• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stephen Colbert: Giant Brass Balls

BPSCG said:
Um, not quite the same thing, is it? Colbert beats up on Bush, then goes after the press for not beating up on Bush enough?
Click to expand...

That's the daily show formula in a nutshell.

Be even handed:
beat up bush
beat up the press/democrats for not beating up on Bush enough


Mind you, I think Colbert was funny and witty. But if you are familiar with this event and the kind of roasting that is supposed to happen, you know he won't be invited back.
 
It seems like one of the main complaints with colbert's performance was that traditionally one is supposed to make fun of both the parties equally. The problem with this is, the democrats don't control anything on a national level. Republicans are in charge or all three branches of government; including both houses of congress; so there isn't any equal comedy to be had. Everyone knows the democrats are impudent and powerless do-nothings, isn't that enough? Further this is Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report, the comedy of the character comes from the satire of right wing windbags. He was hired to be Colbert everyone should have been expecting this.

Really, I think the problem is people know he is correct, and the brutal way his satire made people confront reality on a celebratory night was uncomfortable. That's why the best thing right wing blogs can seem to say is "Colbert bombed, he wasn't funny".

Bush seems to spend so much time in his bubble, protected from direct criticism it was cathartic to see him have to sit down and listen to one man express what 68% of the country is thinking for once; even if it was through the guise of comedy.


*edit* holy (rule 8) it's my birthday.
 
UserGoogol said:
One might argue that he didn't have to play Report Stephen. But he kinda did. There is so much comic potential in having Report Stephen talk at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, that it would be a crime to not do it just because "it's not appropriate for the event." Having Report Stephen speak at the White House Correspondants' Dinner is just a perfect incarnation of his character. You don't give up a chance for comedy like that just because it's impolite.
Click to expand...

Oh, he definitely had to do it. It was either that or refuse the invitation altogether. I realize the crowd he was in front of didn't think it was very funny, but he's my hero.
 
I definitely found it funny, because it went for Bush (who deserved it) but mainly to the most spineless Washington press corps I can ever remember (except Helen Thomas).

Colbert was definitely speaking over the top of the audience towards the American people (and a few of us non-Americans as well). A 68% disapproval rating and everybody's backslapping the President?
 
(shrug)

So, this comedy act, traditionally, calls for the "roasting" of both parties / political views. But Colbert decides to concentrate solely on the Republicans, despite the fact that it is a deliberate insult to his hosts.

This rudeness is applauded as "bravery", "speaking truth to power" etc., while his trite observations (about the "Titanic" and Fox News--gee, how original) are seen as profound political criticism.

On the other hand, the fact that his hosts were deeply insulted is seen as nothing less than they deserve--they are Republicans, after all, and therefore not worthy of common courtesy or consideration, as they are eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, Batman, eeeeeeeeeeeevil.

Am I the only one whose not impressed by this "bravery"?

That said, I might be unfair to Colbert here. He might have roasted both parties and we only got the anti-Republican part in this post. In that case I will withdraw the criticism.
 
Skeptic said:
(shrug)

So, this comedy act, traditionally, calls for the "roasting" of both parties / political views. But Colbert decides to concentrate solely on the Republicans, despite the fact that it is a deliberate insult to his hosts.

This rudeness is applauded as "bravery", "speaking truth to power" etc., while his trite observations (about the "Titanic" and Fox News--gee, how original) are seen as profound political criticism.

On the other hand, the fact that his hosts were deeply insulted is seen as nothing less than they deserve--they are Republicans, after all, and therefore not worthy of common courtesy or consideration, as they are eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, Batman, eeeeeeeeeeeevil.

Am I the only one whose not impressed by this "bravery"?

That said, I might be unfair to Colbert here. He might have roasted both parties and we only got the anti-Republican part in this post. In that case I will withdraw the criticism.
Click to expand...

since you seem not to have clicked on the link I provided, I ask you to name one powerful Dem he could have "roasted". The left has been so completely marginalized, there is little to mock them for, other than powerlessnes.
 
Skeptic said:
(shrug)

So, this comedy act, traditionally, calls for the "roasting" of both parties / political views. But Colbert decides to concentrate solely on the Republicans, despite the fact that it is a deliberate insult to his hosts.
Click to expand...
The Republicans hosted this event? I don't think so; I thought it was hosted by the White House Correspondents Association (maybe not the exact right name).
 
LawnOven said:
Really, I think the problem is people know he is correct, and the brutal way his satire made people confront reality on a celebratory night was uncomfortable. That's why the best thing right wing blogs can seem to say is "Colbert bombed, he wasn't funny".

Bush seems to spend so much time in his bubble, protected from direct criticism it was cathartic to see him have to sit down and listen to one man express what 68% of the country is thinking for once; even if it was through the guise of comedy.
Click to expand...

"What are polls but just collections of statistics that reflect reality. And everyone knows, reality has a liberal bias."

Something like that.
 
Skeptic said:
(shrug) ....

That said, I might be unfair to Colbert here. He might have roasted both parties and we only got the anti-Republican part in this post. In that case I will withdraw the criticism.
Click to expand...

I watched most of the thing on C-SPAN. All he did was play his Colbert Report character - the satirical, over-the-top conservative pundit. It was not even-handed, but I can't help but wonder what the people who invited him thought they were getting when they asked him to speak?

Bush with his double was hilarious - self-deprecating humor is his strong suit.
 
I'm a member of the Colbert nation (one of the heroes), but I can't stand those types of situations. Awk-ward. It would have probably been worse if the press corps laughed uproariously because then I'd have to hear crap about it from more-angry-than-usual Republicans. Nevertheless, this is something that had to be done.

For a couple months (I'm not so sure about now) the Colbert Report was consistently funnier than the Daily Show. Colbert is every bit as quick witted as Stewart, and his interviews are much more entertaining. I loved the way he went after Kristol.
 
Cain said:
I'm a member of the Colbert nation (one of the heroes), but I can't stand those types of situations. Awk-ward. It would have probably been worse if the press corps laughed uproariously because then I'd have to hear crap about it from more-angry-than-usual Republicans. Nevertheless, this is something that had to be done.

For a couple months (I'm not so sure about now) the Colbert Report was consistently funnier than the Daily Show. Colbert is every bit as quick witted as Stewart, and his interviews are much more entertaining. I loved the way he went after Kristol.
Click to expand...


Colbert > Stewart

I think Stewart really isn't that funny. He bounced around from one unfunny show to another for years until he landed in the Daily Show being carried by Colbert and the other talents.

I don't think hes very funny when he's offscript. I think much of the ha-ha people associate with Stewart when he's not reading lines comes from the fact that he's supposed to be funny and not that he actually is.

Seinfeld can do blah material and people laugh because its Seinfeld. I think Stewart has achieved that sort of factor with Daily Show fans. "Look, Jon just made an impromptu smartaleck comment any 13 year old could, hahahah"
 
Was it inappropriate for the venue? YES. I don't expect him ever to be invited back, nor do I think the organizers would be unfair to feel that way.

That said... I DO celebrate what happened. Not because someone got to play "slam the republican" -- which happens all the time, really, nothing original or unprecedented about that at all. What I liked about it is that a person that has gone to such careful trouble to insulate himself from criticism found himself a captive audience to it, in front of the country and the world.

I see it as payback for "Free Speech Zones". It's always so hard to convince others of this, but I feel that if a Democrat had isolated himself similarly I would have a similar feeling of satisfaction.
 
Last edited:
In any case, as someone else pointed out, it's wonderful to live in a country where the most powerful man in the world can be mocked to his face.
 
BPSCG said:
In any case, as someone else pointed out, it's wonderful to live in a country where the most powerful man in the world can be mocked to his face.
Click to expand...

Oh hush. The USA is a dictatorial theocracy where everybody who disagrees with Bush can end up at gitmo. This thing about Colbert mocking the president is just a fake news item by the right-wing-controlled media who hides the truth.

At least, that was SUPPOSED to happen by 2006, according to the perfectly reasonable and rational critics of Bush's presidency during his first term. Remember that?
 
corplinx said:
Colbert > Stewart

I think Stewart really isn't that funny. He bounced around from one unfunny show to another for years until he landed in the Daily Show being carried by Colbert and the other talents.

I don't think hes very funny when he's offscript. I think much of the ha-ha people associate with Stewart when he's not reading lines comes from the fact that he's supposed to be funny and not that he actually is.

Seinfeld can do blah material and people laugh because its Seinfeld. I think Stewart has achieved that sort of factor with Daily Show fans. "Look, Jon just made an impromptu smartaleck comment any 13 year old could, hahahah"
Click to expand...

While I think Stewart is funny, I do agree with your comments related to what I'll call mystique. It's difficult for humans to bracket out their feelings and beliefs, so Seinfeld can coast on his superstardom.

I think Robin Williams is the worst, though. I don't know why people in studio audiences laugh at his schtick. Yes, he's going to get out of his chair and walk around the set. That's not so "crazy" anymore; it's expected. Yes, he's going to do the voices: effeminiate gay hair dresser coupled with stern military man/or Black Dude. Just die already.
 
BPSCG said:
In any case, as someone else pointed out, it's wonderful to live in a country where the most powerful man in the world can be mocked to his face.
Click to expand...
I think it's wonderful to have a wife who doesn't get upset when you tell her she's fat.
Wouldn't you agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom