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:Poor Colbert? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, as I am in old foggy Blighty I did not see it, but here is the full transcript: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/5981
And all I can say, applause, applause...
Worth a watch (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Worth a watch (Score:5, Funny)
Only when market forces allow it, not all the time.
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.
Quotation from Will Rogers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:5, Interesting)
CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you?
and
STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to
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: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:Poor Colbert? (Score:5, Funny)
What are you doing on Slashdot? I cast thee out!
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)
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.
It's a classic dilemma (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like a standard dilemma to me. Comedians such as Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have nothing to lose. They're certainly not going to lose popularity with their audience, and if anything will gain more followers. They'll probably never have another chance to do what they've done, but they probably wouldn't have anyway.
For journalists and news networks on the other hand, the nature of how the competition works means they have everything to lose. If a journalist steps too far outside the bounds of what the government considers "acceptable" for a journalist, they probably won't be allowed in again... unless everyone does the same thing at once making it impossible for the press secretaries to ignore, which seems unlikely. Access to high government officials is everything to many news networks, especially the larger ones, so getting the network rejected could spell a big demotion if not the end of a journalist's career.
Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Old science fiction story (Score:5, Interesting)
Physical science papers and textbooks were only in the 90-95% range. If you said the age of the Eath was 4,388,765,309 years, for example, that might be 100% true but you'd never get published. In other fields, the socially tolerable level of truth was far lower.
The story's punch line was that only two groups of people were socially permitted to make 100% truthful statements: research mathematicians, and comedians.
(Also look up the history of "court fools").
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:
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's historic precedent: in Imperial Rome, often the only public criticism of the Emperor came from comedians and satiric poets.
Additional comparisons to Rome after the fall of the Republic are left to brave commentors. (But hint: never-ending Proconsulships in the Middle East, a rubber stamp Senate ignored by the Emperor [boston.com].)
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:4, Interesting)
WTF?! Bombed? Maybe with the crowd, but he was bloody brilliant. Fucking balls of steel to say what he did with the president a few feet away. Most other comediens would turn on the fake chuminess, "oh schucks, you know I'm just kidding" after every bland joke, and then kiss and make up with old Georgy boy.
WTF is with the NY Daily! Really, every other blogger is praising Colbert like nobody's business.
Re:Poor Colbert? (Score:5, Insightful)
Torrent (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.mininova.org/tor/296239 [mininova.org]
Full Footage on youtube (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcIRXur61II [youtube.com]
The transcript is also available here:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/5981
Stephen Colbert's Other Achievement (Score:4, Interesting)
The BBC? (Score:5, Informative)
Cajones (Score:5, Funny)
Big, brassy, get-put-on-a-no-fly-list, cajones.
And kudos for being kinda funny too.
Re:Never wavering? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Torrent link (Score:4, Interesting)
Be forewarned however... the torrent contains the entire C-Span broadcast of the event. Colbert's speech starts around the 54 minute mark. Some of the other bits are pretty funny, including bush playing along with an impersonator, although absolutely nothing can beat Colbert's speech. Watch it. It's funny on so many levels. I've never seen such a huge disconnect between a comedian and his audience -- it took some major guts to do what he did.
I think this one's going to go down in the history books, and is by far the funniest thing ever broadcated on C-Span's airspace.
Re:Torrent link (Score:5, Funny)
25,000 people using bittorrent to download an hour-long C-SPAN special
That should go down in the history books as "the day that the anti-filesharing lobbies collectively went: WTF??"
Re:Torrent link (Score:3, Informative)
torrent link (Score:4, Informative)
It's really quite fascinating (Score:5, Insightful)
Well done.
Re:It's really quite fascinating (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's really quite fascinating (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is Stephen Colbert's Crossfire appearance. Jon Stewart played Crossfire the same way: pointing out all the faults of the people he was with. Stephen Colbert's audience was even more prestigious than Jon Stewart's. I didn't know about this appearance until after it happened (so I download the video last night) and I was amazed that he had the opportunity to chew out the president... right to the presidents face!
Unfortunately, I think some of the humor was lost on people who didn't realize the character Colbert plays. However, I also think he has made a lot of new fans this weekend.
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.
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: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: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: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.
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.
Isn't it funny? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it funny? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The press is, generally, in Bush's pocket. Part of it is 9/11. Part of it is that war makes news organizations (and their parent companies) money. Its well known the Jack Welch pressured NBC news while he was CEO of GE. I would wager this has continued and expanded. (aside - It really says something about a president who can have such backing in the press and still manage to go down to the thirties in approval rating.)
2. Colbert skewered the press as much as the president. He called them on not raising a fuss, not making waves. Why would they want to bring attention to their own short-comings?
"But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"
A real journalist would probably recognize Colbert's performance as the only news-worthy thing to happen during the event. Here Colbert is providing the best politically satirical speech in years (a generation?) right in front of the bubble boy president. Of course, a real journalist would probably not attend these sort of "buddy up to the administration" events. The fourth estate (ideally) should provide a check on those in power.
P.S. I love Colbert, but whats this doing on slashdot? I guess it is "news that matters" but not in any tech sense AFAICT.
Re:Isn't it funny? (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.drudgereport.com/ [drudgereport.com]
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.
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.
Watch it, enjoy it, believe it (Score:5, Informative)
The Colbert Report is really high quality political humor, like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart - it is funny because so often it is true.
What I find most interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
It wasn't just embarassing for Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
Re:The best part about this (Score:3, Interesting)
We're down to the religious nutbags now. It's interesting, really, to see what percentage they make up, and I'm glad it's only 32... at one point I was worried it was in the 40s. Bush will have a really hard time losing these people, because they're the ones who believe that he was sent by God (as opposed to, say, reelected in a questionable and
Re:The best part about this (Score:5, Funny)
You know, it scares the hell out of me that we've reached the point that we're glad only 1/3 of the population is composed of these fuckwits...
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:The best part about this (Score:3, Interesting)
Who else votes for the republicans? Mostly idiots who believe the republicans when they say they are for fiscal responsiblity and smaller govt despite the fact that the only presients who ever shrank the govt in my lifetime were democrats and even Carter ran the economy better then Bush.
So there you have it, religious nutbags and idiots. Alas
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.
Stephen was bang on... (Score:5, Funny)
"Wow, what an honor...to sit here, at the same table as my hero, George W Bush. To be this close to the man. I feel like I'm dreaming. Somebody pinch me. You know what? I'm a pretty sound sleeper, that may not be enough. Somebody shoot me in the face...is he really not here tonight?" (in reference to the Vice President) "The one guy that could have helped."
That killed me. Later:
"I believe in democracy. I believe that democracy is our greatest export. At least until China figures out a way to stamp it out of plastic for three cents a unit. As a matter of fact, Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong, uh welcome. You're great country makes our Happy Meals possible."
Huge groan from the crowd on that one.
He got some huge laughs, but some got no reaction and I can only assume that either those in attendance were brain dead and didn't get it or offended by his frankness. Either way, he was dead on and hilarious.
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:Stephen was bang on... (Score:5, Informative)
How bad has it been in the past? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm all for a skewering of authority, whoever happens to be at the helm. But, after viewing the whole video, while some of it has got to make some of the audience decidedly uncomfortable (note the camera cutting to Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame!) I got the feeling that this is de rigeur for this kind of event, simply that we're paying more attentino because it's featured on Slashdot, BoingBoing, and wherever the hell else.
So, how accurate is that perception?
Has anyone seen one of these from years past? Even last year, with the war in full swing, there would have been sufficiently biting grist for a ballsy comic. Is older video of these annual press club dinners on C-Span or somewhere else? How biting is that commentary? How was it during Clinton's run? Or Nixon's?
That's what the 'net is so great for... putting something like this into a very broad context, not just believing that Steven Colbert doing a bang up job here is the first and last time it's ever happened.
This cracked me up (Score:5, Insightful)
Colbert on 60 mins (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Re:I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not his best form (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems to happen a lot. You get somebody who has to be funny every night and does a good job, and then you give a big job, like this dinner or the Oscars with lots of time to prepare, and it doesn't seem like they do as well. Happened to Jon Stewart, to David Letterman and many others. Is it because of expectations? Or pressure?
Anyway, watch the show for the real Colbert. The main thing that's interesting about this routine is that Bush is there taking it in, not entirely happy. But as I said, the time I got to go there were icy stares from Hilary at Franken's Whitewater jokes.
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:In the case of the Oscars (Score:4, Interesting)
It cracks me up how many people are still completely ignorant of shows like "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report," "Real Time with Bill Maher," et. al. and what they're all about. It boggles the mind that so many people can still come on these shows and be completely caught off guard when the host starts asking them irreverent questions.
It's like Jon Stewart himself once said after a particularly funny interview segment with a befuddled Senator, "Why do people still talk to us?"
-Eric
Stephen Colbert Thank You Site (Score:4, Interesting)
For serving as an example, telling it like it is, I've thrown together a site to collect thank yous for Mr. Colbert.
Hopefully this site will help boost awareness of this story, which is already being distorted in the mainstream press.
Go over and say thanks.
Colber and Stewart should not be needed (Score:5, Interesting)
No media coverage on Colbert EXCEPT (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, Fox News.
The whole dinner is rather insulting... (Score:5, Informative)
The whitehouse bit with Helen Thomas stalking him wasnt that funny. Stephen was funny overall though. It was interesting to see him be polite towards the president after having just said "the country doesnt like you and this whole thing is a mess"
Stephen did well considering the audience...
And thats what i'm really insulted by... (I'm not insulted by Stephen, i loved it) but the audience, the members of the press, the celebrities, the politicians, lawyers, judges, lobbiests...
Something just feels off when the press has a dinner with the whitehouse administration, plus celebrities. It just seems like a big get together of the wealthy and powerful for no reason.
For example, anyone that watched it on C-span, you would have seen George Clooney surrounded by 10 or more girls at a time after the dinner. There were no guys around Clonney, and i just found it histerical because they let 30minutes pass before showing clooney on tv again, and there he was with another 10 girls surrounding him wanting pictures
OK Clooney has political motives, but what about Phil Simms? Tiki Barber? Ludicris?... What could they possibly have to do with the whitehouse reporters?
It just seems like a slap in the face to the public. I dont think the Press should be "hanging" with the press. And i certainly dont think it should be a big celebrity dog and pony show.
What i found histerical is the number of old white men with young hot dates
The whole thing is rather phoney, and by that i mean the government, and the press
Link to a more relevant article (Score:4, Informative)
Re:John Amato's C&L blog? (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:3, Interesting)
Since I don't often read the non-video posts, I use Crooks and Liars mainly as a source for keeping up on the news, because they cherry pick the most telling videos of the day.
Or, are you trying to say that they are a "far left smear website"? Well, in the words of the great Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
Andrew
Re:John Amato's C&L blog? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Those are some incredible special effects! (Score:5, Interesting)
There are none so blind as those who will not see. When you get done patting yourself on the back for your cleverness, perhaps you'll scan the commentary that accompanies the video from this source. And then ask yourself, why select such a slanted site to present it? I mean, as someone else pointed out, it's not even the complete video - the complete video is available elsewhere. But then you wouldn't have the commentary. So, let's all stop and ponder whether the video is really the thing you're supposed to be interested in.
Take off the blinders for a moment and pretend it's President John Kerry, with video selections and commentary provided by Little Green Footballs or Free Republic. Is that still cool, or do you want to award some more Oscars?
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:3, Interesting)
I want Bush gone as much as the next guy, but after reading the transcript it comes off disrespectful more than humourous, especially in front of that audience. I don't like Bush, but I still respect the power he holds...
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wasnt that funny (Score:5, Informative)
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
T. Jefferson
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.
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]
Re:Funny? (Score:3, Informative)
That was just the icing on the cake.
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.
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.
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].
Filter motherfucker, do you speak it? (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: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 com
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.
every day is a slow news day at the Times (Score:4, Informative)
Unless that was an attempt at irony, you really should pay closer attention to current events. The New York Times was pro-war from the beginning. Remember Judith Miller, the NY Times reporter who ended up in jail for contempt during Scooter Libby's grand jury hearing? She wrote one article after another for the Times backing up the Bush Administration's false claims of WMD. She was their star reporter, their headlining act, the woman with the (erroneous) inside information. When Joseph Wilson wrote his op-ed piece calling out Bush on his State of the Union lie, Scooter Libby leaked information to Judith Miller that he hoped would discredit Wilson. That's how she ended up in jail, because she refused to reveal Libby as her source. There's lots more to the story, but the crux of the matter is that the only difference between the New York Times and the New York Post as regards the war in Iraq is that the Times uses a classier typeface.
Well what the fuck did they expect? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you ought to know this when you book him. This is what he does, so this is what you are going to get. Getting pissed that he ripped on the administration and the media is like getting pissed becuase you book Carlos Mencia and get racial humour. Of COURSE that's what you get, that's what he does! If that's not what you want, book someone else.
This was Colbert doing what he does best. That it fell flat on the audience because they don't like being made fun of is of no concern. If you can't laugh at yourself, don't hire a satirist because they are likely to pick on you. This goes double if you are already a favourite subject for them. I have no idea what the Whitehouse was thinking booking him. It's not like it's hard to find out what he's about. He's on national TV 5 nights a week for you to see.
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:Colbert Bombed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:courage? (Score:4, Insightful)