I disagree with those on the right who are skewering Stephen Colbert for his performance at the White House Correspondents dinner on Saturday night. Much of it was actually pretty funny. It’s just a pity that Colbert, in his ignorance, never realized that people were laughing at him rather than at what he was saying.
Full Fledged Moonbattery is the only way to describe Colbert’s performance. All the canards were there; Iraq, WMD, the press as White House lap dogs(??), Bush the stupid, Bush the incompetent, Bush as Machiavelli (the stupidity of trying to show Bush as both dumb and evil genius lost on the clueless Colbert), as well as the usual jokes that liberals find funny about 9/11, religion, and ordinary Americans.
The left, of course, is in rapture over Colbert’s “speaking truth to power.” I always have to scratch my head in wonderment over this little prevarication by the liberals. Does anyone seriously believe that the “power” to shape debate, set the national agenda, color the personalities, and make or break the politicians resides with conservatives? Who are they trying to kid?
If, in fact, their little fantasy about being the underdog in our national life was true, Bush’s popularity would be soaring, no one would be questioning the rationale for going to war in Iraq, government’s response to Hurricane Katrina would be seen as a success, and Bush would have won an historical landslide in 2004.
The fact that none of the above is true gives the lie to the left’s crocodile tears about the White House and Washington press corps being lap dogs of the Administration. But it is best not to disturb the liberals when they’re on a roll. Mounting the battlements of democracy and waving the bloody shirt is so much a part of their self-image that to burst their fantasy about not possessing the levers of power that allows them to pretty much have their way may cause serious damage to their delicate, albeit inflated psyches.
What the left – especially the netnuts – are complaining about is that the press refuses to “investigate” their wacky conspiracy theories. Who did Jeff Gannon sleep with in the White House? Which of Diebold’s executives are going to be charged with rigging the election of 2004? How many anti-war activists have been put in concentration camps? What is Bush’s timetable for establishing a theocratic dictatorship? Probably the same timetable for establishing a military draft.
This is why the left was swooning over Colbert’s performance. Here’s a sample of reactions:
The few glimpses that we have of the audience shows that the tension was extremely high – I don’t think any of them were expecting such a pointed, hard-hitting attack on Bush camouflaged as humor.
Colbert deserves the highest possible praise.
Finally someone with big enough balls to tell it as it is – it made me ashamed of our cringing Dems in Congress.
The MSM, which was mightily indicted by Colbert, is trying to sweep the whole thing under the carpet and is at present in hiding.
That last criticism about the MSM “trying to sweep the whole thing under the carpet” has to do with stories about the dinner that highlighted the President’s performance rather than Colbert’s tirade.
That’s right. They actually believe that the performance of a comedian (and not a very good one at that) was more significant than what the President of the United States did. “Reality Based Community” indeed.
Peter Dauo writing at Huffpo:
It appears Mash’s misgivings about press coverage are well-placed. The AP’s first stab at it and pieces from Reuters and the Chicago Tribune tell us everything we need to know: Colbert’s performance is sidestepped and marginalized while Bush is treated as light-hearted, humble, and funny.
Imagine that! How dare they cover what the President did at the expense of the man who was “speaking truth to power!”
Colbert,heed my warning. Do not fly in any small planes like JFK Jr.,Paul Wellstone,or the ex governor of Missouri who was running against Ashcroft for the senate,and whose name I am blocking.
More moonbattery from people who just aren’t happy unless the whole world is against them. And, of course, risking your life to SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER!”
Oh. My. F**king. God. I would love to see some reaction photos of bush and his bitch-wife, Laura from that dinner…
On that subject, here is what “speaking truth to power” means when addressing the First Lady of the United States:
And I just like the guy. He’s a good joe. Obviously loves his wife, calls her his better half. And polls show America agrees. She’s a true lady and a wonderful woman. But I just have one beef, ma’am.I’m sorry, but this reading initiative. I’m sorry, I’ve never been a fan of books. I don’t trust them. They’re all fact, no heart. I mean, they’re elitist, telling us what is or isn’t true, or what did or didn’t happen. Who’s Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914? If I want to say it was built in 1941, that’s my right as an American! I’m with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen.
Unfunny, tasteless, and even though I’m being a little old fashioned here…impolite.
Much more can be found at the Democratic Underground, a site I refuse to link after they published personal information of their political opponents.
It’s really a shame that the people who are admiring Colbert’s performance don’t have a clue as to what real political satire is all about. For that, you would first of all need sense of humor, something most liberals do not possess (except in a deranged sort of way like finding it funny when a child pulls the wings off of grasshoppers). Real satire can be found in the performances of comedians like Mort Sahl, the Smothers Brothers, Billy Crystal, and the great Jonathan Winters who know where the boundaries of taste are located. None of those gentlemen would have made a joke including 9/11 and the victims of Katrina:
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.
A good satirist would never include the victims of tragedy – especially such soul searing events like 9/11 and Katrina – as props for an attempt at humor. Pretty sickening.
All in all, Colbert’s scattershot performance (some of his jokes were indeed, quite funny) fell flat as satire because he couldn’t get past his obvious hatred of the President. He came off mean rather than funny.
And no one likes a meany. Even one who “speaks truth to power.”
UPDATE
My thoughts: the fawning reaction coming from many on the anti-Bush bandwagon is, unfortunately, par for the course these days—as is the celebration of Colbert’s “bravery,†especially when there are no real consequences for engaging in meanspirited political humor other than, say, being thought a dick.
Politically, I think it’s fair to observe that we’ve reached that point of partisan purity wherein a certain activist segment of the American left has decided, en masse, to pretend to believe a whole number of things that are objectively false (including, in this case, Colbert’s genius)—and they have decided to do so in order to build consensus and then use groupthink as a political bludgeon, even it comes at the expense of their integrity and intellectual honesty.
Ends justify the means, man. Ends justify the means…
9:15 am
Would love to go for the rest of my life never hearing, “speaks truth to power” What a whimpy adage.
ooooo how brave of him to speak truth to power!
What I noticed in the audienace was they were cringing with some forced laughter at how horrible Colberts routine was. It reminded me of Imus without the Flop Sweat!
Is it possible that un-funny Colbert was so pissed for being up-staged by President Bush and his side-kick that Colbert unleased all his pent up venom? Just a thought.
Earlier on c-span they re-aired President Bush’s first speech at correspondent dinner in which his opening line was how happy he was to be there with all those MAJOR LEAGUERS! I missed that the first time around.
I find it real funny that both Colbert and Jon Stewart of Comedy Central were miserable failures.
10:38 am
“I disagree with those on the right who are skewering Stephen Colbert for his performance at the White House Correspondents dinner on Saturday night. Much of it was actually pretty funny.”
This statement, followed by several paragraphs of skewering Stephen Colbert as a clueless moonbat. I realize self-contradiction is a stock-in-trade here, but it only demonstrates credibility to those readers who are to the right of Attila the Hun.
10:51 am
I didn’t see the video of Cobert’s performance, but I read the transcripts. I thought some of his quips were pretty funny, but others were pretty blah.
Overall though, I think it was simply very rude of Colbert to direct everything at the President. At the least, it should have been more balanced with jokes on liberal moonbattery and the press. I don’t think the President shouldn’t be the butt of jokes, but he shouldn’t be the butt of ALL the jokes. That, to me, is the problem with Colbert in this case.
11:20 am
You wrote:
A good satirist would never include the victims of tragedy – especially such soul searing events like 9/11 and Katrina – as props for an attempt at humor. Pretty sickening.
Apparently you have never heard of “A Modest Proposal.”
11:27 am
was Dennis Miller busy, or something?
Colbert is usually pretty fair with his criticisms…but he wasn’t the best choice for the given audience.
12:18 pm
“Does anyone seriously believe that the “power†to shape debate, set the national agenda, color the personalities, and make or break the politicians resides with conservatives? Who are they trying to kid?”
Gee, lets see Rick. What is, or has been on the national agenda in these days? War in Iraq? Immigration? Social Security “reform”? Tax cuts for the wealthy? More tax cuts at times of large deficits? Putting conservatives on the Supreme Court?
Pray tell, which part of the political spectrum is responsible for advancing these issues? Hmmm…the power to shape debate lies with those that are out of power. This is one of your great genius moments Rick.
As for Colbert – I think the reaction of the right is symptomatic of a movement in deep crisis. Having the ability to laugh at oneself, to see your little bubbles burst by a court jester, is a sign of strength. All I see on the right is pettiness, from a defensive crouch. We got 2 years and 9 more months of you clowns, and it sure looks like y’all are not going to leave the stage with any dignity intact.
1:54 pm
Actually, I don’t mind Jon Stewart. While many view the “Daily Show” as a liberal diatribe, Stewart actually makes fun of Democrats and other liberals as well. However, it’s just hard to resist the foibles of the current administration. As for Colbert, we all know he is a diehard Democrat. I remember a couple years back when Colbert was sitting in for Jon Stewart. He was interviewing Ralph Nader. He was pretty hard on Nader, because Ralph’s candidacy split the extreme liberals from the Democratic platform. That seemed to irk Colbert.
Anyway, at least, they didn’t have David Cross at the dinner. He was the man quoted as saying, “The only thing evil left for Bush to do is eat a Jewish baby on TV.” He is a funny actor, but as a comedian he is just piggy backing “Bush-bashing”.
As for Tano, you are right the US is in shambles. Our economy is about veer of its axis, chaos and doom are widespread. While I admit the Republicans have goofed on a number of things, I don’t believe they have done an entirely bad job. I would have to say just a shade under the last administration. Lucky for us, the last one was able to ride the internet bubble. Of course, it unfortunately burst at the beginning of the Bush administration. The Clinton administration had a lot of goofiness as well. Which most other Democrats refuse to remember. I am not even talking about the Lewinsky deal.
3:33 pm
I didn’t recall it so I went back to read Imus’ 1996 Clinton speech that some have compared to Colbert’s turn. Little wonder that bit also landed with a thud. But there’s a startling difference. While Imus was over the top with Clinton he was equally rough with the right and the media. Colbert’s idea of poking fun at the left and the media was poking fun of Jesse Jackson for speaking slowly (with a global warming punchline – Colbert makes fun of the left by, apparently, attacking those that haven’t drank the global warming kool aid, largely the right) which was probably necessary because Jesse provides so little to work with for a ‘send up’. Right.
This seems to be a pattern for the Stewart and Colbert as it brings to mind the ‘goodbye’ the Daily Show gave to Clinton in 2000 or 2001. Evidently they couldn’t find any material to poke fun at the President, instead spending the 1/2 hour poking fun at the Republicans, spending most of the time on impeachment (surely a worthy subject for bi-partisan ridicule if there ever was one). This was in the same vein.
It’s unfortunate that Comedy Central used to have a comedian on the payroll that did speak truth to power – Colin Quinn. But having a liberal show lead into Colin’s ‘shoot at all targets’ show probably wasn’t going to work. Quinn would have been perfect for the correspondent’s dinner.
8:31 pm
Sweetie,
I really liked “Tough Crowd”. The only problem with Quinn is that he fumbles at times. As for Colbert and Stewart, they had shows at the Democratic national convention in 2004.
7:35 am
Colbert was funny. Colbert was on target. And considering the destruction that Bush and his cronies have done to this country in the last five years, destruction that only a complete moron would fail to acknowledge, the fact that some people consider his comedy rude is ridiculous.
You conservative bloggers should get a life and LEAVE MINE ALONE.
8:21 am
Over here two downloadable clips of Steven Colbert Whitehouse correspondents:
http://files.ww.com/download.html?id=13906 (16 min / 65 Mb Quicktime: top quality)
http://files.ww.com/download.html?id=13903 (16 min / 26 Mb Quicktime)
http://files.ww.com/download.html?id=13904 (15 min / 10 Mb WindowsMedia)
9:00 am
“Does anyone seriously believe that the “power†to shape debate, set the national agenda, color the personalities, and make or break the politicians resides with conservatives? Who are they trying to kid?”
Aww, wallowing in self-pity are we? The fact that despite republicans being in power at all levels of government, they haven’t succeeded in implementing their agenda only shows their incompetence, rather than liberal power to shape the debate.
11:22 am
Ed, the fact that you cannot grasp that Rick is skewering Colbert for making such an ass of himself, unlike many others who are attacking him for what he said and not simply for the fact that his actions were in bad taste speaks volumes on the lack of comprehension on your part.
However, lacking comprehension is rampant in this comment thread, because tano goes on to demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of the underlying message regarding power. If the left were, as they claim, so far out of power that their wants needs and desires were of absolutely no concern to any but a handful of DNC operatives in a patchouli reeking basement somewhere in the bay area then the national debate over Iraq, immigration and a whole host of other issues would be non-existent, as the “right” would have a firm grasp of not only actual power to act as they wish, but the power to frame national debate to stifle any and all critics.
The Republicans failure to implement more “republican” programs doesn’t, dear “g”, highlight any incompetance on their part, but rather the fact that they don’t have absolute power. Couple that with the fact that Bush gets to walk further left with everyday that the dems spends running closer to socialism and open borders while never appearing to waver from the “right” to the vast hordes of idiot citizens and the truth of how much trouble “conservatives” are going to be in when elections roll around becomes apparent to anyone with an ounce of sense…...but I don’t expect many in this thread to be able to grasp any of these issues, because they require one to THINK
Good job Rick
!
12:25 pm
Colbert was “mean”. Uhh. Yeah. And George Bush isn’t for bending the truth about Iraq in order to send thousands of our citizens to their death? It’s not hard to see why he was “mean” when you put that fact into context.
12:29 pm
Let’s face it. When it’s the other side being skewered with their heroes, it’s satire. When it’s our side and our heroes being made to look foolish, it’s dumb, mean, etc.
That said, Colbert’s speech was actually quite mild. Imagine if a speaker at the dinner had simply read the real wolrd new to Bush. Now that would have been embarrassing for him.
1:13 pm
Colbert’s routine may have been quite mild, but it was also not funny.
1:27 pm
>you would first of all need sense of humor, something most liberals do not possess (except in a deranged sort of way like finding it funny when a child pulls the wings off of grasshoppers).
4:42 pm
It’s really hard to look down on someone who has your face under his shoe. Oh you try, you pretend to scoff and be above Stephen Colbert. But the truth is, the rabbid right got its collective ass handed to it Saturday night in a brilliant performance and they just sat, slack-jawed, unable to speak, unable to know what to do without talking points to lead the way. So many of us were laughing at what Stephen was saying—and laughing at all of you! Try to mock all you want, it simply makes you look more foolish and only lets us laugh at you that much longer.
4:55 pm
I find the response from the right and the national press corp nothing but a personal indictment. Two years ago they were laughing uproariously at Bush’s ridiculously insensitive sketch over not being able to find WMD in Iraq.
In fact, they were laughing uproariously over anything and everything he did.
I guess one can’t take the heat…..
6:17 pm
Colbert is no funnier than Jon Stewart. Sit and read one of Stewart’s books for a half-hour, and try calling him funny.
I must admit that I don’t have cable—is there anything funny on Comedy Central but South Park?
10:03 am
“kender Said:
11:22 am
Ed, the fact that you cannot grasp that Rick is skewering Colbert for making such an ass of himself, unlike many others who are attacking him for what he said and not simply for the fact that his actions were in bad taste speaks volumes on the lack of comprehension on your part.”
From Rick Moran’s original post:
“Full Fledged Moonbattery is the only way to describe Colbert’s performance. All the canards were there; Iraq, WMD, the press as White House lap dogs(??), Bush the stupid, Bush the incompetent, Bush as Machiavelli (the stupidity of trying to show Bush as both dumb and evil genius lost on the clueless Colbert), as well as the usual jokes that liberals find funny about 9/11, religion, and ordinary Americans.”
kender, would you like to try that again? Colbert’s comments and content were attacked, see quote above. The fact remains that Mr. Moran started the post by saying “I disagree with those on the right who are skewering Stephen Colbert for his performance at the White House Correspondents dinner on Saturday night.”, then skewered Colbert’s perfomance on many grounds. I called the writing self-contradictory, and if can’t see that fact, then you are truely blinded by your partisanship. I like Moran’s writing, even when disagreeing greatly, and hope for more internal consistency that I often see. That was the point of my original comment.
11:10 am
The Truth Hurts
I must note this up front, Rick says: “Much of it was actually pretty funny.”
Yeah it was Rick. Comedy is the one institution where ideological blinders are exposed so fully. Your remark, “’speaking truth to power.’ I always have to scratch my head in wonderment over this little prevarication by the liberals,” is evidence of that fact. Speaking truth to power is not a liberal prevarication, it is, rather, the essence of free speech in a democracy. The president is always the power, be he Republican or Democrat, and the fourth estate’s duty is to make sure the president does not mislead the public or distort the truth. End of story.
Stop and think once. If there was a Democratic president that was condoning torture, running a gulag network, and illegally wire tapping American citizens you would be all over him. These things are as un-American as “Mother Land” and borscht.
Right-wingers like to say the ‘liberal msm.” I would rather characterize it as the ‘corporate media’ which is sensitive to profits, a punitive administration and (I know you’ll flip when I say this) the PC rightwing.
12:52 pm
“The play’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.”
Just hit me today.
1:51 pm
I’m running through my head all those great right-wing comedians. There. Done. That took about three seconds.
5:17 pm
On that subject, here is what “speaking truth to power†means when addressing the First Lady of the United States:
then you quote something that colbert said…but the president…the president…said about the first lady in his comic monologue…she is “hot”...muy caliente…I found that totally inappropriate.Sounded so much like some jock bragging that he nailed the head cheerleader… We are at war and the president has time to practice from January til the end of April on what amounts to a high school skit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/washington/01letter.html?_r=1&oref=slo
White House Letter
A New Set of Bush Twins Appear at Annual Correspondents’ Dinner
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: May 1, 2006
With his approval ratings in the mid-30’s and a White House beset by troubles, there is some evidence that Mr. Bush worked harder on his performance this year than in the past. At the very least, he started focusing on his stand-up as long ago as January, when he asked Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, to contact Mr. Bridges and Landon Parvin, a longtime speechwriter.
8:56 pm
Colbert didn’t do anything disrespectful to Laura. If anything he handled her with kid gloves. His crack about not liking books was so obviously facetious it’s hard to imagine what Rick was bitching about.
5:44 pm
Going from: “much of it was actually funny” to: “it wasn’t funny anyway”. Is, erm, childish. But you’re a big boy now, yeh? I also don’t recall Colbert referring to the press as “lapdogs” or any other such nonsense. Sure, there are the insinuations – which makes him actually, funny (i.e. the bit about where the reporters go home and write an amazing book about ballzy journos., “you know fiction”). By the way, what is ‘moonbashing’ or ‘moonbatting’? It’s very odd. Are you losing it?
4:07 am
Who Cares If Colbert Spoke Truth to Power?
Somewhere along the way, the Great Debate over Stephen Colbert’s performance at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner (Google Video) has morphed into an argument about a vague cliché. No longer is it a question of whether Colbert’s…