Thank you, Stephen Colbert

Remove all ads!

From http://www.thankyoustephencolbert.org :

Colbert Lampoons Bush At White House Correspondant Dinner

And it gets better. the Thank You site has video as well as links to other articles.

All I can say is go Colbert.

 

Hehe, funny stuff. Bushie didn't look too happy, did he?

 

it's kind of hard to weather insults when you live in an insolated world where everyone sees things the way you do and you make sure the "public" events you attend are attended by card carrying republicans only.

 

I think we can officially let the myth of the liberal media die now.

Not one major newspaper or online news service is covering this story. NOT ONE. Whether you agreed with what he said or not, what Colbert did is nothing short of remarkable. In Bush's sheltered little world of pre-screened audiences, aide-filtered news and phony photo-ops in place of actual leadership, I daresay this is the first time anyone has hoisted Bush up by his own petard to his face and in public. Bush's reaction was so pissy not because he was being made fun of. It was because nobody talks to Bush that way. EVER.

Part of Colbert's point with all that is that the media are all in the tank, and take it WAY too easy on Bush. The fact that no one in the mainstream press carried the story is further evidence of that. Liberal media, my ass.

It's funny - if you cruise through both the left and right sides of the blogosphere, Dems are hailing it as incredibly brave and long overdue; an "emporer is wearing no clothes" kind of thing. Conservative Bush supporters are dismissing it with "Some comedian nobody's ever heard of, Stephen Colbert, totally bombed last night. You could have heard crickets." Despite the fact that there is plenty of laughter (and uncomfortable silences), and Colbert's show is a huge Comedy Central hit. Cognitive dissonance must be tons of fun.

 

Even the BBC didn't make much of it, writing only two paragraphs about it, and using the less-offensive jokes. CNN worte more than the BBC.

Cowering buggers...

 

I hate to burst your bubbles, but this was comedy, not political jousting or insults. There's a very good reason why this didn't make it into the news: it isn't news. Comedians make jokes like this all the time, most of them better than what Colbert comes up with, and they certainly don't belong on the news either. Colbert's real strength is making himself the target of his own jokes by playing the part of the idiot from the group he's making fun of.

The really telling thing about this, though, is the President's (and others') reaction to the jokes. To take what is meant in humor seriously as an insult shows that you harbor regrets (or at least a weak spot) about what the jokes are addressing. I'd say not so much "Go Colbert", but instead "Ha!" at the President.

 

No, Fel - I don't think you're getting it. Of course it's "just comedy," but this is different from anything we've seen before. This was comedy done TO THE PRESIDENT'S FACE, and was bitingly accurate. And it was done in a setting where the President couldn't respond, he just had to sit there and take it. The man surrounds himself with sycophants and ass-kissers. No one criticizes him for ANYTHING. And Colbert did just that, completely soap-box free. The fact that Bush was CLEARLY insulted and pissed off IS news.

Laura Bush making a joke last year about Bush trying to milk a male horse got TONS of press coverage. Same with the year before where Bush did the whole "where are the WMD's? Under the couch?" bit. The White House Press Correspondants dinner usually makes news the next day, especially if something semi-remarkable happened. A keynote speaker laying into the President by pointing out precisely how ridiculous his administration is, all under the guise of a persona that's a blatant FOX news/Bill O'Reilly parody (and both were in the room), is pretty remarkable.

 

I agree with DR. And unlike the other case of someone mocking him (http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/34/363.html) or questioning him, he did not back himself up. Right on, Mr. Colbert.

 

My brother just reminded me of something, which sucks the wind right out of your point, Fel.

Don Imus, syndicated New York radio jock, not only did the same thing to Clinton as the keynote speaker at the same event, but was just as blunt and brutal. It stayed in the news cycle for a good 3 or 4 days.

Strangely, people didn't yack about the so-called "liberal media" quite as much back then, when the press took nearly every opportunity to print something bad about Clinton. He never dipped below 40% approval despite it, even at the hight of Monica-gate. Bush has been drifting in the mid 30's for the last few months now despite a timid and play-ball press.

From the speech, looking directly at Bush only a few feet away: "I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound -- with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world."

That was comedy about as much as a kick in the face with a golf shoe is saying "hello."

[ May 02, 2006, 06:28: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

*sigh* And which one would that be? The one you agreed with...

...or the OTHER one you agreed with?

(Of course, I wouldn't say it's TV news, but certainly newspaper news.)

Or am I just supposed to play the straw man so you can have your victory over Bush?

 

Actually, there are shows on Canadian Television that raise lampooning Politicians to an artform. I don't see too much of that in the US. Hat's off to Stephen Colbert for having the balls to go there.

But the President needs to hear from the half of the country that didn't vote for him. Sure, there are some things he can't compormise on, but he can't completely neglect them either...

 

Fel,

Not that I want to get into a pissing match with you, but...I must say how confused I am by your last response.

You made a point that this wasn't covered because it wasn't news, and I countered with the fact that the exact same thing happened to Clinton and it was considered news back then for a good 3 or 4 days. Was that unfair of me?

You made the point that this was no big deal because people criticize Bush all the time, and I countered that this IS a big deal because Bush insulates himself from criticism and hand-picks friendly audiences, and someone telling him off to his face is extremely rare. Was that unfair of me?

Pretty straight forward - you made a couple of points, I disagreed and countered. Point, counter - that's how we generally operate here. Do you suddenly have a problem with defending your own opinions? Why so pissy and thin-skinned? What the hell is your problem?

And do you even know what straw man means? Please show me how you think you're being made into one.

[ May 02, 2006, 08:12: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

No, we can't, because it's such an incredibly powerful tool for sidestepping criticism.

 

Fine, I'll spell it out for you if you're so determined to have a fight.

What Colbert did was in the spirit of comedy, as he said himself. This was not designed to directly attack the president, or to hurt his political career. It was made and delivered, first and foremost, for laughs. The fact that it failed to garner the desired laughs in certain parts only means that he didn't correct for his audience, or was a little off of his game (not unusual when it's your first VIP gig).

What Colbert did isn't news. It's the same stuff he's been doing for over a year now, IIRC, and the only things that have made it into the news are words he made up, like 'truthiness'. That the subject of his jokes was in the room doesn't make it any more spectacular or newsworthy.

What you should take away from this is Bush's reaction to it (as I spent the last half of my first post saying). That might be worthy of some small news, though it's hardly a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention.

Now, out of these three specific points, the ONLY three points I have made in this thread, which one did you 'refute'? Oh right, the two generalized points that you were talking about, that I wasn't. Or perhaps that straw man over there with a 'Fel' nametag made those points. (There's also the 'punching dummy' version of the straw man, where I'm just supposed to sit and take abuse without saying anything. I was referring to something of a mix of the two. Either way, it implies a defenseless "opponent".)

As for why I'm pissy...maybe it's because it's nearly two in the morning. Maybe it's because you ran full-tilt past me with your first post like a charging bull. Maybe because after I decided to let that go, you continued on by charging further away from me in your next post, while still invoking my name. Maybe it's spillover from another thread where I got f***ing sick and tired of being misquoted by a different a**hole and I'm taking it all out on you. Maybe I've just plain snapped and I'm planning to nuke the planet. Maybe I'm pissed at being restricted to language, which can never adequately explain ANY idea to the point where it can't be so easily misinterpreted even by an otherwise smart person. The list goes on, but I guess my point (hmm, would that be number four?) is that though the fuse may have been short, you lit it, and now I'm pissy. I'm also going to bed to try to remedy that. Good night.

 

What Colbert did was most certainly not in the spirit of comedy. Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are political operatives in the same tradition as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Anne Coulter. Steven Colbert has a political agenda and you better damn well believe that he was furthering that agenda in his keynote speech. His agenda, like his close friend Jon Stewart's, is to get the press to wake the hell up. The sick thing about Colbert is that, on stations like Fox news, they do the same schlock that Colbert does in the name of "comedy".......except they are serious. The importance of shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (of which Jon Stewart is a producer) are so universally recognised that Jon Stewart gets phone calls to go on mainstream media shows as a "pundit" or "expert" anytime there is an event of political merit. Usually, in the face of a political scandal, the press doesn't call comedians. During the Lewinski scandal I never saw Robin Williams on CSPAN, for example.

In summary, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are political shows......that happen to be funny. If they weren't, politicians of all banners wouldn't be clamoring to be on the shows during election time.

 

edit: @ Drew,

Good point that I may have overlooked - their agenda is to kick the press and the prez in the pants to get them to do the right thing, and left and right really aren't even a factor. Right on.

@ Fel

Jesus, Mr. Sensitive - now who's charging past who?

Fine, that's your interpretation and you're welcome to it. I happen to disagree with that interpretation, for a number of reasons which are obvious to me. I'll try to better explain where I'm coming from, though you still may disagree (which is fine). I didn't charge past you - in fact I specifically addressed your point.

Criticism in the form of comedy can be an extremely effective tool, as Colbert demonstrated. If he were making jokes "just to be funny," he would have toned himself down considerably and told jokes that catered to the audience rather than undressed them. He wouldn't have gone for the throat as many times as he did, especially to Bush. This was not a roast, in my opinion, as you seem to have interpreted it as. He's a much more gifted comedian and satirist than I think you give him credit for. To me, the amount of "oh my God, I can't believe he just said that" moments from the audience made it pretty clear he wasn't just trying to be funny. If you want, I can pull a few choice quotes from his speech and whip out my handy comedy translator if you need it "spelled out for you" HK-47-style why certain things Colbert said went beyond just being funny and cut straight to the bone. Let me know - it's a free service I'm happy to provide.

As for guaging his audience - that's what made it all so brilliant (again, IMO). He took Bush to task for his policies, and took the media to task for not doing their jobs by merely regurgitating White House talking points instead of digging to find the truth (which is what they were told was their primary function back in journalism school, yet seem to have forgotten). And he did it all without doing the whole "aren't you ashamed of yourself" thing like this poor soul did. I did't think he was trying to make the whole place roll in the aisles, as there were certainly easier ways to do it. He was trying to hold up a mirror in front of all their faces, and by using comedy and his "persona," he didn't come off like a pontificating jerk which would have made the crowd outright hostile instead of merely uncomfortable. And if anyone was offended, he can always say "oh I was just being funny - I do that to everybody." Richard Pryor did exactly the same thing when he used to rail on racism to his mostly white audiences. Sometimes he got nervous laughter, sometimes it got crickets, and sometimes it got boos. But that's what made Richard Pryor so ballsy - he didn't care, he was just telling it like it is.

Seriously - would you be offended if Mike Meyers, as Austin Powers, told you he'd like to give your girlfriend "a good shag?" How big of an ass would you be for getting mad at a fictional character? It wasn't Stephen Colbert up there sticking it to Bush, it was that crazy guy he plays on The Colbert Report. "Can't you take a joke?" is a near bulletproof defense.

So you charge right on past my next point, yourself, without addressing it. Nice.

First off, I disagree that the fact that the butts of his jokes being in the room isn't noteworthy. It's easy to rail on somebody safely from your own platform, without having to look anyone but a microphone in the eye. Rush Limbaugh became a millionaire off of it. I do it on this very board when I say Bush is an ass, and it doesn't make be brave. It's quite a different story when you're on the losing end of the glare of the very person you're lampooning. They can boo, they can leave, they can get up and kick your ass, and in the case of extremely powerful people, they can get you fired or censored or assassinate your character. Satire is one thing - public humiliation is quite another.

Second - if this wasn't worthy of being considered news today, then why was the exact same situation considered news when Clinton was being lampooned by Don Imus? Don Imus had been criticizing Clinton regularly long before then - much more than a year. Again - it's not the fact that Colbert made jokes at Bush's expense that's news. You're right - people do that all the time, and sometimes better than Colbert could. But my point (which you also ignored) was that he did it right to Bush's face, and given the situation, Bush had no choice but to sit there and take it. That NEVER happens to Bush, because he doesn't allow it. Dissent is a punishable offense in Bush's world. What was so remarkable is Colbert is the first person - probably ever - to put Bush in his place, in person and in public, and get away with it. He's being hailed for it now because he said exactly what many of us have been thinking, and he said it in the only place that takes any courage: BUSH'S FACE.

So Imus publicly and scathingly lampoons the President, hot topic for several days. Colbert does the same (and I would say worse, considering current events), nothin' but crickets from the press. Can you explain that? Because it's got me scratching my head a little.

I did indeed note above Bush's reaction to it as being pissy and insulted, rather than having the strength of character to laugh it off as Clinton did. I found it to be very telling, just as I did when Bush got so pissy and flustered during the first Presidential debate against Kerry. It wouldn't have been that remarkable at all if Bush was slapping his knee and giving him the "Oh, you dirty rascal!" look the whole time, even if he was faking it graciously. He took it personally instead, and it showed. (By the way, thanks for telling me what points I should take away from certain situations...I so need your well-tempered guidance in such matters. )

From way up:

Is that what you really think? You honestly think that any kind of "victory over Bush" on a message board means anything to me? This whole situation disgusts me. The fact that our culture and our media have degraded to the point where the only person who has the balls to stand up to our President is a f*cking fake journalist on a cable comedy channel makes me sick to my stomach.

Felinoid, I never attributed points to you that you didn't make, so if anybody's pulling a strawman here, it's you. Just because I use your name in a post doesn't mean the whole thing is directed at you. I was making a larger point about the absurdity of the "liberal media" meme, which I believe this situation quite clearly illustrates. My including of your contention that this "isn't news" reinforced that point, so I used it. Me making a second post to reinforce my point doesn't mean I'm trying to steamroll you, it just means I'm making a second friggin' post because someone made a comment after me.

I could also list for you a million reasons why I"M personally having a sh*t day (reasons that extend far beyond anything on this board - a family member on her death bed being one of them) and a million and one reasons why taking it out on you would be classless and uncalled for. But I'll spare you out of a sense of goodwill. Feel free to continue your tantrum via PM if you need to, unless a good night's sleep has cooled you off adequately.

 

@Beren:
I'm trying to keep it civil, and I thought I had, but I'll take your post as a sign that I didn't succeed and try harder.

@Drew:

Keep in mind that Colbert is serious about some stuff a quarter of the time too. He's a moderate conservative, though he radically disagrees with the current administration.

Um, no. Just no. They are comedy shows, again first and foremost, but the best jokes recently are about all the various political debacles. Just because most of their material is on politics does not make them a political show, especially not the Daily Show.

@DR:

And that's what gets me most of all: he wasn't trying to. Does anyone remember the name of the guy who accidentally created penicillin? Because he did a lot more, with more intention, than Colbert did. Congrats to Colbert on getting lucky, in more ways than one.

If he actually meant it, you're damn straight I would. And I wouldn't care how big of an 'ass' it made me look like to everyone else so long as my girl noticed he meant it too. You can call me an ass all you want, but someone hitting on my girl is getting the cold shoulder at the very least.

See, that's the thing. I wasn't trying to address your points. I have no problem with your points at all (except perhaps the direction you're firing them), and as such I don't feel any obligation to address them. I was only trying to point out where you got me wrong.

If you're actually asking me, I guess I should answer. Maybe Imus did a better job. Maybe he was actually attacking Clinton politically, unlike Colbert. Maybe it was a slow news day. I have no idea why Imus's speech made it into the news; all I do know is some reasons that might explain why Colbert's bit didn't.

Well, I suppose he could get Cheney to shoot him for it. Do you think the same defense will work twice? And yeah, it takes a lot of courage to stand up on a stage and do a bit that is the reason they invited you in the first place. Honestly, what's the worst that could possibly go wrong? They find out he's lip-syncing? His bit bombs? Wait, no, that happened; never mind. To draw on your Austin Powers example, how much more of an ass would it make you to punish him for doing it when you asked him to do it in the first place?

Now who's taking it personally? I was reiterating my points for reference, not telling you what to do. I know you mentioned it too, as it was one of the things I quoted in my second post as agreeing with me.

Pretty much, yeah. It's a natural predator instinct to hunger for a kill when blood is scented. And with your prior tendency to go against Bush at any and all opportunities...well, it doesn't take a certified psychologist (which I'm not claiming to be) to follow the logic. Logic isn't the end-all of people though, so if I got it wrong (and I'd expect a reflective no rather than a reflexive no), then I apologize. But you can't blame me for jumping to a blatantly obvious conclusion. (Well, you could...but now we're back to Mike Myers again. )

Really? I wouldn't have guessed that after you began your posts by directly addressing me in a manner that indicated that you were about to spend the post telling me what I'd gotten wrong. If I'm mistaken again and you really didn't even notice me as you were typing my name, then again I offer my apologies and I'll try to ignore when you do that.

You asked me why I was pissy. I answered. I'd hardly call that classless or uncalled for. I even threw in a joke about snapping and nuking the planet, to soften it a bit. Now what I would call classless and uncalled for is a low blow about a dying relative (which, if you'll remember, I have too), as if that was at all my fault (unless, of course, it's catching over a message board ). And if I mistook your intent there (which I likely did, but the adversarial nature of the paragraph threw me off), again I apologize.

 

Steven Colbert admitted to being a liberal democrat when he guest hosted The Daily Show during an interview with Ralph Nader in which he accused him of splintering the Democratic party by running for president. Jon Stewart is more moderate than Mr. Colbert (and Jon Stewart isn't very moderate, either).

Felinoid, you need to respect the fact that many people do see the role of shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report as "political". It may not seem that way to you, but the fact of the matter is that if a lot of people think that the shows are political, then the shows are political. Even if they aren't supposed to be. In other words, it doesn't matter if the shows are political to you. It matters if other people consider the show political.......and democrats, at least, do. Democratic candidates announce their candidacy on the show.....Jon Stewart, during the Kerry campaign, begged America to "please....make my job hard" by not reelecting Bush. He had (and still has) a political agenda. I've watched the Daily Show religiously since Craig Kilborn was the host. Under Kilborn, your statements would be right. When Jon Stewart took over, however, the direction of the show changed markedly and it became a very political animal overnight.

[ May 02, 2006, 22:36: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Either you're mixing episodes, or I am, because I'm pretty sure Colbert never hosted the Daily Show when Nader was the guest. I believe he had him on the Colbert Report though (where the character he plays certainly wouldn't have said he was a democrat), and Stewart had him on the Daily Show, where Stewart made a remark about Nader splitting the Democratic vote. It is hard to keep them all straight, though, especially when you watch the show as religiously as we both do.

Well, I don't speak to the popular view, and I don't think that people's views change what the shows are. They're both comedy shows. Most of it political comedy, but still comedy. And the fact of the matter is that there is more to make fun of in politics than you could wag a finger at or tip a hat to. It makes for good fodder, and that's the bottom line. If they were just political shows with a comedic coat of paint, they wouldn't be half as funny.