The next guy that may stand up to Bush may be Patrick Fitzgerald. Then, Bush may be on trial for obstruction of justice and, perhaps, worse...
I am no Gore supporter but I think he would have dealt with Global Warming rather than hand the issue off to a 24 year old poltical appointee at NASA to spread its "untruthiness." This administration has been a disaster from beginning to end...
Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged the Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, “and reality has a well-known liberal bias.â€
He attacked those in the press who claim that the shake-up at the White House was merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. “This administration is soaring, not sinking,†he said. “If anything, they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.â€
Colbert told Bush he could end the problem of protests by retired generals by refusing to let them retire. He compared Bush to Rocky Balboa in the “Rocky†movies, always getting punched in the face—“and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world.â€
Turning to the war, he declared, "I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."
He noted former Ambassador Joseph Wilson in the crowd, just three tables away from Karl Rove, and that he had brought " Valerie Plame." Then, worried that he had named her, he corrected himself, as Bush aides might do, "Uh, I mean... he brought Joseph Wilson's wife." He might have "dodged the bullet," he said, as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't there.
Colbert also made biting cracks about missing WMDs, “photo ops†on aircraft carriers and at hurricane disasters, melting glaciers and Vice President Cheney shooting people in the face. He advised the crowd, "if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. will be right over with a cocktail. "
Observing that Bush sticks to his principles, he said, "When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday - no matter what happened Tuesday."
Also lampooning the press, Colbert complained that he was “surrounded by the liberal media who are destroying this country, except for Fox News. Fox believes in presenting both sides of the story — the president’s side and the vice president’s side." In another slap at the news channel, he said: "I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the No Fact Zone. Fox News, I own the copyright on that term."
He also reflected on the alleged good old days for the president, when the media was still swallowing the WMD story.
Addressing the reporters, he said, "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. Put them 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."
it's the white house correspondants dinner. everyone is expected to make fun of the administration and the press - even bush. when he spoke, he had an impersonator (steve bridges) next to him, who said "what bush really means" right before he said it in bush-ese.
"why can't I have dinner with the 36% of people who like me"
"Ladies and gentlemen, I feel chipper tonight. I survived the White House shake-up,"
"I'm absolutely delighted to be here, as is Laura,".
bridges: "She's hot,"
there was also a long bit about how cheney was drunk (off one light beer) when he shot worthington. also one with bridges practicing "nuclear" and "intersessionals" over and over, and the the president saying "nucular" and "intersexuals"
Bottom line, it's S.O.P for these things, and has been for ages. I thought colbert looked a little awkward, but he had a few gems.
manamana said it as it is. this was no big deal really and I too thought colbert lacked his usual humor. You all should watch the first part with the Bush impersonator. I think Bush was better at making fun of himself than Colbert was. If you have ever seen the video floating around with bush prior to becoming governer at a wedding reception you would see that he has a pretty good sense of humor. Either way the whole thing was funny and no one left with their feelings hurt.
The fact that Joe Wilson and his wife were there is proof that the rest of the world makes a bigger deal out of all of this than they do. If someone ruined your life and put your life in danger by outing you as a CIA "agent" would you show up at their dinner party? Neither of them are in the press corps.
I imagine Bush can handle himself pretty well around a group like that. He has partied pretty hard in his life, most likely harder than any one else there.
I'm not going to waste my time debating how funny the bit was. Colbert is and was funny, as was the impersonator, and it's worth watching, period. I'm glad oe posted it, in any case. Very amusing.
I guess for me its mostly just sad that one of the funniest jon-stewart-torpedoing-crossfire moments in recent months was upstaged by a lookalike parroting the word "nucular".
jon stewart on crossfire was awesome because it was ballsy, funny, and genuinely angry all at the same time. it wouldn't have been nearly as awesome had he done it on "lets make fun of crossfire" day.
it was funny and entertaining, and maybe a little disturbing becuase colbert was making fun of things that alot of people are very angry with the president about, myself included. But at an event so mirthful....it...well...lacked impact.
"standing up" to the president would have been being deadly serious: "Mr. President, I respect your office, but I find you the most disheartening and shameful president that I can remember."
i completely agree that this is the first time someone has stood up to bush so fervently, or at least so directly in his prescence, bush was 2 seats away -- there is no way this should be compared to the bush + impersonator bit, that was a PR act with Bush showing his 'sense of humor' -- what Colbert did was a complete attack in my opinion.
and what's more is that they gave him about 20 minutes to speak as opposed to the bush bit lasting 10 or so, not to mention he was the last speaker of the evening... not a single person was laughing simply because everyone knew he WASN'T JOKING. if the bush bit was a farce in the sense that it was a PR stunt behind the lighthearted jokes, this was using the ostensible joke as a way to deliver the real message.
I think what was so briliiant about Colbert's bit was that it walked this fine line (in the context of this type of roast dinner) between pure criticism and a funny joke. You could hear people laughing, but it was an uncomfortable "I might get fired if I laugh" kind of laugh. The video part got a little long winded.
The big question is, what were they thinking asking Cobert to do this in the first place? This seems like the one year that you go for a rah/rah kind of person like Bill O'Reilly or Dennis Miller.
colbert definitely pushed it. sure bush can be self-deprecating (he has a lot to work with), but colbert's parody was a scathing and captured everything that is wrong with this administration and the media.
of course, politics figures into how funny you thought this was.
I think the "pie-in-the-face" comment above really misses the point. This was a seminal moment. The fallout will be quite interesting...
This is very good:
Harry Taylor v. Stephen Colbert
by georgia10
Mon May 01, 2006 at 09:22:41 AM PDT
Commentators throughout the blogosphere have commented on the virtual blackout of coverage for Stephen Colbert's scathing critique of the Bush administration. Peter Daou calls the media's ignoring of Colbert "a small taste of the media's power to choose the news."
Harry Taylor was the man who challenged the President during a town hall meeting about, among other things, the domestic spying program. The media extensively covered Taylor's moment; they replayed clips of it over and over again. When Colbert issued, in my opinion, a much more effective and accessible critique of the Bush administration, the media's response has been silence.
To be sure, these two rare moments where the President has faced an unabashed criticism about his abuse of power are quite different in their context. With Taylor, the President presumably didn't know he would be put on the defensive about his policies, whereas with Colbert, Bush was well aware of the tongue-lashing that was to ensue.
However, the context of Colbert's critique should not be minimized because of the environment in which it was delivered. Like Taylor, Colbert demonstrated an extraordinary amount of courage when he bluntly voiced dissent while standing just feet away from the Leader of the Free World. Like Taylor, Colbert was faced with a largely unsympathetic crowd (where Taylor received boos, Colbert's critique was met with the scattered, nervous laughter of a audience uncomfortable with a clear exposition of the truth). So why did the Harry Taylor moment get more media play?
The answer perhaps can be found in the President's response. The clips of Taylor included the President's jokes which minimized the importance of Taylor's dissent. They also included the President's "tough guy" response to Taylor--"I'm not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program...[Y]ou said, would I apologize for that? The answer -- answer is, absolutely not." The media line then was that Taylor challenged the President, who responsed with a tough defense of his policy. Taylor: 1, Bush: 1, no net gain. It's safe to report on a wash for the President.
But the President's response to Colbert was nothing more than pursed lips, red face, and a cold shoulder goodbye. The result was that Colbert's painfully truthful analysis of the Bush administration had none of that faux balance the media loves to employ as a substitute for actual journalism. Add to the mix that the critique included attacks on the media establishment as well, and it's not surprising that Colbert's Harry Taylor moment has been brushed off as the shtick of a comedian rather than the dissent of an American citizen.
No amount of calls to MSNBC or CNN or the AP will result in giving Colbert's critique the coverage it deserved; the news is already in a new cycle, and while the rhetorical wounds inflicted by Colbert's speech are still fresh, his wordsmithing is old news for the media.
Where the media fails, the citizens step up. The Colbert critique has gone viral, with internet users rapidly emailing it to thousands online (I've received three forwards of it already). So go ahead, give life to Colbert's Harry Taylor moment. Email the video to your friends, your family, Republican, Independent, and Democrat alike. I have, and in doing so, I know that Stephen Colbert speaks for me.
The irony of all of this is that the president who stages town meetings and rarely, if ever, faces any real questioning. Bush has fake town meetings whereas Tony Blair had real ones in the last election and was skewered in public. (Did any of you see that? It was painful but Blair endured it.) Now we have a fake TV anchor who gets up and tells Bush what the truth is... Now that's a seminal moment for this administration.
in case anyone else missed it, my pie throwing comment was tongue in cheek. did you really think I was serious?
I hate bush as much as the next guy, but a seminal moment? you've got to be kidding me. in two weeks, nobody is going to be talking about this anymore. I went back and watched it again, trying to figure out why I've recieved no less than 23 emails about how awesome this is. And they all seem to come from people who don't understand that nobody in washington takes anything said at this dinner seriously.
did colbert toe the line? yeah...a bit. but all this "OMG so ballsy he stood up to bushy" stuff everyone under the age of 30 seems to be sprouting is completely overblown.
Quote:
Asked by E&P after it was over if he thought he'd been too harsh, Colbert said, "Not at all." Was he trying to make a point politically or just get laughs? "Just for laughs," he said. He said he did not pull any material for being too strong, just for time reasons. (He later said the president told him "good job" when he walked off.)
I love that georgia10 post, MakeArchitecture, but it's kind of depressingly funny in how fereverntly misguided that person is. How sad is it that the opposition has latched onto a comedian's shtick (that IS what it was) as if it were true dissent? is that the best we have?
cliffs:
-colbert was just going for laughs
-nobody in washington cares, except the few who don't know of colbert's "pundit" character.
you sure colbert wasn't being ironical when he said that he was just going for laughs? if not, then by his own terms his performance was a failure. however, if he meant to ride a wave of palpable tension, take most everyone in the room to task for their lack of any purpose free of fear, selfishness or sycophancy during the course of this administration, then he realized some success.
bush takes care to stage most environments that he is in and while he's comfortable with poking fun at his own language mangling aphasic public speaking presence, he didn't appear to be swaggering through colbert's bit. but by not visibly reacting (though his head seemed quite red) bush may have mollified any lasting sting to come from this.
colbert's performance had some dissentiness. though we'll have forgotten all about it by the time the impeachment rolls around.
its really funny, sure, but as someone mentioned, bush manages to make fun of himself better than anyone else. He needs a proper skewering in proper formal terms in public. Events like this, though great are going to be obselete in 3 weeks.
I obviously can't be positive, but I highly doubt he was being ironic. If he had still been doing his wink-wink pundit character bit, he'd have deadpanned something along the lines of "of course it was a political statement. I meant every last word of support for the president."
I don't think his performance was a failure, either...I think it's more that alot of people are watching this snipped out of its context, hence taking it for something it's not.
and wonderK, yes, truthiness kicks royal assiness.
I thought it was pretty damn funny. I watched the Bush vs. Bush skit from earlier in the dinner, not so funny. Remember that inside the beltway things like the "Capitol Steps" and Marc Russell (the guy with the bow-tie who used to sing and tell corny jokes on PBS) are hee-larious. So maybe the room not falling on the floor laughing makes a bit more sense in that light. Actually though, Scalia, the Wilsons, and Scott McLelen all looked like they were enjoying it. Bush, not so much.
It seems like there is usually some fall out from the jokes at these dinners. A couple years ago it was Bush ding a bit looking under the Oval Office sofa for WMD, the press seemed to down play it but a lot of people got upset about him making jokes about his own erroneous reasons for going to war. So the next year he let Laura do it and kept his nose clean, this year the organisers apparently didn't feel like letting him slide.
Bush is indeed really good at poking fun at himself, I wish he didn't has so much material.
Please read the salon piece... I guess I am always surprised that Architects don't know irony when they see it. "Socratic irony, the oldest form, takes place when someone pretends to be foolish or ignorant, but is not." What happened to all of the theoretical stuff you've been reading? Guy Debord, et al? But the irony here was very French and biting. Colbert is far more than a comic playing a fool....
It is a seminal moment because this is the first time in 6 years that this administration has been confronted with the truth. This is seminal because Patrick Fitzgerald just successfully prosecuted former Governor George Ryan here in Illinois... It may take a while but I think Bush's chickens will come home to roost....
...although colbert's comedy is not the laugh-out-loud-rolling-on-the-ground type. It is more cerebral and ironic than that. So although I actually laughed more when Bush did his skit, Colbert was better because of the setting, his content, and his delivery.
I know what irony is. And I know that rain on your wedding day is not. Colbert's speech was ironic, his response as to whether or not he was making a political point was not.
do you really think that bush never hears any criticism ("the truth")? he hears it all the time, he just doesn't care - just like with this dinner. Only with this dinner, he has even less concern for it, because nobody who understands colbert's character and the context of the dinner takes it at all seriously.
And how does George Ryan's situation have ANYTHING to do with colbert's speech?
Bush's chickens may or may not come home to roost, but colbert's speech will have absolutely nothing to do with it one way or the other.
"Bush is good at poking fun at himself" - The Bush/Bridges skit and other instances of Bush's self-deprocating "sense of humor" are nothing other than very intentional efforts at making Bush seem like the "common man" - not the privilidged, Ivy league, aggogant buffoon that he is.
The 2 Bushs skit is not funny. It is scary though that the Yale/Harvard educated leader of the free-world cannot pronounce "nuclear proliferation". But by calling attention to it as he has, Bush is essentially saying that he is not controlled by the "factinistas over at Websters" - EXACTLY what Stephen Colbert was pointing out.
i think that colbert's raking bush over the coals at the press corps dinner was great- but not that funny. having watched it a few times, i'm entirely flabbergasted that anyone in the media or anyone on this post for that matter, could think for a minute that humor was his intention. hes got a soapbox four nights a week that he can, and does- use to his heart's content to be funny. he had a one-time chance to rake the president, and almost as importantly the chickenshit press corps, over the coals- and he did it supremely well.
while i don't believe that colbert's diatribe is going to change anything, its beyond debate that people are taking him seriously- the 24 hours of press silence (always a good indicator) followed by a litany of weak "he wasn't really that funny"s- not to mention the web counters on salon and youtube are a testament to that.
i can't believe that anyone who has watched the national news in the last five years can doubt for a minute that bush isn't pretty fucking adept at sticking his head in the sand and insulating himself from, or ignoring, criticism on all levels. sitting all tight-lipped 10 feet away listening to one of his more articulate detractors ripping into him under a gauzy thin veil of smarm and irony had to be painful. so yeah, i think colbert's performance was seminal, and that his humble disclaimer- "it was just for laughs" just as transparently disingenuous.
oe> yeah. I think Steven Colbert and Steve Carell are geniuses. I also watch the Daily Show religiously.....its political satire is the only thing that's kept me sane for the past 5+ years.
Just wanted to mention, there is also a "torrent" of this. The top one on the list with about 1100 seeds is the entire show (with the Bush impersonator also). The one third down (with 130 seeds currently) is just the Colbert part, I believe.
Colbert was *definitely* funnier than Bush. It is strange how this so-called "classic" moment disappears from the radar after a week just like everything else.
Anyone remember rendition?
Has anyone even mentioned Valerie Plame lately before Colbert brought it up again?
Steven Colbert at the White House Correspondents Dinner,
This doesn't appear to want to load. I would really like to see it though. Perhaps a link.....??
it was pretty much what he says all the time. we get it. no fact zone etc..etc...only with el presidente on the dias...
This is the first time in 6 years that anyone has stood up to Bush.
Hats off to Colbert for having the balls to pull this one off...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/59811
http://video.freevideoblog.com/video/AAC7FA18-2DDC-4D3E-B1BB-9D6CBD83E27F.htm
http://video.freevideoblog.com/video/C91DDBB4-28AD-4E6F-BD52-822BC77DF696.htm
sorry guys, it was working before, thanks make,
it's on youtube too....
i love helen thomas, this made me happy. i almost felt bad for bush, almost.
The next guy that may stand up to Bush may be Patrick Fitzgerald. Then, Bush may be on trial for obstruction of justice and, perhaps, worse...
I am no Gore supporter but I think he would have dealt with Global Warming rather than hand the issue off to a 24 year old poltical appointee at NASA to spread its "untruthiness." This administration has been a disaster from beginning to end...
He attacked those in the press who claim that the shake-up at the White House was merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. “This administration is soaring, not sinking,†he said. “If anything, they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.â€
Colbert told Bush he could end the problem of protests by retired generals by refusing to let them retire. He compared Bush to Rocky Balboa in the “Rocky†movies, always getting punched in the face—“and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world.â€
Turning to the war, he declared, "I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."
He noted former Ambassador Joseph Wilson in the crowd, just three tables away from Karl Rove, and that he had brought " Valerie Plame." Then, worried that he had named her, he corrected himself, as Bush aides might do, "Uh, I mean... he brought Joseph Wilson's wife." He might have "dodged the bullet," he said, as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't there.
Colbert also made biting cracks about missing WMDs, “photo ops†on aircraft carriers and at hurricane disasters, melting glaciers and Vice President Cheney shooting people in the face. He advised the crowd, "if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. will be right over with a cocktail. "
Observing that Bush sticks to his principles, he said, "When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday - no matter what happened Tuesday."
Also lampooning the press, Colbert complained that he was “surrounded by the liberal media who are destroying this country, except for Fox News. Fox believes in presenting both sides of the story — the president’s side and the vice president’s side." In another slap at the news channel, he said: "I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the No Fact Zone. Fox News, I own the copyright on that term."
He also reflected on the alleged good old days for the president, when the media was still swallowing the WMD story.
Addressing the reporters, he said, "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. Put them 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."
WOW!
vado really? I thought it was pretty fucking funny. He burried those poor bastards.
.......yeah, wow.....this is really something new...... oh boy, i am so excited about this....
Oh my god. Absolutely brilliant. And he's so calm too. Love the malomar bit.
That was fucking hilarious... Colbert can keep a deadpan like nobody else.
it's the white house correspondants dinner. everyone is expected to make fun of the administration and the press - even bush. when he spoke, he had an impersonator (steve bridges) next to him, who said "what bush really means" right before he said it in bush-ese.
"why can't I have dinner with the 36% of people who like me"
"Ladies and gentlemen, I feel chipper tonight. I survived the White House shake-up,"
"I'm absolutely delighted to be here, as is Laura,".
bridges: "She's hot,"
there was also a long bit about how cheney was drunk (off one light beer) when he shot worthington. also one with bridges practicing "nuclear" and "intersessionals" over and over, and the the president saying "nucular" and "intersexuals"
Bottom line, it's S.O.P for these things, and has been for ages. I thought colbert looked a little awkward, but he had a few gems.
manamana said it as it is. this was no big deal really and I too thought colbert lacked his usual humor. You all should watch the first part with the Bush impersonator. I think Bush was better at making fun of himself than Colbert was. If you have ever seen the video floating around with bush prior to becoming governer at a wedding reception you would see that he has a pretty good sense of humor. Either way the whole thing was funny and no one left with their feelings hurt.
The fact that Joe Wilson and his wife were there is proof that the rest of the world makes a bigger deal out of all of this than they do. If someone ruined your life and put your life in danger by outing you as a CIA "agent" would you show up at their dinner party? Neither of them are in the press corps.
I imagine Bush can handle himself pretty well around a group like that. He has partied pretty hard in his life, most likely harder than any one else there.
I'm not going to waste my time debating how funny the bit was. Colbert is and was funny, as was the impersonator, and it's worth watching, period. I'm glad oe posted it, in any case. Very amusing.
I guess for me its mostly just sad that one of the funniest jon-stewart-torpedoing-crossfire moments in recent months was upstaged by a lookalike parroting the word "nucular".
jon stewart on crossfire was awesome because it was ballsy, funny, and genuinely angry all at the same time. it wouldn't have been nearly as awesome had he done it on "lets make fun of crossfire" day.
it was funny and entertaining, and maybe a little disturbing becuase colbert was making fun of things that alot of people are very angry with the president about, myself included. But at an event so mirthful....it...well...lacked impact.
"standing up" to the president would have been being deadly serious: "Mr. President, I respect your office, but I find you the most disheartening and shameful president that I can remember."
then throw a pie in his face and walk out.
What a fantastic idea. Forget $100 a plate fundraiser dinners, I would have paid an unspecified sum to see Colbert put a pie in Bush's face....
i completely agree that this is the first time someone has stood up to bush so fervently, or at least so directly in his prescence, bush was 2 seats away -- there is no way this should be compared to the bush + impersonator bit, that was a PR act with Bush showing his 'sense of humor' -- what Colbert did was a complete attack in my opinion.
and what's more is that they gave him about 20 minutes to speak as opposed to the bush bit lasting 10 or so, not to mention he was the last speaker of the evening... not a single person was laughing simply because everyone knew he WASN'T JOKING. if the bush bit was a farce in the sense that it was a PR stunt behind the lighthearted jokes, this was using the ostensible joke as a way to deliver the real message.
I think what was so briliiant about Colbert's bit was that it walked this fine line (in the context of this type of roast dinner) between pure criticism and a funny joke. You could hear people laughing, but it was an uncomfortable "I might get fired if I laugh" kind of laugh. The video part got a little long winded.
The big question is, what were they thinking asking Cobert to do this in the first place? This seems like the one year that you go for a rah/rah kind of person like Bill O'Reilly or Dennis Miller.
^ditto^
colbert definitely pushed it. sure bush can be self-deprecating (he has a lot to work with), but colbert's parody was a scathing and captured everything that is wrong with this administration and the media.
of course, politics figures into how funny you thought this was.
Does anyone know which architecture school Colbert went to?
Check out thankyoustephencolbert.org You can find links to the video on YouTube there, and can add your name to the >10,000 long list thanking him.
">all kidding aside by dan froomkin of the washington post
I think the "pie-in-the-face" comment above really misses the point. This was a seminal moment. The fallout will be quite interesting...
This is very good:
Harry Taylor v. Stephen Colbert
by georgia10
Mon May 01, 2006 at 09:22:41 AM PDT
Commentators throughout the blogosphere have commented on the virtual blackout of coverage for Stephen Colbert's scathing critique of the Bush administration. Peter Daou calls the media's ignoring of Colbert "a small taste of the media's power to choose the news."
Harry Taylor was the man who challenged the President during a town hall meeting about, among other things, the domestic spying program. The media extensively covered Taylor's moment; they replayed clips of it over and over again. When Colbert issued, in my opinion, a much more effective and accessible critique of the Bush administration, the media's response has been silence.
To be sure, these two rare moments where the President has faced an unabashed criticism about his abuse of power are quite different in their context. With Taylor, the President presumably didn't know he would be put on the defensive about his policies, whereas with Colbert, Bush was well aware of the tongue-lashing that was to ensue.
However, the context of Colbert's critique should not be minimized because of the environment in which it was delivered. Like Taylor, Colbert demonstrated an extraordinary amount of courage when he bluntly voiced dissent while standing just feet away from the Leader of the Free World. Like Taylor, Colbert was faced with a largely unsympathetic crowd (where Taylor received boos, Colbert's critique was met with the scattered, nervous laughter of a audience uncomfortable with a clear exposition of the truth). So why did the Harry Taylor moment get more media play?
The answer perhaps can be found in the President's response. The clips of Taylor included the President's jokes which minimized the importance of Taylor's dissent. They also included the President's "tough guy" response to Taylor--"I'm not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program...[Y]ou said, would I apologize for that? The answer -- answer is, absolutely not." The media line then was that Taylor challenged the President, who responsed with a tough defense of his policy. Taylor: 1, Bush: 1, no net gain. It's safe to report on a wash for the President.
But the President's response to Colbert was nothing more than pursed lips, red face, and a cold shoulder goodbye. The result was that Colbert's painfully truthful analysis of the Bush administration had none of that faux balance the media loves to employ as a substitute for actual journalism. Add to the mix that the critique included attacks on the media establishment as well, and it's not surprising that Colbert's Harry Taylor moment has been brushed off as the shtick of a comedian rather than the dissent of an American citizen.
No amount of calls to MSNBC or CNN or the AP will result in giving Colbert's critique the coverage it deserved; the news is already in a new cycle, and while the rhetorical wounds inflicted by Colbert's speech are still fresh, his wordsmithing is old news for the media.
Where the media fails, the citizens step up. The Colbert critique has gone viral, with internet users rapidly emailing it to thousands online (I've received three forwards of it already). So go ahead, give life to Colbert's Harry Taylor moment. Email the video to your friends, your family, Republican, Independent, and Democrat alike. I have, and in doing so, I know that Stephen Colbert speaks for me.
The irony of all of this is that the president who stages town meetings and rarely, if ever, faces any real questioning. Bush has fake town meetings whereas Tony Blair had real ones in the last election and was skewered in public. (Did any of you see that? It was painful but Blair endured it.) Now we have a fake TV anchor who gets up and tells Bush what the truth is... Now that's a seminal moment for this administration.
the guy's good. i've always thought the best satire is that which spits back the mindless PC in the (oops!) "wrong" context.
bush has always been one of the best at making fun of himself. almost constantly. bush must have more experience making fun of himself.
The more I think about it, the more amazed I am. I think the fact that he did it with such calm and such ease is what I find really impressive.
in case anyone else missed it, my pie throwing comment was tongue in cheek. did you really think I was serious?
I hate bush as much as the next guy, but a seminal moment? you've got to be kidding me. in two weeks, nobody is going to be talking about this anymore. I went back and watched it again, trying to figure out why I've recieved no less than 23 emails about how awesome this is. And they all seem to come from people who don't understand that nobody in washington takes anything said at this dinner seriously.
did colbert toe the line? yeah...a bit. but all this "OMG so ballsy he stood up to bushy" stuff everyone under the age of 30 seems to be sprouting is completely overblown.
Quote:
Asked by E&P after it was over if he thought he'd been too harsh, Colbert said, "Not at all." Was he trying to make a point politically or just get laughs? "Just for laughs," he said. He said he did not pull any material for being too strong, just for time reasons. (He later said the president told him "good job" when he walked off.)
I love that georgia10 post, MakeArchitecture, but it's kind of depressingly funny in how fereverntly misguided that person is. How sad is it that the opposition has latched onto a comedian's shtick (that IS what it was) as if it were true dissent? is that the best we have?
cliffs:
-colbert was just going for laughs
-nobody in washington cares, except the few who don't know of colbert's "pundit" character.
you sure colbert wasn't being ironical when he said that he was just going for laughs? if not, then by his own terms his performance was a failure. however, if he meant to ride a wave of palpable tension, take most everyone in the room to task for their lack of any purpose free of fear, selfishness or sycophancy during the course of this administration, then he realized some success.
bush takes care to stage most environments that he is in and while he's comfortable with poking fun at his own language mangling aphasic public speaking presence, he didn't appear to be swaggering through colbert's bit. but by not visibly reacting (though his head seemed quite red) bush may have mollified any lasting sting to come from this.
colbert's performance had some dissentiness. though we'll have forgotten all about it by the time the impeachment rolls around.
Ok, I've decided that this speech was literally the funniest thing I've ever seen in my entire life.
:-D
Obviously I'm exaggerating but I do love how the word "truthiness" and all its derivatives have made it into our daily lexicon.
its really funny, sure, but as someone mentioned, bush manages to make fun of himself better than anyone else. He needs a proper skewering in proper formal terms in public. Events like this, though great are going to be obselete in 3 weeks.
waxwings:
I obviously can't be positive, but I highly doubt he was being ironic. If he had still been doing his wink-wink pundit character bit, he'd have deadpanned something along the lines of "of course it was a political statement. I meant every last word of support for the president."
I don't think his performance was a failure, either...I think it's more that alot of people are watching this snipped out of its context, hence taking it for something it's not.
and wonderK, yes, truthiness kicks royal assiness.
I thought it was pretty damn funny. I watched the Bush vs. Bush skit from earlier in the dinner, not so funny. Remember that inside the beltway things like the "Capitol Steps" and Marc Russell (the guy with the bow-tie who used to sing and tell corny jokes on PBS) are hee-larious. So maybe the room not falling on the floor laughing makes a bit more sense in that light. Actually though, Scalia, the Wilsons, and Scott McLelen all looked like they were enjoying it. Bush, not so much.
It seems like there is usually some fall out from the jokes at these dinners. A couple years ago it was Bush ding a bit looking under the Oval Office sofa for WMD, the press seemed to down play it but a lot of people got upset about him making jokes about his own erroneous reasons for going to war. So the next year he let Laura do it and kept his nose clean, this year the organisers apparently didn't feel like letting him slide.
Bush is indeed really good at poking fun at himself, I wish he didn't has so much material.
Please read the salon piece... I guess I am always surprised that Architects don't know irony when they see it. "Socratic irony, the oldest form, takes place when someone pretends to be foolish or ignorant, but is not." What happened to all of the theoretical stuff you've been reading? Guy Debord, et al? But the irony here was very French and biting. Colbert is far more than a comic playing a fool....
It is a seminal moment because this is the first time in 6 years that this administration has been confronted with the truth. This is seminal because Patrick Fitzgerald just successfully prosecuted former Governor George Ryan here in Illinois... It may take a while but I think Bush's chickens will come home to roost....
I agree with the majority I think this was funnier:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7595951434679739793&q=bush&pl=true
...although colbert's comedy is not the laugh-out-loud-rolling-on-the-ground type. It is more cerebral and ironic than that. So although I actually laughed more when Bush did his skit, Colbert was better because of the setting, his content, and his delivery.
MakeArchitecture, your naivete is astounding.
I know what irony is. And I know that rain on your wedding day is not. Colbert's speech was ironic, his response as to whether or not he was making a political point was not.
do you really think that bush never hears any criticism ("the truth")? he hears it all the time, he just doesn't care - just like with this dinner. Only with this dinner, he has even less concern for it, because nobody who understands colbert's character and the context of the dinner takes it at all seriously.
And how does George Ryan's situation have ANYTHING to do with colbert's speech?
Bush's chickens may or may not come home to roost, but colbert's speech will have absolutely nothing to do with it one way or the other.
The majority thinks the Bridges/Bush skit was funnier? Yikes.
"Bush is good at poking fun at himself" - The Bush/Bridges skit and other instances of Bush's self-deprocating "sense of humor" are nothing other than very intentional efforts at making Bush seem like the "common man" - not the privilidged, Ivy league, aggogant buffoon that he is.
The 2 Bushs skit is not funny. It is scary though that the Yale/Harvard educated leader of the free-world cannot pronounce "nuclear proliferation". But by calling attention to it as he has, Bush is essentially saying that he is not controlled by the "factinistas over at Websters" - EXACTLY what Stephen Colbert was pointing out.
i think that colbert's raking bush over the coals at the press corps dinner was great- but not that funny. having watched it a few times, i'm entirely flabbergasted that anyone in the media or anyone on this post for that matter, could think for a minute that humor was his intention. hes got a soapbox four nights a week that he can, and does- use to his heart's content to be funny. he had a one-time chance to rake the president, and almost as importantly the chickenshit press corps, over the coals- and he did it supremely well.
while i don't believe that colbert's diatribe is going to change anything, its beyond debate that people are taking him seriously- the 24 hours of press silence (always a good indicator) followed by a litany of weak "he wasn't really that funny"s- not to mention the web counters on salon and youtube are a testament to that.
i can't believe that anyone who has watched the national news in the last five years can doubt for a minute that bush isn't pretty fucking adept at sticking his head in the sand and insulating himself from, or ignoring, criticism on all levels. sitting all tight-lipped 10 feet away listening to one of his more articulate detractors ripping into him under a gauzy thin veil of smarm and irony had to be painful. so yeah, i think colbert's performance was seminal, and that his humble disclaimer- "it was just for laughs" just as transparently disingenuous.
colbert was funnier than bush on bush or whatever that stupid piece was...for the record.
This to me is like people who watch 'The Office' and say "I HATE that David Brent guy, he just isnt funny at all!"
oe> yeah. I think Steven Colbert and Steve Carell are geniuses. I also watch the Daily Show religiously.....its political satire is the only thing that's kept me sane for the past 5+ years.
Off of You Tube, but up on c-span.org and Google
Just wanted to mention, there is also a "torrent" of this. The top one on the list with about 1100 seeds is the entire show (with the Bush impersonator also). The one third down (with 130 seeds currently) is just the Colbert part, I believe.
Colbert was *definitely* funnier than Bush. It is strange how this so-called "classic" moment disappears from the radar after a week just like everything else.
Anyone remember rendition?
Has anyone even mentioned Valerie Plame lately before Colbert brought it up again?
people who live in the less cult-dominated parts of planet earth can read or hear about Plame ~Libby ~ Cheney. Anyway there's still the net for news.
ask vaclev havel's readers.
Scalia knows he's not expendable.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.