Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Colbert Shocks the Media Silent

By Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher. Posted May 4, 2006.


The same media that's trashing Stephen Colbert gave a pass to Bush's jokes about missing WMDs in Iraq two years earlier.
050406_story1
Stephen Colbert lambastes President Bush at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner. REUTERS/Hyungwon Kang
Advertisement

For days the battle has raged on the Web: Did Stephen Colbert go too far in lampooning President Bush, to his face, at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday night? Is that why his barbs did not generate more laughter around the room of 2700 journalists, celebrities and other guests? Or was it because he suggested the press was spineless in failing to confront the president on Iraq? Or was Colbert just not that funny? [VIDEO]

In any case, the event has inspired debate on hundreds of political and media blogs, the posting of the video on dozens of sites, and massive traffic to E&P, where the first in-depth account of Colbert's performance was posted Saturday night.

You'd think from all the criiticism that the guy had based his routine on joking about launching a war and not finding the WMDs that inspired it. Oh, right, that was President Bush, two years ago.

Nevertheless, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, appearing on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC program Monday night, joined the ranks of those who attended the dinner who felt Colbert "was not funny." On the other hand, he said the president's routine that night with a Bush impersonator was a howl.

This is the same Milbank who last June mocked a congressional forum on the Downing Street memo, and said it was led by a "hearty band of playmates."

Certainly, deciding what's funny is subjective, sometimes a matter of taste (or tastelessness), but increasingly, also, partisan. We bring our politics to everything nowadays, although some may be more open to good satire than others, even when someone on "your side" is hit.

Still, with the knocks on Colbert increasing, I have to ask: Where was the outrage when President Bush made fun of not finding those pesky WMDs at a very similar media dinner -- in the same ballroom -- two years ago? It represents a shameful episode for the American media, and presidency, yet is rarely mentioned today.

It occurred on March 24, 2004. The setting: The 60th annual black-tie dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association (with many print journalists there as guests) at the Washington Hilton. On the menu: surf and turf. Attendance: 1,500. The main speaker: President George W. Bush, one year into the Iraq war, with 500 Americans already dead.

President Bush, as usual at such gatherings of journalists, poked fun at himself. Audiences love to laugh along with, rather than at, a president, for a change. It shows they are good sports, which many people (including the president) often doubt. It's all in good fun, except when it's in bad fun, such as on that night in March 2004.

That night, in the middle of his stand-up routine before the (perhaps tipsy) journos, Bush showed on a screen behind him some candid on-the-job photos of himself. One featured him gazing out a window, as Bush narrated, smiling: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

According to the transcript this was greeted with "laughter and applause" from the audience.


Digg!

Greg Mitchell is editor of E&P and author of seven books on politics and history.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Absolutely
Posted by: nbrown on May 4, 2006 12:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well said.

The corporate media has given Bush a free pass on Iraq. Most of the major papers endorsed the Iraq invasion (NYTimes, Wash Post, etc.) and continue to support the occupation.

And even on the sick matter of "joking" that there were no WMD in Iraq, the media gave Bush a huge thumb's up.

But let's be clear about one thing: Bush wasn't merely "poking fun" at himself two years ago when joking about WMD. He was pulling a Bill Clinton, letting criticism bounce off of him as if he were made of rubber.

With American politics being purely about image, it's a great trick to pull. The effect was to convince his base that it "didn't matter" that there were no WMD in Iraq.

But back to the point, good work!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Absolutely Posted by: mazel
» RE: Absolutely Posted by: nbrown
What a riot.
Posted by: RoffleTheWaffle on May 4, 2006 1:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's nice to know that war has become such a joke to this clown. Of course, you can't possibly expect him to take this matter seriously, considering that in his mind's eye, he's just playing war with his daddy's toys.

What a fucking disgrace. Bush and his ship of fools don't deserve to even so much as set foot on American soil, much less run our country. Poking fun at a war in which thousands have died, laughing about the very mountain of lies he created to bring the war to pass... It only goes to show just how morally bankrupt this man is. It's a good thing to have a sense of humor, but for him of all people to joke around like that is just sickening.

Outrage aside, though, nice article. Also, I don't care if Colbert was out of line when he mopped the floor with the President. It needed to be said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What a riot. Posted by: mcartri
He praised him
Posted by: Prismagirl3 on May 4, 2006 1:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was a once in a life time chance. Honestly what would you expect him to do? Praise the President? Wait he did that.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And Jonathan Swift ate babies! Posted by: Samantha Vimes
The press is REPUBLICAN
Posted by: helen_0f_romford on May 4, 2006 2:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing will change whilst well-paid newspaper columnists continue to believe that it is their job to be partizan propagandists for the Republican party.

This isn't about deference to the office of President, I don't remember any shown to Clinton whose offences in office were trivial compared alongside Bush. It is about traditional media, both print and broadcast, who only understand fairness and balance as meaning the promotion of right-wing ideologies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not funny
Posted by: mokidugway on May 4, 2006 2:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I define Bush by two public performances.

One is his press dinner spoof about wmds.

The other is the interview with Tucker Carlson in wihch Bush mocked the death-row pleas for clemency of fellow born-again Karla Faye Tucker.

People die at his orders, and Bush laughs. Not in private, but to the press. Moreover, few Americans seem to notice or care. And don't just blame the press. Both incidents were widely reported; the former aired on television.

It's absolutely chilling on so many levels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: not funny Posted by: anothername
» RE: not funny Posted by: caitlin
» wow Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: wow Posted by: mokidugway
» RE: not funny Posted by: peacefulaim
» RE: not funny Posted by: American Reflections
» RE: not funny Posted by: mokidugway
More pro-Bush propaganda from E&P
Posted by: IntnsRed on May 4, 2006 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As paid-up, big business members of the ruling class, the corporate mass media overall has been a huge advocate of Bush. If it were not for the media's cheerleading, Bush's election thefts would be common knowledge, his illegal invasion of Iraq would never have happened, we would have had a "real" investigation of 9/11, social security's potential evisceration would have been dead at word 1, Bush's tax cuts never would have passed, etc., etc.

Just look at this article. Read the first sentence above.

Instead of reporting the facts -- say, something like "Comedian character Steven Colbert lampooned Bush personally which made the president visibly uncomfortable..." -- what do we have?

Instead of facts we have E&P defining the "acceptable range" of political debate. The article focuses on whether Colbert went overboard in mocking Bush.

The second sentence of the piece works to reinforce this concept by painting Colbert's performance as not funny. (If true, the blunt truth is so new to reporters they're shocked.)

And we're to call that "objective journalism" and cheer?

A long time ago Chomsky wrote bluntly and eloquently about the corporate mass media's role in limiting free speech and enforcing an "acceptable range" of political debate. Like the corporate mass media as a whole, this piece from E&P does that job subtly and well -- to all of our detriment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You totally missed the point Posted by: brunowe
yogendra2
Posted by: yogendra2 on May 4, 2006 3:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anything that would help George Bush look at how character disordered he is would be a good thing. If George Bush were smart, he could look at Steve Colbert's presentation, look at the things about himself which make him the worst president ever and which make so many people hate him----here and all over the world!----change these character disordered aspects of his personality, and be a better person and BECOME A BETTER PRESIDENT! The only problem with this senario is that persons with severe character disorders got that way because of a defense mechanism called DENIAL. AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE INTENSIVE PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT TO CHANGE. So chances are George Bush will die very, very character disordered and there is no possible way he could change all of his psychological disturbances by the time he leaves office. SO AMERICA WELCOME TO THE REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION. YOGI, TUCSON, AYOGENDRA@YAHOO.COM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: yogendra2 Posted by: markusmark
» RE: yogendra2 Posted by: yogendra2
» RE: yogendra2 Posted by: yogendra2
» RE: yogendra2 Posted by: tooldoc60
» RE: yogendra2 Posted by: bammylou
more progressive/Dem focus on non-issues, same as always
Posted by: cry0fan on May 4, 2006 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There ya go--keep some rich comedian in the political spotlight instead of spotlighting the real issues of progressive taxation, universal healthcare, labor supply and demand, a stronger social safety nets and more time off for workers.

Pretty soon American voters will think that all that politics is about is just pure partisanship, and that politics has nothing to do with making our lives better by working together to get better lives for the majority by keeping the rich people from getting most of everything.

Of course, the rich people like it JUST FINE the way you PseudoLiberals and the RightWing have set it up to make American politics nothing but pure partisanship. Oh, wait, I forgot, your hero Colbert did bring up maybe TWO real issues. Let's see: THe NSA is spying on us. Oh, yeah, exposing that is almost as good as unversal healthcare. Great catch, there. Oh, and there is a war on. OK, yeah, maybe you have an issue there.

But those are far from the most important issues. I guess Colbert choose those issues to raise because all those other issues are verboten under "progressive" democrat activist theory.

Gee, I cannot figure out for the life of me why Middle Americans prefer to vote GOP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» cry0fan's broken record Posted by: BKLN
» people are dying Posted by: brasilaron
DoctorAndy
Posted by: DoctorAndy on May 4, 2006 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where are these aspiring NeoCons like Milbank hatched?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DoctorAndy Posted by: Rattlesby
» RE: Milbank Posted by: henderson
» RE: Milbank Posted by: Rattlesby
» glug glug glug Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: Milbank Posted by: Philne
It was aimed over their heads
Posted by: timsaward on May 4, 2006 3:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the point that a lot of the media commentators are missing is that the speech wasn't aimed at making them laugh, it was aimed at making us, the public, laugh both at Bush and at the complacency of the media, whether pro-Bush or otherwise - and aimed at making them uncomfortable on TV. And it succeeded brilliantly.

They didn't laugh because Colbert rather daringly decided not to reassure them with his comedy, but to challenge them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It was aimed over their heads Posted by: Steven Wanzell
The Truth Hurts
Posted by: Nez46 on May 4, 2006 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who aren't laughing at Colbert's portrayal are the ones who got us into this mess and now must wear the badge of stupidity in public. No one likes being the fool and to have it "IN YOUR FACE" the way Colbert did it really stung down deep.

That being said, regarding the actual piece, I've blogged it, I've talked about it at work and I've replayed it for my Conservative Father in law--the vast majority of folks, including my stuffy ol Pop-in-law, thought it was hilarious.

To those who take offense-get over it, crybabies: Colbert's act was specfreakintacular and those who don't think so can kiss his-and our-royal arses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Truth Hurts Posted by: Rattlesby
» RE: The Truth Hurts Posted by: outsidea
» RE: The Truth Hurts Posted by: brasilaron
A Tour de Force
Posted by: ljsullivan1166@earthlink.net on May 4, 2006 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our Royal Court Jester deserves a medal for heroism.

Actually, when I watched Colbert's performance for the third time, I realized that a lot more people were laughing than I had realized at first. They were also amazed. And squirming in their seats. We haven't had a really good Court Jester in ages. The Court Jester was the only one who could get away with ridiculing the King to his face in public; it was his job.

I can't imagine what Mark Smith was thinking when he hired Colbert for that position -- but then, a major problem with a lot of these conservatives is that they don't have much of a sense of humor. He must have thought Colbert was actually a Bush-loving conservative; either that, or Smith has a death wish. It would be interesting to find out.

But I think a lot of the people in that audience actually 'got' Colbert and found his performance as breathtaking as we did; and it is hard to laugh when you are holding your breath. The fact is, he had the guts -- and balls -- and brains -- to say what millions of us would like to say to the Bush gang. What millions of us wish our Representatives and Senators in Congress would say out loud and then do something about it.

And what he had to say to the Washington press about their bootlicking, obsequious attitude toward this puny tin potentate was also right on. And including Helen Thomas in the program was sheer brilliance. About time that intrepid lady got some recognition.

Great satire serves a great purpose and, in this case, a highly patriotic purpose. It unmasks the fakers and reveals them for what they are in reality. Like pulling the curtain away and revealing the Great and Terrible Oz for the deceptive little pipsqueak he actually was. Like revealing that, in fact, the Emperor has no clothes. Once that happens, it becomes much harder to fool the people again. When the Great and Terrible Oz and the naked Emperor are exposed, their power evaporates. And it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Tour de Force Posted by: Stonecutter
» rhetorical.. Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: A Tour de Force Posted by: peacefulaim
» RE: A Tour de Force Posted by: Urstrly
» RE: A Tour de Force Posted by: Marvin R
» RE: A Tour de Force Posted by: 9wicket
» RE: A Tour de Force Posted by: bschuhle
Re: Mark Smith's motives
Posted by: ljsullivan1166@earthlink.net on May 4, 2006 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just thought of one more possibility why Mark Smith booked Colbert.

Maybe he is a subversive, and it was a plot; maybe he's on OUR side!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Who IS Mark Smith? Posted by: plantland
» RE: Who IS Mark Smith? Posted by: Scientz
Thanks for the reminder
Posted by: Catherine a on May 4, 2006 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You point out with great clarity how Greg Mitchell's piece in E&P was pre-framed for us. It avoids the important issue--that at last someone dared to speak directly to Bush about the gross incompetence and moral impoverishment of Bush and his administration, and Bush's obvious discomfort. Instead Mitchell's piece focused on unimportant things such as whether or not it was acceptable to talk about the massive failings of this president to his face.

We need to have these things pointed out more often.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks for the reminder Posted by: Catherine a
Whorehouse
Posted by: tenstring on May 4, 2006 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corporate media and the Washington power structure are having an orgy in the national whorehouse. Colbert simply used the art of humor to state that truth. Bush and his fellow war criminals are on the greatest crime spree in history, and the corporate media is providing cover for them -- for a slice of the loot. We should all be doing what Colbert did. God bless his pointy little head!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

habrenda
Posted by: habrenda on May 4, 2006 5:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That Bush thought the missing WMD's was something to joke about is not surprising. That he can joke about condemning people to death is also not surprising. As long as he is "fit and trim" as long as he and his friends continue to make lots of money then all is right with the world. Classic sociopathic behavior. What is astonishing and frightening is that the "so-called" journalists continue to go along and support him and his administration. Until this ends and we get truly "fair and honest" reporting we are all just so much fodder and not to be concerned about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Go after them directly. Posted by: Lauren
Political journalists have always craved access to power
Posted by: chomsky on May 4, 2006 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not surprised at the press' lasck of response to Colbert. Political journalists (especially those with capital postings) are usually very pliable to those in the corridors of power. They generally look upon themselves as partners with those who govern and feel that their behaviour can affect policy as much as a house vote. They require contacts for their jobs.
Colbert poked fun at all of this. He seems to recognize that the journalists are as culpable for democaratic errors as the policy makers and their wonks.
No wonder no one smiled. The press have ceded part of their job to comedians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

COMBAT VET THROWS COLBERT A SALUTE.....
Posted by: kc10ken on May 4, 2006 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I served over 13 years including 3 tours in the middle east and I am opposed to the war in Iraq.

I though Colbert's performance was LONG OVERDUE. I absolutely LOVED the message he sent to dumbya and he did it in such an hilarious way.

We need more Colbert's to give this human shitwave of an administration a good dose of reality.

Here's a salute to you Steve.......Thanks...from all the Vets who wish they could have said it themselves!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The days of the bards are back
Posted by: Yundah on May 4, 2006 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Colbert's comments at the press dinner remind me of the history of satire among the Irish. Bards were allowed, in fact were encouraged,f to satirize those in power and acted as social conscience for society. They could not be punished for their satire but they also had to take any comments and criticisms that came their way. Colbert is likewise in that position but he can take it, and should be satisfied that he is getting it. It means that he made people uncomfortable, the first step in self-assessment.
Colbert is following in the path of those bards. I hope he continues. I watched the dinner in which Bush "mocked" his own search for WMD's and was appalled that the audience laughed. Bush's blatant attempt at trying to make his lie "better" by admitting it (albeit mockingly) should have been met with the (mostly) silence that Colbert faced.
I think a free press, with rights of satire, is truly what stands between us and tyranny, when it stands between us and tyranny. I have been very disappointed these last six years. Our press needs to do something, play the pipes, break out the Jamesons, pour the Guinness, anything to get them in an Irish Bardic frame of mind. Anything to get their cynicism going.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» End the drug war? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: nd the drug war? Posted by: jeff2045
I didn't know
Posted by: jrmart66 on May 4, 2006 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, I didn't even realize there was a "controversy". Hmmm, so satire has a limit? Hmmm. So did I miss something? Was there anything in Colbert's monologue that was based on a LIE?
Hmm.
ah, well, I guess the "liberal" press ain't so liberal after all. About the only one that seemed to have a sense of humor is whats her name, that little old white house correspondent that appeared in the video clip.
It has taken almost a year of the "Colbert Report" for the right wing to finally realize they are the butt. That it is their buffoonery that is being ridiculed. doesn't surprise me.

The REAL JOKE isn't the monologue's the REAL JOKE is the President.
Now, let me see where did I put that passport? I want to go to Canada.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I didn't know Posted by: gpm
» RE: I didn't know Posted by: churchofone
THE SILENT MEDIA
Posted by: eileen on May 4, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Colbert does masterfully is tell the truth.

The truth hurts.

The truth is the Fourth Estate is often biased or just silent about many issues.

WE THE PEOPLE can find the truth if we seek it.

Muckraker's thrive on the Internet not in coorporate controlled airconditioned offices.

Where is the media on the historic FREEDOM OF SPEECH trial in Jerusalem? They are silent,
but Vanunu is not and WAWA has the exclusive
"30 Minutes with Vanunu" available as a FREE download:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

"We have it in our power to change the world."-Tom Paine

But we all have to DO SOMETHING to make it happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sophomoric isn't funny
Posted by: Rattlesby on May 4, 2006 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Colbert is NOT that funny to a lot of us out here in the real world.
I admire his courage, and I agree with his purpose. But it was embarrassing, sort of adolescent humor, and I was not laughing very much. Yes, I hate everything about this President, and I grieve over the losses this country has suffered under this Bush regime. But don't be afraid to face facts -- people laugh when they think something is funny, and this routine, done by a truly likeable, intelligent guy, bombed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It doesn't meant to be funny Posted by: Brucewxx
» RE: Sophomoric isn't funny Posted by: Mutternich
» RE: Sophomoric isn't funny Posted by: Rattlesby
» RE: Sophomoric isn't funny Posted by: Elmowilcox
» RE: Sophomoric isn't funny Posted by: Rattlesby
» RE: Sophomoric isn't funny Posted by: zedaker
» RE: Sophomoric isn't funny Posted by: Mutternich
» RE: Sophomoric isn't funny Posted by: churchofone
» RE: Sophomoric isn't funny Posted by: brasilaron
Everything I needed I learned in.....
Posted by: fpitz on May 4, 2006 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello all,
We can debate this back and forth forever, with 100 differing dialectical screeds. Colbert spoke for a hell of a lot of us when he ripped Bush (figuratively). Now, if only we could find someone to rip Bush (literally).
For this radical (68 year old), the debate boils down to rather simple terms instead of all the psuedo-intellectual liberal bullshit. Mom taught me a a damn young age folks, you got to give respect to get respect. Bush's Mom never taught him that, ergo all this crap about "respect" for the presidency, and "acceptable ranges" (of critique) are just that, CRAP. Bush has never given respect to anyone in his miserable, failed life, why should we offer him any respect? He's the president of the most hated country in the world, how in the hell can anyone respect him - or the office that he has so corrupted.
Same goes for the media folks, why should anyone respect, or pay attention to the media presstitutes?
Frank

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ruling Elite vs. Main Stream Media
Posted by: douglashoyt on May 4, 2006 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article made good points.

However, the "truth" is that the MSM and the ruling elite are the same group. Both have a controlling interest in world domination. The corporate energy section of the ruling elite wish to control the oil in Iraq; the MSM section wish to control what, how, why, when, where, and who of the American world view.

So it is not surprising that the MSM should not critize Mr. Bush or his policies.

The self styled journalist at that party have all been picked to think and act in a supportive manner towards the other sections of the ruling elite.

In other words, it is a conspiracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Touche Frank, Bush as big-time loser h.s. coach is funny!
Posted by: Pete123 on May 4, 2006 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have all become familiar with the notion of president as cheerleader thanks to President Reagan. I think the service provided by Colbert's monologue/diatribe is to nudge the historians in the direction of writing about the president of the United States as coach. Now that I have watched and reread Colbert's speech and delivery, and taken in Frank's comments above, I somehow see my high school football coach in Pres. Bush as the big-timer loser high school coach is funny!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WTF?
Posted by: ssegallmd on May 4, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What did the morons think was going to happen when they invited someone who makes a living mocking politics and politicians and who has always been an outspoken critic of the president and who flaunts decorum daily? Have they never seen a roast before. That is what that event was, a roast, with Bush reportedly making fun of himself and with a series of comedic speakers coming to the dais to joke about the people present.

This was just another intelligence failure and some more incompetence from the administration. Only these assclown fucktards could make such an eggregious error.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hero
Posted by: Elmowilcox on May 4, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there any other way to really describe Colbert than to say that he's one of the few heroes we have to look to(if not the only one at this point)? He said all the things noone else will ever have the chance to scream in the President's face(I picture myself yelling with spit flying all over the sorry son of a...), and I commend him for it. It was a very brave, very American act, and I praise him for it. Steve's opponents are just conflicted that they don't have the huevos to speak their minds, as they are all more interested in retaining their jobs than actually doing thier jobs. If only we had a lot more Colberts in the media something might actually get done in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hero Posted by: jimidee
NOT "Funny"!?
Posted by: bamage on May 4, 2006 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come ON, people! "Rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg"... That's FUNNY! There were at least several laugh-out-loud moments for anyone not wholly lacking a sense of irony. Not to mention the brilliant "ballsolicious" (to quote JS) cumulative effect of his act. Open wide, baby birds...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NOT "Funny"!? Posted by: fanny666
» RE: NOT "Funny"!? Posted by: jimidee
» RE: NOT "Funny"!? Posted by: giles
STEPHEN COLBERT (what else)
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 4, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do the planners of this event line up people like Al Franken, Don Imus or Stephen Colbert and then respond the next day with outrage. It's hard enough to be funny. But lying at the same time is impossible. What was Colbert supposed to say ? Next time hire a neocon comic. First they'll have to find one. It is not in the nature of a self righteous conservative to be funny and sharp. They don't get it. Ever.
Thank you Stephen. Well Done! (from ANNA)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The subserviant mainstream press is being replaced as we write
Posted by: dmstern on May 4, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The internet is officially taking over mainstream media as we all write. Colbert's speech was, and remains, big news. The mainstream press completely missed the scoop...and they were all sitting there when it happened!!! To ignore this story has awakened America to how asleep at the wheel all the authority figures are. Like during Katrina, when it took Geraldo Rivera begging Bill O'Reilly to do something on day 5 of the crisis before any of these turkeys stopped sleepwalking. Geraldo for gods sakes! Our last hope.

The embedded cozy reporting of DC is creating a massive need for information. The internet is filling that need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]