and I got a real laugh out of it.
Colbert's comedy hinges on making people feel uncomfortable. The people who get it are the people who aren't offended yet somehow enjoy seeing others squirm. Count me in.
Re:It wasn't just embarassing for Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
In honor of Colbert's speech, I went and saw "V for Vendetta" again, and it's even better the second time. Given it's relatively lukewarm box-office numbers, here's hoping it does better on DVD. "Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November... The gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason why the gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot..."
Re:Stephen was bang on... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they didn't laugh at what Colbert said because a lot of it cuts pretty close to home for those sitting in attendance. Case and point - when Colbert thanked the press for all the hard work they did during Bush's first term ignoring all his lies and misdeeds.
Re:It's really quite fascinating (Score:1, Insightful)
We have been out to dinner for years now. Colbert just said "Check please."
Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars... (Score:5, Insightful)
Colbert's routine reminded me a lot of Jon Stewart's performance at the Oscars (one of the only times I've ever even watched). What I saw that night was a decent and funny performance delivered to a crowd that was so full of itself that it could not emit a laugh. They were present for awards sans comedy.
In Colbert's case, though, the crowd was most certainly attending for comedy. However, I think their blank stares were the result of hearing something they'd rather not. The dinner is always a roast and fun is always "poked." But... I think perhaps this went to a new level.
I see one of two possibilities. One is that Colbert misjudged his audience and that's why his routine did not do well. Or, Colbert recognized that he was given a rare opportunity to speak directly to the President, in a public setting, and in a place where the President could not simply leave. *If* that is the case, then yes, it did take balls. Huge balls.
Of course, unless Colbert actually comes out at some point in the future and makes known what his intentions were that night, we may never really know.
I have to wonder what I might do in such a situation. Like many Americans, I do hold a certain respect for the office of the President, or for any elected office, I suppose. It's that respect which keeps most (though it seems less so lately) political discourse civil. But surely there comes a time when transgressions like Bush's reach a point where you need to take a stand, respectable office or no.
Maybe this dinner was one of those times.
Re:The best part about this (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason the Democrats will lose the White House again in 2008 is because they keep deluding themselves that only religious nutbags can possibly vote for a Republican. The Democrat Party is slowly but steadily losing its core, and if doesn't do something to stop the hemorrhage, the only thing left in a few years will be the fuzzy lunatic fringe. It's almost as if they want a single party state for the entire next generation.
Re:Cajones (Score:5, Insightful)
Somtimes the truth gets to be so rare that you are shocked and praised for speaking it at a public forum. Sad but true.
Re:Cajones (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference is in the amount of pure effort that has gone into insulating Redneck Nero from JUST this sort of criticism. As someone else pointed out, the clowning at this event is usually limited to the daily goofs (Cheney's malfunctioning aimbot, 'Bushisms,' terrist pretzels) and not policy.
He stepped out of that box and took the opportunity to lay it out. It may not be his best work, but he got to say his piece without it being filtered before reaching Bush. That's a worthy accomplishment, regardless of whether the format is nervous and somewhat weakly-written comedy or an organized protest.
All of this assumes, of course, that he's not SO stupid that he thinks Colbert was being sincere.
Re:It's really quite fascinating (Score:5, Insightful)
On a level deeper, though, Steven gets to say thing as the commentator that he couldn't just stand up in front of that crowd and say. He gets to say what he really believes, only say it in a way that's funny when coming out of the mouth of Colbert the pundit.
Example: he's asking the president why he wasn't considered for the part of the white house press secretary. At which point, he stares right at the audience and says "I have nothing but contempt for these people". Look at his face when he says it. He's playing it for laughs, but he's deadly serious. He has nothing but contempt for those people. Meanwhile, they laugh... they LAUGH... because ha, ha.. he's lampooning O'Reilly. Except he's not.
You can see that same mechanism in effect in several of his "jokes". He really is pushing wickedly vicious attacks at the president and the press, and they can't decide whether to laugh or not, because they aren't sure what level to take it at.
I thought it was brilliant -- he was able to attack them savagely, and still come across like he was tossing softballs. Amazing.
NY Times (Score:5, Insightful)
The Times can hardly be called a part of the great right wing conspiracy - so one must conclude that Colbert has pissed off the media establishment, rather than the conservative political establishment. Wait, I mean "as well as" the conservative political establishment.
When you think about it, he's the only guy other than John Kerry who's had the opportunity to stand (effectively) face to face with Bush and tell him what he really thinks of 6 years of lousy policies. And he did a much better job than Kerry.
I get it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually no. Witty satire has often been an important part of exposing the public to political movements. (I've always been a fan of G.K. Chesterton) Your comment reminds me of a recent Article by ol' Dvorak:
Some of what he said was your basic "good old days" ranting, but lets face it, if you're going to challenge people you've got to amuse them too. It should be a sin to be as boring as the modern news; playing stories that don't offend, don't challenge, and are remarkably similar to the same stories they played last week. You know, the ones that got the big ratings.Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
No one has EVER stuck it to the President and the rest of the government this seriously at this event. EVER. Not even close. Not to say no one would, but has a comedian ever had THIS much material? And considering how aggressive the material was, I doubt many would have the guts.
Cheers to Stephen Colbert for not pulling any punches, which no one has ever done at this event.
signed - mindless sycophant that actually has some perspective on the event.
Re:John Amato's C&L blog? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny? (Score:1, Insightful)
All my thinking conservative friends are busy bashing Bush as my liberal friends are... because they can see how horrible he is, and because they're not complete hypocrites. They're embarassed by this completely inarticulate, incompetent man and his completely corrupt cronies who are destroying their party and thumbing their noses at the very essence of what it means to be 'conservative'. Bashing Bush doesn't necessarily make you liberal, it just means you're paying attention.
Re:I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I totally agree (Score:5, Insightful)
If Clinton was in the same situation as Bush I think the press would be pretty harsh on him. We are talking about a President that was impeached because he lied about getting a blowjob. Also people make jokes about Clinton to this day, until Bush he was the most lampooned President. However if he had made the same mistakes as Bush he would have been impeached and convicted, I am pretty sure of that.
seriously. (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-01-la
This year's commentary was a bit more biting than usual, and it actually targetted the correspondents (and not Bush) a bit more than usual. Net result: a wash.
Re:Funny? (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't that funny, although it attracted headlines for saying rather vulgar things about the president [which later turned out to be true].
Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At (Score:5, Insightful)
Political Parties are not where it's at. It never was and never will be. And by "it", I mean answers for the future.
In his farewell address as President, the other George (Washington), warned us against political parties. And since then, we promptly split into party lines:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democra
Have political parties ever spearheaded any worthwhile movement? Woman's suffrage? Civil Liberties? Hell, even Slavery? Not, if it cost them votes or it became the "right thing to do" with the public, meaning they got so late into the game as not to make a difference any longer. Look what parties make of issue these days to see the lack of courage in Washington to take any definitive action.
Have political parties caused you to stop looking at who you are voting for, and instead make you vote down the party line? Congratulations, you played into their hands. Are all Republicans really that bad, as to be always worse than their Democratic counterparts? Or the other way around?
Will it matter if the Democrats come in? Other than unions, won't they get funded by the same corporations as long as they follow corporate interests? And they will.
Hell, Jesse Ventura was one of the better Governors that there was in a long time. I wouldn't have believed it if I haven't seen it, but he was. And he was independent and not a career politician.
Why can't we vote more people like him in?
Think Independent. And Vote Independent. The parties won't fix jack shit. They have all their fingers smeared by the same pie and are beholden to the same interests.
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cajones (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush shows a remarkable lack of sophistication in thought which is clearly evidenced by his unflinching, unquestioning adherance to bullshit evangelical superstition, and the inherent insecurity for those that do not; his apparent inability to concieve of the concept of personal responsibility; a total and utter disregard for the concepts of honor, truth, fidelity, and courage; his demonization of intelligence itself...
The list goes on, but if I haven't made the point by now, going further won't do any good anyway. So no, it has nothing at all to do with his accent.
[0]Admittedly, I have a common Yankee failing in that I have a soft spot for a girl with a Georgia accent...
Re:Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash."
(regarding Bush's polls)
He had a chance to say things he felt needed to be said, and he took it... No doubt about it.
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:2, Insightful)
- V for vendetta
In the case of the Oscars (Score:3, Insightful)
As for Colbert, I think they just didn't know what they were getting in to. To me, he seemd right in character. Ok, so maybe it was a little more biting than his normal show, but not much. I can't believe the Whitehouse was stupid enough to invite him. Have you seen the man's show? He is not kind to this administration. If they didn't like it, too bad, it needed to be said and they should have known what they were getting. Get a standup comic if you want someone to come play the fool for the event, but stay away from Comedy Central's satirists.
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars... (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, the point is, don't let respect for the office silence your criticism of the office holder. The two are separate and the holder of the office should not be allowed to bismirch it, or in time neither will be worth respecting.
Re:Isn't it funny? (Score:2, Insightful)
It was also a criticism of the press corps, which is more warranted than a criticism of Bush IMO.
If the main question was "why did we invade Iraq?" delivered by the lovely Helen Thomas, then this guy was bluntly disrespectful to the President, to his face.
I doubt anyone who's ordered men to their deaths in combat is happy to have those decisions mocked. That President Bush "didn't smile" when he met Colbert later is unsurprising.
I'm sure the decision to invade Iraq wasn't an easy one. There is also a clear history on Iraq's part of a) possessing WMD, b) defying the UN and its inspectors, and c) supporting terrorism. Let's also not forget that by all accounts, fewer are dying in Iraq now than did under Saddam Hussein. It is also a good thing that a full democratically elected government has just been formed.
In the long run, I think you'll find that Bush turns out much like Reagan. Unpopular during his time in office, but in retrospect he'll be viewed as a good president who actually made a positive difference in the Middle East.
Court jester (Score:2, Insightful)
What courage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it funny? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's really quite fascinating (Score:5, Insightful)
because our soldiers can't take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner.
because the families who have lost husbands, wives, daughters, and sons to the war can't take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner.
because the Iraqi people can't take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner.
because reality doesn't stop for everyone else while you're safe at home.
Re:It's really quite fascinating (Score:4, Insightful)
You're reading way too much into "his face". That's his shtick, he always says his jokes with a straight face (and succeeds most of the time). I wouldn't read too much into it (like he really really means it this time).
I'll say it here, but it applies to many many of the other posts I've read today - this is not a great political statement he has made. It was a comedian act, in an event that hosts such act every year. He's a comedian. He was invited to this event to deliver political humor in front of political-aware people, and he delivered. Trust me, nobody (president included) lost sleep over it. Nobody in the press reported on it, because it's NOT NEWSWORTHY. It was fun to watch though.
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:5, Insightful)
Inherently contradictory. If any media source has no responsibility to do anything other than report whatever they want, then as a media source, Jon Stewart has no responsibility to do anything other than report whatever he wants, including the idea that media sources have responsibility to do things other than report whatever they want.
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Courage??? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the lies and deceit of our current administration that has put them in harms way. Which has forced our military into a situation where we can't simply pull out, because it would make matters worse then BEFORE we went into Iraq? Duhbyah's father KNEW this. He even wrote a paper or two on it. One of which was published in Time Magazine.
It ALSO takes bravery and courage to speak out in the current climate of this country and government. To point out the lies and deceit of this current administration spurn hatred and argument. If this continues and the laws that continue to be put forth (some pass) which deny civil liberties it is only a matter of time before speaking out WILL be a crime.
I think lines have been drawn and at this point and no one wants to concede. The facts point out everything, but a vast section of this country doesn't want to admit they are wrong.
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:5, Insightful)
The United States is too large with too many things going on at once for us to educate ourselves. I for one am not about to move to Washington, D.C. and spend my time listening to Congressional briefings, White House press conferences, etc. to hear news from the horse's mouth. I have a family and a job. I rely on the news media to present information to me that I do not have time to collect for myself.
The important thing is to learn how to read and to listen. I read multiple news sources, even the same story (which often is rehashed AP stuff, but can have a different slant). While I am reading I am thinking critically, asking myself questions: sure, the article says point A, but I think there's a valid counterpoint B: what are the facts here? Often enough, by reading carefully from multiple sources, I can piece together the whole picture. Another thing I've noticed is journalists like to slant the first sentence or paragraph heavily, setting the reader up to a particular point of view. Be careful with that. Another thing is often those counterpoints that might just break the whole article are left to the last paragraph. They can claim journalistic integrity by keeping it in there, but this has two effects. First, not everyone reads the whole article. If they do, they get the idea that since it's so far down it isn't important or maybe not even valid.
Don't blame the media for biased reporting, or the people for not speaking up. Blame people who trust blindly and don't learn proper communication skills. Reading and listening are far more important than writing and speaking, and in some ways, far more difficult.
Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Which shows how economic statistics are disconnected from the reality of working class life. To all except the ruling class, the peformance of the stock market matters much less than the size of one's weekly paycheck.
Unemployment may be low but underemployment is tremendous; it is not economic progress when after a factory closes, a skilled worker can only find a job stocking shelves at Wal-Mart with the very Chinese-prison-made goods that put his old employer out of business. Wages are not keeping up with inflation, and you can't conveniently exclude the gas pump (and heating fuel). More and more people can't afford health insurance, and real estate prices are so high that new home buyers are saddled with enormous mortgage payments.
Economically these aren't the worst of times, but they sure as hell aren't the best either.
Meanwhile the Bush administrations kills tens of thousands, engages in torture, violates civil liberties, and treats the Constitution with even more contempt than the past few presidents, essentially asserting that "Commander in Chief" means "Emperor" [boston.com]. In any sane society, it would be recognized that this man (who believes, you'll recall, that God speaks through him) would be institutionalized for his on protection and that of others.
ITMFA [impeachthe...lready.com].
What's interesting too is... (Score:3, Insightful)
I watched the whole thing and let me tell you, you could almost sense that he was really trying to make a point when saying things like "guys like us, we get it, right Mr. President?"
To see a person stand there and do an ironic inpersonation of one of the president's supporters so obvious so poignently while the President was in the same room was almost overpowering. My question is: did the administration think that he was going to tone his act down, or did they really not get the joke of the show to begin with? I couldn't help but think someone was going to catch hell for letting Colbert host the show.
This performance coupled with the one from Jon Stewart on Crossfire make up the two best live TV moments I've seen in the last few years.
I'm becoming convinced that Jon Stewart and associates are the last people remaining with balls in the TV/media realm.
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:1, Insightful)
How far we've come in the past 10 years.
In the mid-1990s, such a statement [reason.com] would have gotten you branded as a right-wing terrorist sypathizer [reason.com] by the popular media and entertainment establishment. Now it's considered patriotic dissent.
- - - - -
- - - - -
It's almost funny how people complaining about the "new wave of McCarthyism [google.com]" during the Bush adminsitration couldn't lap up enough of it during the previous one. But then, it was their guy in charge, which is more important than any principle.
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:1, Insightful)
As long as people want to respect a President like a King, it won't work. It simply won't work.
While I concede anarchy is stupid, blind reverence is, too! Remember the President is there to serve the people, not otherwise.
The man is wrong and you are supporting him! Who's worse: the dumb or the one who follows the dumb?
Now, think about one thing: I'm a foreigner and can call GW dumb. Are you, as a free citizen, able to do the same? Oh, yeah, you could, but you just don't want, huh? And smoker can quit smoking easily, too...
Colbert is nervous and that tells a lot about him and the USA:
1. He's a very courageous fellow, a reason for pride among Americans. Wish I had a fellow countryman of such boldness. He made History. Simply that.
2. America is fouled up since McCarthy. The system used to attack individuals in public! As long as we have people like Colbert, democracy still got a chance.
There's evil outside the US and inside. And they're acting together.
Good people inside and outside would better start acting, too.
Re:Colber and Stewart should not be needed (Score:1, Insightful)
And the Democrats have ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, Time, Newsweek, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.
But the problem with today's media is Fox News.
Re:It's really quite fascinating (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to imply that because he is a commedian this is not a great political statement.
That is a complete non sequitur. If you really believe it, do please adduce some evidence for it. Please note that the proposition you must defend is not "some commedians are incapable of great political statements" but rather "ALL commedians are incapable of great poltiical statments, and NO commedy act is capable of great political statement." I believe, given the many counter-examples, you will find it very, very hard to create a rational, fact-based defense.
Many commedians have made great political statements, and Stephen Colbert has just taken first place in their ranks. He spoke the raw truth, in public, to the face of power. With an administration that has lied and obfuscated its way through six disasterous years of unnecessary deficit and unjustified war, that is a great and wonderful thing.
Re:Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars... (Score:3, Insightful)
And that, sir, is one of the biggest problems facing this country today.
Regardless of what's been pounded into yours, mine, and your neighbors' brains ad-nauseum since the instant we were born, idolatry is bad in any form.
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true.
chewing out carlson just continues the idea that we are not to blame. [...] if anyone is "hurting america", it is stewart, for implying that any media source a responsibility to do anything other than report whatever they want.
That's ridiculous. The Crossfire guys weren't presenting themselves as entertainers; they were allegedly trying to do a serious political show. However, Stewart's critique [arstechnica.com] was that it was fake journalism, a hypocritical farce. I grant that consumers should eat Doritos responsibly, but that doesn't mean that Frito Lay can say that they fill your fruits and vegetables requirement.
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:5, Insightful)
courage? (Score:3, Insightful)
you wanna show some balls? speak out against saddam in pre-war iraq or go to north korea and "speak truth to power" about kim jong il.
i'm reminded of the "courage" of bullies who insult and assault docile amish who are twice their size knowing full well they will not fight back as a matter of principle.
Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact the country had already largely turned on the Vietnam war by the time he acted. It would have been a bit braver if he had exposed Vietnam as a failed policy a few years earlier. Cronkite did help take down LBJ but the war continued on for another 5 years before it was lost, so he didn't really make much of a difference.
In some respects it feels kind of like Iraq where the media didn't let out a whimper when the foundation was laid for the bloody and expensive disaster, they waited until it was obviously a bloody mistake and now they are piling on against it now that its too late to do anything about it (i.e. the two options now being stay the course or withdraw and watch Iraq explode in civil war).
"When Edward R. Murrow brought down McCarthy he was lionized."
On Murrow you are totally misrepresenting reality. Murrow, Friendly, "See it Now" and others at CBS paid a dear price for what they did.
Don Hollenbeck, was another CBS news anchor who lauded Murrow's attack on McCarthy on air. He was eviscerated by right wing editorials for the next 3 months and branded as a communist. He then committed suicide in a gas oven.
Murrow and Friendly continued attacking sacred cows in that 1954-1955 season, including an expose on a Texas land scandal that infuriated their main sponsor, Alcoa, which pulled their funding and put the nail in the coffin for "See it Now".
Many of the people involved in the McCarthy expose were laid off.
Walter Pally and CBS corporate felt Murrow and Friendly overstepped their bounds on McCarthy and throughout their controversial 1954-1955 season and that they were making news rather than reporting it. They pulled See It Now from their prime time slot and stuck them on Sunday afternoon in a form of putting them out to pasture as they ran out their contract.
Murrow eventually became completely disillusioned with TV news, precisely because of the pressures to make it entertaining, profitable, to avoid controversy and to avoid alienating corprate sponsors.
What Murrow and Friendly did was brave beyond belief but the retaliation that followed created a precedent that served to discourage journalists and networks from attacking the power that be, especially when it involved their sponsors.
In a more recent CBS precedent there is Dan Rather's recent attempt to expose George W's borderline criminal National Guard record. Unfortunately they relied on a forged letter to support their story which was wrong. But
"they will hire some real reporters and we will receive some real news"
It would run completely counter to how news networks work today. They are competing for audience with 50 other TV channels, games, internet, etc. The only successful news shows are going to be the most sensationalist ones, pandering to what their audience wants to see, and most of their audience wants to see celebrity scandals. Most audience also have a massive case of cognitive dissonance, they want their news to reinforce their world view not disrupt it. Thats why Fox is the #1 cable network, lots of people watch Fox because Fox says what they want to hear, America #1 in particular.
Journalists can only attack Presidents when their poll numbers are in the toilet because then they know the majority of their audience wants them to attack the President then. When a President's poll numbers are riding high they generally dont touch them. Journalists are at the head of the like supportinh going to war as long as their is a patriotic fervor whipped up for it, and then journalists can turn against the war when it turns long, bloody and costly and the public has already started to turn on it, like Cronkite did.
Re:Well what the fuck did they expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
The other part of this is, I think Kristol from the weekly standard was being serious when he said he pushed for Colbert to be part of the show. Kristol does get Colbert's humor. I also think Kristol isn't really that much of a Bush fan but he has the street creds w/ the administration that when Kristol said something like conservative pro-bush satire, they didn't understand exactly what it meant.
On the other hand I still somewhat surprised the entire speech wasn't precleared by the whitehouse. To be honest, even the bush & bush 2 speech was pretty eviscerating, perhaps the whole thing actually was precleared and they are actually okay w/ it?
Re:Worth a watch (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed - with the stock market well over 10,000 and unemployment under 5%, it's an absolute disaster.
The number of murders of innocents by this administration in its mindless pursuit of greed and power.
They eat children, too!
And most scarey of all, if it was truly the American electorate, and not just those Diebold machines, which was responsible for the reelection of the most seriously moronic president in history!!!!!
No kidding! That wretched democratic process ought to be done away with. The people can't be trusted with that kind of power!
-h-
Re:Worth a watch (Score:5, Insightful)
Done away with? We'd have to have one first. The US is a Republic, which is a "representative democracy" - which in turn is an oxymoron.
There has never been a true democracy. Even in Athens only male, racially privileged land-owners were permitted to vote.
How would we actually know if the people could handle that kind of power or not? No people in recorded history have ever had it.
Re:Isn't it funny? (Score:3, Insightful)
"News for nerds. Stuff that matters." You think nerds only want news about nerdly things? Some of us do not have our heads completely up our asses and would like to know about the rest of the world, too.
Re:Worth a watch (Score:2, Insightful)
What's your big idea of how to handle Iran, now that they seem dead set on getting nuclear weapons?
Disastrous effects on the economy? I think you need to take an economics class. The economic news has been great. Just an example: http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php
As for the rest of your diatribe.... We get it. You don't like Bush. You attribute all that is wrong in the world to him.
You seem to have all the answers. I'd like to hear your ideas. See if you can actually do it without ripping on Bush. I seriously doubt you can.
Take your hate elsewhere.
Colbert Bombed (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush and Bush were hilarious.
Colbert was stunning the audience into silence. The audience was composed of White House Correspondents, hardly a conservative group. They didn't think he was funny. Everyone there politely tolerated Colbert's show because that's what is expected.
I watch The Colbert Report regularly and love his send up of O'Rielly. The problem was, he didn't make a good enough attempt to establish any credibility for his 'Pro-Bush' facade. By blowing that off and concentrating the entire show on anti-Bush rhetoric, he came off as a mean-spirited, crack-pot comedian with mild schizophrenia as his only redeeming gimick.
Bush killed, Colbert shilled.
Re:Worth a watch (Score:2, Insightful)
Please, one must always specifically define what they mean. I have seen post after post where people linked to BLS stats - two problems: BLS stats have been mightily revised over the past 10 years again and again - just study the daily listings over the previous 10 years, and, again those stats only reveal the number who are receiving unemployment bennies - which has been drastically altered over the pvious five to six years....
Re:Colbert Bombed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Worth a watch (Score:1, Insightful)
How 'bout some commone sense? I know the president has no use for facts
as he chooses "faith over facts" (go look it up, that is one of his
better ones, the ones that can't be chalked up to 'mis-speak' but actually
shed some light on the depths of his ignorance) but the rest of us may
find them interesting.
>>with the stock market well over 10,000
The stock market never has, nor ever will be, a meaningful indicator of
anything meaningful to the populace of this country. It is about as
significant as those numbers surrounding your CPU name, pretty pointless
in the bigger scheme of things and only meaningful when the other parts
of your system are taken into consideration. All these Bushies are basically
saying, "We are fine because we have a 9.9 GHz cpu..." never mentioning
(or even considering) that this is running against 8 Mb of memory...
>>unemployment under 5%
Another trickery. Take into account those who have given up on the job
market and then let's talk about how many jobs he has created. It would
pain the Bushies, but meaningful things like pay rates, pay-to-inflation,
and all those other things that actually make a figure like this mean
anything beyond, "Ain't he grand?"
>>They eat children, too
Ah yes, the famous "They aren't THAT bad, so they aren't bad" logic.
Not even worth the time. Ignore 10,000 deaths because noone got "eaten".
Disgusting.
The last comment is so brainless it is beyond comprehension. Not that
some dolt would try to make that 'point' but the fact that someone who
had their leader APPOINTED would make some flippant comment about the
sacredness of democracy.
The thing that truly terrifies me about this country is not Bush. It is
the 32% (haven't checked the latest figure for this hour) that are so
completely without objective thought.
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually I doubt that is the case either. What is it going to look like if Colbert dies or is seriously injured anytime soon? If I were Bush I would be praying that the man doesn't slip on a flight of stairs.
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is only partly true. Anybody can have opinions. But when you put a show on a news network with serious politicians, journalists, and writers running it, I think there's some obligation to make it a show with serious content. Crossfire is not and should not be Jerry Springer.
it should be apparent to everyone that if you are making decisions based on facts you heard from jackasses (including stewart) yelling at each other on crossfire, then the problem is yours, not theirs.
Those jackasses, as you call them, include a variety of senators, congressmen, ambassadors [cnn.com], and other political movers and shakers. Given that they are running the country, I want to hear what they have to say, and I want it in an environment where they will answer hard questions, not just spew talking points and stay "on message". European journalists still manage to do this; it's only here that hard questions have apparently become taboo.
Although Crossfire apparently used to be [wikipedia.org] that kind of show, I think we both agree that by the end it wasn't. You think that's fine. John Stewart didn't, and I happen to agree. If you don't like that, then by all means wallow in your talking points. (Or Jerry Springer; I'm not sure which you're promoting here.) There's plenty of that out there.
Re:Worth a watch (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a fiscal conservative, and this administration is one of the most recklessly irresponsible when it comes to fiscal matters that has ever held the office, coddling and enabling one of the most financially irresponsible and corrupt congresses ever. And it's pure Republican. Conservative? I don't think so.
I also believe in the rule of law. This administration flouts and belittles the rule of law at every turn. With over 750 "signing statements", Bush actually signs bills into law with one hand, while claiming he won't abide by it if he doesn't want to in the other. In a single stroke, he's seized the power of both the judicial and legislative branches, and utterly spit upon the concept of the separation of powers and the idea of checks and balances.
I also believe in putting the country and the welfare of its citizens above petty party politics... again, the opposite of this Administration and the Republicans currently in power, who are willing to commit treason to further their party's power and control and to prevent anyone from pointing out inconvenient truths.
I also believe in rational discussion and debate, in reality over dogma, in changing ideas and opinions to reflect new information and realities on the ground, and learning from mistakes. Again, all things this Administration eschews and even snears at. The steady stream of spin and deception, half-truths and out-right lies on all fronts from this Administration has been stunning. They lie right to your face, even when they know you know you're they're lying to you. It's utterly shameless.
It's not 'hate', it's utter disgust. It's outrage that these corrupt and incompentent jerks are getting away with destroying this country's credibility, destroying this country's economic future (with its massive debt and outrageous spending and borrowing more from foreign nations than all other admininstrations in this nation's history, COMBINED), shredding the constitution and our civil rights, utterly dismissing any environmental concerns or any sort of long-term thinking, the destruction of the very necessary and beneficial separation of church and state... the list goes on and on and on. In fact, it's hard to come up with any RATIONAL reason for anyone to support this administration. If a Democrat had done even half the things Bush has done (let alone said even a quarter of Bush's verbal goofs), Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. It's the hypocrisy that is the worst.
Maybe you shouldn't be mindlessly letting yourself be brainwashed by paid propaganda outlets like FOX News and Rush Limbaugh.
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot Moderation Bias (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:courage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:3, Insightful)
I really see very little difference between the US media and old-school Soviet Propaganda.
I see a big difference. In Soviet Russia they stopped swallowing the "truthiness" of their media.