Thank you, Stephen Colbert

Remove all ads!

Sorry, no. Nader has been on several times, and Colbert happened to be the host for a Nader interview that took place right around the 2004 elections. My wife and I both remember it.....particularly because it was a moment in which Colbert broke his "persona". You always remember the episodes when the host loses his cool. In this episode, Colbert lost his.

 

Bravo Colbert. The palapable discomfort in the room was an absolute triumph.

 

Oh, where to begin.

(Beren, the following will clarify points and intentions, as well as attempt to smooth things over. I am NOT trying to pick or egg on a fight, please don't interpret it as such. I think I have a right to defend myself publicly, and I will do so with civility.)

@ Fel,

I too am sorry for the degree of hostility, Fel - it was 2 in the morning for me as well, and I suppose my crankiness took a firmer hold than I would have liked. I generally like you and have nothing personal against you. But my reaction certainly wasn't 100% undeserved, and the jerkiness certainly not all coming from my direction.

And that's what gets me, as myself and most of the people who watched that speech would disagree with you. I think he was pretty clearly sticking it to them, but if you want to keep insisting it was just a nerf comedy bit, I guess that's you're opinion. Let me stress - you're opinion.

If that's the case, then fine. I no longer feel any obligation to address your points, either. My disagreement with your whine that I "charged past you" when I didn't was me trying to point out where you got ME wrong. We're both asses on this one.

Again, I find it very hard to understand why you insist Colbert wasn't attacking anyone. I would appreciate it if you would refer to this assertion as merely your opinion, because it certainly isn't a fact. Part of why Colbert, Stewart et al are so funny and popular right now is because their jokes are so insightful and cutting, unlike the "serious" work of the press they make fun of. Not all of their jokes are meant as such, but it's pretty obvious to most viewers which ones are. You apparantly aren't one of them, and that's fine - people interpret their brand of comedy in different ways. But your insistance that these guys are merely making jokes, and not exposing these powerful people for the baffoons they are, really makes me wonder if you even get the show at all. Which is strange, considering your claim to be a regular viewer.

You're dodging the question. They invited him to do a bit, yes. And I'm sure they knew he was going to do something political, as is tradition for the keynote speaker at that event. But I guarantee you if Bush's people knew he was going to do that particular bit, they would have moved mountains to get someone else. It took balls the do the KIND of bit that he did. Conan O'Brian did Clinton's last one of these, and lampooned Clinton in a way that was cheeky and playful without being mocking. Colbert could have gone that route, but he didn't. Colbert was ALL mock, IMO, and it's so obvious to me and most of his viewers that, again, I really wonder if you actually get the show and why it's so relevant. Dennis Miller and Bill Maher do "political comedy that's still comedy" too and aren't near as popular. Dennis got cancelled and Maher is barely watched on HBO. What does that mean? Colbert and Stewart are doing something more than just political comedy. THAT'S why more young Americans get their news from The Daily Show than nearly any other source - they know they aren't being bullsh*tted about the events of the day, and get to laugh their asses off at the same time.

I also disagree that he bombed - your definition and mine must be different. He didn't bomb in a traditional sense - i.e., that he wasn't funny (because he was), or that his performance fell apart (because he never broke character or skipped a beat), etc etc. He got the reaction he got because no one likes being the butt of a joke, and everyone in the room that night was the butt of his jokes. Jokes that clearly made them uncomfortable, because he was both right AND funny.

Forgive me for interpreting the phrase "What you shouldtake away from this is..." as you, in fact, telling me what I should take away from this.

If you're so often misunderstood as condescending, then maybe try wording things a little differently and more respectfully. I'll do the same, if that's in order - my rhetoric can be a tad salty at times. But that's how it came off, like it or not.

This assumes that I oppose Bush merely for the sake of opposing Bush, which is untrue (because I'm a former supporter of his) and suggests you merely skim over much of what I write and jump to conclusions about my intent and my points. I would be happy to support Bush, as I've said many times, if he'd dig his head out of his ass (as well as the far right's ass) and started performing at at least a base level of competence and integrity. And I don't mean he should "do things like a Democrat," I mean he should admit his mistakes, work to correct them, listen to people who obviously know more than he does and have been right all along, and stop destroying the office he holds. That's not anti-Bush - that's anti-nincumpoop. And I'm a fiercely partisan anti-nincumpoop.

As for my predator instinct - what blood? We're stuck with this putz for 2.5 more years, barring the extreme unlikelyhood of an impeachment. He isn't up for reelection. He can bleed all he wants - it changes nothing. I gain nothing by attacking him, because we're already screwed. But if I see an opportunity to use this event to point out how our news media is complicit in Bush's incompetence, then yes - I see blood there. Hell, I'm the Big Bad Wolf when it comes to that. But please don't make me out to be some mindless and ravenous Bush-basher - THAT'S a hell of a strawman, or at the very least a huge ad-hominem.

As for my own licks - yes, I jumped to the conclusion that you were being a royal dick, and responded in kind because your tone did indeed offend me. Likewise, I'm sorry if that wasn't your intent - but also likewise, I don't need an ok from a psychologist to conclude that based on your responses to me, you were, in fact, being kind of a royal dick.

You're right - the first part of that post was directed at a point which I believed you did (and still do) have wrong, and should have created some kind of divider in there to split up the points. My bad. And again, I can't convince you of a parralel between the two situations if you insist one was purely political and the other wasn't (which I, again, disagree with completely).

No - what I found classless and uncalled for was your admitted need to take out frustrations on me that were caused by another poster in another thread, followed by a laundry list of reasons why you acted like you did - most of which had nothing to do with me. I brought up my relative only to point out that having a bad day does not entitle anyone to be a jerk to someone who doesn't deserve it, and that if it were, I'd have as much justification as anyone to cop an attitude. It was not a low blow at you at all, because I didn't know about your relative (for which I offer my condolences) and I'm actually a little annoyed that you think I'd stoop to such a petty tactic just to win points in a trivial debate. But whatever - it's not worth any more bad vibes.

I think we've both said our peace, and can get back to argueing the virtues of truly important matters - like 3rd Edition vs 2nd, or whatever.

Here's to ya

[ May 03, 2006, 01:09: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

My $0.02: I read the transcript of Colbert's performance and I found it pretty funny (in a sort of way ). I can understand why Bush would be unconfortable; it's not like he hears this kind of things very often.

Also, sorry, Felinoid, I do not buy your position that it was just comedy, with no political content. I even have trouble understanding your argument. Satire is definitely political; and it becomes more important when it's the only way somebody can (or will) express his opinions about those in power.

Well, technically nobody stops the mainstream press to freely express their opinions; but the point is that, for whatever reasons, they do not (fear of being accused of partisanship, or loss of access, may be some reasons). This then, makes the fact that the comedian speaks his mind more important.

 

Yep. My opinion. And I didn't mean to say or imply otherwise, though I may have subconsciously, since it's a rather firm opinion.

The best humor is the insightful and cutting type, regardless of the subject. All I'm saying is that political jokes are still jokes. The exposure of the nincompoopery is not of the comedian, but of the nincompoop's own actions that spawned the joke. Saying something people already know in a funny way is comedy.

If you mean that I don't get that the show is all about politics, then no I don't, nor would I even want to as I've said before. Because I don't think it's like that, and if it were, I wouldn't watch it. For the sake of letting you have the last word on this, I'll quote Nelson Muntz: "Some of us prefer illusion to despair."

Not dodging so much as answering in a round-about way. So I'll say it flat out. It takes zero courage to say something when you know there will be no consequences. What in the world could Bush have possibly done after getting the politically-based comedy bit that he asked for?

(Ah, so this is what the other side of this is like.) The statement was not directed at you; it was only a restatement of my "The really telling thing..." paragraph in the first post, which wasn't directed at you either. It was a simple statement. If it came off as directed at anyone at all, that's a matter of poor word choice. (Which reminds of my hatred of the inexactitude of language...)

Hmm, the infamous "you didn't read what I wrote" response. And no, I do not assume that you oppose Bush simply for the sake of opposing Bush. Knowing all the crap that Bush has pulled, you have to assume that anyone who doesn't like Bush has a damn good reason. All I assumed was that you would take any chance to go after the nincompoop that he is.

The blood that Colbert's remarks drew.

Untrue. You gain the satisfaction of beating an absent opponent.

Aye, 2 in the morning is a poor time to argue...

I insist no such thing. If you'll look up, you'll see I said maybe. I also said, "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." I simply don't know enough about Imus's speech (or Imus himself, for that matter) to judge it.

Need, no; possibility, yes. Why do you think I said 'maybe' so much? I simply didn't know. All of us are susceptible to such frustrations at times, "classless and uncalled for" or not, and I simply couldn't be sure exactly why I was pissed at 2 in the morning.

I was actually pretty sure you weren't. That's why I added the last sentence a couple minutes later.
..................................................

*sigh* Here we go again. khaavern, I never said that. I said that it was primarily comedy, with a political basis. That's what political comedy is. It would be pure idiocy to say that a political joke had no political content in it; it's got political right in the name!

 

Actually, Fel, a great many people consider political satire a form of political action. Most satirists are trying to say something. Jon Stewart, for example, admitted that his job (political satire) would be a lot harder with a democrat in office. He wouldn't have said that if he wasn't trying to accomplish something with his satire. John Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Al Franken are all in the same business.....lampooning the right in order to further liberal ideals and real fair and balanced media coverage. They have an agenda that goes a lot deeper than getting a few laughs to make a buck. They try to use humour to further their way of thinking. Most comedians do.

 

It'd be a lot harder with a different Republican in office too. Bush just gives far too much fodder. Honestly, I think you're reading a bit too much into a simple statement. "A Democrat" is just easier to say than "a Democrat or a different Republican or an Independant or...". There's also the factor that Republicans in general are easier to make fun of because they take themselves so seriously.

EDIT: A Simpsons quote for every occassion... (paraphrased since I don't remember the exact words)

 

He could do something now, I guess. It would be hypocritical and childish, but I doubt he is above stuff like that (getting Colbert fired, or his show cancelled, etc).

Wait, this occurred recently, right? As in, recent enough for Bush to do some stupid backstabbish move?

 

@Felinoid: I (obviously) won't agree with the assertion that I read too much into what Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert say and do. Instead, I would argue that you don't give them enough credit.

 

Easier? Myabe it's some kind of code to fool us all. The Colbert thing is definitely news worthy. It proves Republicans can't take a joke. Or, as DR points out so well, maybe Colbert really wasn't joking....

 

Is "The Daily Show" a comedy show or a commentary on the news? Well, it has won two Peabody Awards for its news coverage, which I believe does answer that question.

As Death Rabbit and others pointed out, the lack of coverage in the media of Colbert's performance is more disgusting than mysterious. And Bion, I love your "...palpable discomfort in the room...". "Le mot juste".

[ May 04, 2006, 08:19: Message edited by: Cernak ]