Master Index of Archived Threads


White House Correspondent Dinner

Rotblatt May 02 2006 04:35 PM

Just watched Stephen Colbert give the [url=http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/29.html#a8104]keynote speech[/url] from the WH Correspondent Dinner over at Salon.com, and wow! He was funny, but relentless and pulled no punches, with the primary object of his skewering, Bush, no more than 15 feet away, and the secondary target, our sychophantic press corp, acting as the main audience. Blogger Ann Althouse said the following, which sums up my response quite nicely: ]I love Colbert, but it was a little scary watching him do his "Colbert Report" character outside of his brilliantly comical studio set that frames him as a ridiculous right-wing blowhard. We love the humor in context, but when the targets of the humor are there in the room with him, we can't dissolve into hilarity... ...Wasn't it awful to perform without laughs? Maybe he should have filed the edges off a couple of jokes, but, basically, he did what he had to do to maintain his credibility with his real audience, those who watch "The Colbert Report." And we'll remember the horrible laughlessness of that night and marvel at the steely nerve of Stephen Colbert. What's appalling is the lack of coverage this received. A comic publicly savages the president of the United States--to his face--and it doesn't warrant a mention in the fucking New York Times, which instead decided to report about the inane stunt double routine Bush did? If you haven't seen it, watch it. Agree or disagree with the politics, I bet you'll find it interesting--and probably a bit shocking.

Frayed Knot May 02 2006 04:37 PM

This goes on every year. I don't think there's anything unique about this one so as to deserve some kind of overwhelming press coverage.

Rotblatt May 02 2006 04:42 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: This goes on every year. I don't think there's anything unique about this one so as to deserve some kind of overwhelming press coverage. Uh, did you watch it? It's night and day from previous Correspondent Dinner "roasts" I've seen.

sharpie May 02 2006 04:42 PM

It really is an amazing and ballsy performance. Salon reporting that a Bush aide said he "was ready to blow" sitting there. (on edit): Yikes! I'm Anthony Young (Revisited).

Frayed Knot May 02 2006 04:49 PM

No I didn't see it, but can it be all that different from Don Imus making Clinton/intern jokes with both Bill & Hillary sitting feet away? Or the same about Peter Jennings with him also in attendance?

Rotblatt May 02 2006 04:52 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: No I didn't see it, but can it be all that different from Don Imus making Clinton/intern jokes with both Bill & Hillary sitting feet away? Or the same about Peter Jennings with him also in attendance? Take a look and see for yourself! It's not that long . . . I'd quote a few of the lines, but it won't really do it justice. on edit: Oh, and regarding Imus, I think one difference is the climate in which they performed. The media were happily piling on Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal--obsessively so, some might say. The media now doesn't seem interested in going after Bush. Rumsfeld, Cheney, McClelland--maybe. But Bush? Not so much. It made Colbert's speech that much more shocking. The other big difference is that Colbert's piece was satirical. I'm not sure how to classify Imus's. Comedic? Rude?

Iubitul May 02 2006 05:06 PM

]Oh, and regarding Imus, I think one difference is the climate in which they performed. The media were happily piling on Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal--obsessively so, some might say. The media now doesn't seem interested in going after Bush. Rumsfeld, Cheney, McClelland--maybe. But Bush? Not so much. The thing is that Imus' speech happened before the Lewinsky scandal broke.

Rotblatt May 02 2006 05:17 PM

Iubitul wrote: The thing is that Imus' speech happened before the Lewinsky scandal broke. I stand corrected! I clearly don't remember it as well as I think I do.

ScarletKnight41 May 02 2006 05:22 PM

I love Colbert - there's no substitute for truthiness. Check out [url=http://www.colbertnation.com/colbertnation/index.jhtml]Colbert Nation[/url] to get an idea about what The Colbert Report is all about. Meanwhile, [url=http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002425363]The President was not amused[/url].

Frayed Knot May 03 2006 12:51 AM

Sorry but I don't get the big deal. The keynote comic skewers the President & the WH Press Corps (although barely) during a dinner which is specifically set-up to skewer the Prez & WH Press Corps - and the press is supposed to treat this as if hard news? It's fodder for the DC chattering classes maybe and the assorted gossip pages but there's nothing of real substance here IMO. It wasn't a bad routine, but it's just that; an act. The difference between what Colbert did and Imus (just as an example) seems mainly to be the diff between their individual styles. Colbert plays a phony newsman on TV and did his routine as that character, while Imus did his as the cantankerous cuss that he portrays daily. The targets were the same and in both cases were seated next to the source of the barbs. And I certainly don't get the notion that this time it's news because the mainstream press kisses up to Bush while they were only too happy to tap-dance on Clinton's foibles.

seawolf17 May 03 2006 06:30 AM

"The Crane Pool Forum: The Only Mets Fan Board That Uses Words Like 'Cantankerous' and 'Foibles.'"

Rotblatt May 03 2006 07:53 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: And I certainly don't get the notion that this time it's news because the mainstream press kisses up to Bush while they were only too happy to tap-dance on Clinton's foibles. After looking at Imus' speech and watching Colbert again, I think you're right--the difference isn't so much the climate, but what "foibles" they each targeted. [url=http://imonthe.net/imus/ispeech.htm]Imus[/url] made fun of Clinton's personal life. Colbert basically told Bush that he's a terrible president. Imus joked about the press corps and celebrities--Peter Jenning's "man retreat," Brokaw not being able to pronounce "Milosovich," Sally Struthers being fat, etc. Colbert told the press corps they were spineless and lazy. So while, sure, Imus was shocking because he insulted the president, Colbert was, IMO, far more shocking--and newsworthy--because he insulted the JOB the president--and the press corps--has done. I suspect we'll continue to disagree about the newsworthiness of the piece, but maybe you'll agree that Colbert's keynote speech was STILL more newsworthy than the "Bush's dummy" routine that got replayed all over the news shows. I mean, I certainly don't think it was front-page worthy or anything, but I'd expect at least a discussion of it in the NY Times article that covered the press corps article, which talked extensively about Bush's "twin" but had nary a word to say about Colbert. They do have an article this morning about the backlash to Colbert's speech in the blogosphere, which I haven't read yet.

Frayed Knot May 03 2006 10:12 AM

I guess I'm partially applauding the press for not treating a staged piece of entertainment fare as if a substitue for actual news. I expect Salon and the blogging world et al to hyperventilate over this stuff. It's kinda nice though the the NYTimes isn't. That they concentrated on the Bush/Bush skit prolly falls under the umbrella that anything the Prez does is, to a certain extent, news virtually by definition.

Rotblatt May 03 2006 10:58 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: I guess I'm partially applauding the press for not treating a staged piece of entertainment fare as if a substitue for actual news. I expect Salon and the blogging world et al to hyperventilate over this stuff. It's kinda nice though the the NYTimes isn't. That they concentrated on the Bush/Bush skit prolly falls under the umbrella that anything the Prez does is, to a certain extent, news virtually by definition. Fair enough, although if that's the Times' rationale, it's kind of hilarious. I mean, that's exactly what Colbert was skewering the press for--"Make, announce, type." The Times article this morning was interesting if off the mark. They basically concluded that Colbert didn't judge his audience very well because the attendees didn't find it funny. Which kind of misses the point, IMO. I mean, how often do people being satirized find the satire hilarious? And wasn't Colbert's REAL audience peeps like me who watch his show? Of course, the dude who invited Colbert should really have done his homework first, as Jon Stewart mentioned on Monday's Daily Show. Here's an article from Editor & Publisher about the aftermath at the Daily Show & the Colbert Rapport: ]Jon Stewart Defends Colbert's Dinner Speech By E&P Staff Published: May 01, 2006 11:20 PM ET NEW YORK Probably to no one's surprise, Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "Daily Show," hailed the performance of his stablemate Stephen Colbert at Saturday night's White House Correspondents dinner. Colbert's lampooning of the president and the press has generated a good deal of praise and criticism. "It was balls-alicious," Stewart said. "Apparently he was under the impression that they'd hired him to do what he does every night on television" -- that is, make fun of conservatives, public officials, and the press in the guise of an O'Reillyesque talk show host. "We've never been prouder of him, but HOLY ----," Stewart added. He also described the annual dinner as "where the President and the press corps consummate their loveless marriage." Colbert then followed Stewart, on his own show, "The Colbert Report," describing the "honor of appearing" at the big dinner. He said the room was full of "power players," so he "fit right in." "Best of all, I got to meet my main man, President Bush," he said, and even had a chance to shake his hand. "He has very soft hands," Colbert revealed, "which was surprising. He must wear gloves when he is clearing brush." Colbert made fun of his mixed reception at the dinner, re-running the tape of one of his jokes with the audience barely reacting. He described this as "very respectful silence," and said that actually the crowd loved him. "They practically carried me out on their shoulders," he said, "even though I wasn't ready to go."

Willets Point May 03 2006 11:41 AM

Maybe nobody's laughing because he's not funny. He goes for every obvious "joke" he can make. I hate that type of humor. It's the same thing that makes Mallard Fillmore so unlaughable.

Rotblatt May 03 2006 12:11 PM

Willets Point wrote: Maybe nobody's laughing because he's not funny. He goes for every obvious "joke" he can make. I hate that type of humor. It's the same thing that makes Mallard Fillmore so unlaughable. huh. Not even the whole "Bush STANDS for something. He stands ON things too--like aircraft carriers, rubble, and destroyed houses. It sends a strong message--that no matter what, America will bounce back with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world!"? Well, different strokes for different folks, I suppose. I think the Colbert Rapport is one of the funniest--and smartest--things on television. Of course, I have a colossal weakness for satire. The Press Corps material was in exactly the same vein as his show, but I didn't laugh as much as usual, mostly because I was shocked/concerned by his proximity to his targets.

ScarletKnight41 May 03 2006 01:21 PM

Willets Point wrote: Maybe nobody's laughing because he's not funny. You've obviously never seen The Colbert Report. He's hysterical.

Yancy Street Gang May 03 2006 01:33 PM

I saw him once on Letterman, and he seemed pretty funny. But I couldn't sit through that clip that was linked above. It was 15 minutes long, and after 3 I knew I didn't care to watch the next 12.

rpackrat May 03 2006 04:28 PM

]The keynote comic skewers the President & the WH Press Corps (although barely) during a dinner which is specifically set-up to skewer the Prez & WH Press Corps - and the press is supposed to treat this as if hard news? Yeah, because the normal "skewering" consists of a few relatively good-natured jokes that don't draw any blood -- think any typical Jay Leno monologue. Colbert's performance was Swiftian. Playing his O'Reillyesque character, he eviscerated both the President and the lapdog media with surgucal precision. I never saw Lenny Bruce perform but, having read transcripts and heard recordings of some of his performances, Colbert's performance the other night may be the closest thing I ever see to Bruce. It was brilliant and corageous.

ScarletKnight41 May 03 2006 10:37 PM

[url=http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=2&guidecontext=65.73&pmmsid=1640771&referer=http%3A//news.aol.com/dailypulse/050306/_a/how-funny-was-he/20060503104009990001]Here's The Speech, From the Beginning[/url] What's interesting is that you don't see Colbert's "audition tape" but, rather, you see the President's reactions to it. He laughed a little.