Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, today takes aim at Colbert's performance. Basically, he takes pretty much the same position I did; Colbert wasn't funny. I've taken exception to Cohen in the past, but I think he's hit it right this time. He does take a swipe at the blogosphere, though. Dismissing it as pretty much an echo chamber. Which can be true to varying degrees. On thing he wrote stands out to me:
Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders — and they are all over the blogosphere — will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences — maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or — if you're at work — take away your office.
But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.
I think that's about right.
UPDATE: Scott Ott has an apology and correction from Comedy Central.
Poor, poor President Bush! Poor media! How terrible of Stephen Colbert to invade their gathering and INSULT them. He’s such a bully! The President, after all, is so powerless and helpless. Oh, my heart just bleeds for all of them at that dinner.
LOL, I dare you to post my comment. But obviously you have a better protection system against insults than the president does!
Don’t flatter yourself. Read the comment policy.
In case you can’t understand, Colbert wasn’t funny. That’s not a defense of Bush, nor is it trying to “protect” him.
Bravo to Richard Cohen. Now if the lefty blogosphere can just exit their echo chamber they too will see the light – there is nothing courageous about what Colbert, Madonna or any other mouthy celebrity says or does. This is not Cuba or China were courageous dissedents are beaten to a pulp, jailed and often “silenced”.
And as I said yesterday, I watch Colbert’s show and have found him amusing but his performance at the dinner was not funny, not witty and not satire. He bombed. That’s the truth or should I say truthiness?
The only reason you dont think Stephen isn’t funny is that He spoke the truth and you can’t make an arguement about it. So, he is not funny, he is rude and therefore everything he said can be discounted. Except that he did tell the truth and our president and his minions can’t argue about that. Long live Truthiness.
You’d be wrong, Claudette. He was not funny in an objective sense. Period.
Too many people conveniently misconstrue the First Amendment to mean that anybody can say anything they like about anyone anytime, anywhere. People need to think before they speak, and not run to the First Amendment for “protection” from their lack of forethought.
In other words, self-censorship is an essential component to the success of free speech. Gauis, you are right on the money about Colbert. That sort of humor belongs on Saturday Night Live (notice I didn’t advocate censoring him). There is something wrong with this equation: free speech = big mouth.
“Funny” is completely subjective. I thought he was hilarious, as did about 20 other people in my office that I’ve talked to about it. So it’s a moot point whether or not he was “funny.”
The point is, Colbert was spot on. With EVERYTHING he said. Valerie Plame, the Iraq war, the administration’s contempt for the media, the media’s degeneration into a mouthpiece for the Republicans, Bush’s ignorance about most everything involving facts, etc., etc., etc.
Certain people don’t think he’s funny because it all hit too close to home.
As far as the self-censorship part? Hurricane Shirley is exactly right when she said “Too many people conveniently misconstrue the First Amendment to mean that anybody can say anything they like about anyone anytime, anywhere.” Maybe the Administration should have taken that advice when it crowed about moblie weapons labs, mushroom clouds, yellow cake, “Don’t worry, we’ve got New Orleans taken care of,” “Mission accomplished,” Valerie Plame…should I go on?
Probably not. I wouldn’t want to offend the President or misconstrue the First Ammendment.
Matt, maybe you thought he was. Not many in the room agreed judging by the lack of laughter.
Maybe it was funnier if you’re into truthiness.
I feel compelled to quote Charlotte Bronte (from Jane Eyre): “Life appears to me too short to be spent in nursing animosity or registering wrongs.”
Matt, you know better than to pull the “he started it” card. That stuff is for playgrounds. Please explain for me how Colbert’s dinner comments will help bring the troops home faster, lower the price of gasoline, or tighten up security on the borders.
Shirley, Colbert’s comments will help do all that because when people know the truth – that we were mislead into war, that Bush’s energy policy was written by the oil and power companies, and that due to spending billions a day in Iraq we have no money for port security – when people know that truth and truly want change, they can protest, vote, demand accountability, conserve resources, be more viligant, etc., etc.,etc.
And if Colbert’s comments make more people open their eyes to the failure of this administration (and the subsequent failure of the press to document it), then it wasn’t all for naught.
Colbert’s comments were snide for the sake of being snide. They were harshly deserved commentary on the sad state of the fools running this country.
“Snide for the sake of being snide.”
Agreed. Colbert’s comments were cowardly, counterfeit, deceptive, unworthy, and insulting.
Whoops. I meant to say they WERE’NT snide for being snide.
Black Jack – insulting? Maybe. But they were exactly the opposite of everything else you claim.
They were brave, true, necessary, and deserved.
Jesus, I can’t spell today at all.
Brave? What is brave about this? Look, put this into a different context. Assume you are in a room with a tiger. Now, while poking the tiger with a stick might be dumber than heck, some people might call that brave. Put that same tiger in a cage. Now poke it. That’s not brave. People would be upset if you did it.
This is no different and you know it. Colbert knew full well he would suffer NO harm whatsoever for doing his routine.
I don’t know, I think saying what he believed to Bush’s face is pretty courageous. It’s not like he sent Scooter Libby to leak his speech to the New York Times or anything.
The whole “Colbert wasn’t funny” crowd, like Matt Drudge, are the same ones who were cheering Don Imus’ boorish speech at the correspondents dinner a few years ago. Colbert kept it strictly business, no pathetic cheap shots about Peter Jennings or anyone else’s wives.
They probably thought W’s “I can’t find those weapons of mass destruction anywhere” routine was hilarious. I can see Richard Cohen splitting a gut. He sure didn’t criticize it that I remember. That so-called comedy routine was indeed offensive.
This is no different and you know it. Colbert knew full well he would suffer NO harm whatsoever for doing his routine.
I seem to remember the Dixie Chicks suffering some harm. Maybe times have changed, though, haven’t they?
I disagree, Bush was constrained by politeness from answering back, you know it. That’s rude at best, cowardly at worst. Not at all courageous.
THe worst thing, Matt is he simply was not funny. You and some others may have thought it was, but the video says otherwise. If it had been funny, even if uncomfortable, there would have been more laughter, even if it was strained laughter. There’s a lot of moments of complete silence.
Imus wasn’t funny, you never heard me state that he was. His behavior was exactly on par with Colbert’s.
What harm came to the Dixie Chicks?
Again, funny is totally subjective.
But whether he got laughs isn’t really the point. If he told a bunch of un-funny knock-knock jokes, no one would care. The point is, he brought up multiple reminders of the failure of this administration – failures that no one has been, or is, willing to talk about, report on, or demand accountability for.
That’s why is speech was a success, even if no one laughed.
What harm came to the Dixie Chicks?
If I thought you really didn’t know the answer I would respond, but you know the answer.
OK, they weren’t taken out and shot if that’s what you mean.
The WMD thing was pure comedy brilliance?
I have no idea whatsoever what you’re talking about.
You want funny?
You can always tell a Democrat,
You put your hand in your pocket, and
If someone else already has his hand in there,
It’s a Democrat.
It must be very comforting for many of you to dismiss the blogosphere as lacking representativeness and power. A “realist” (liberal term) would choose to at least suspend judgement and remain alert to the opinions so expressed.
Did you hear about Clear Channel refusing to play their songs on the radio because of one silly remark about George W. Bush? A boycott that continues to this day, by the way. That harmed them. Not in the sense that they were arrested or tortured or anything, but it harmed them.
I notice you seem reluctant to address the President’s WMD comedy routine. Surely, you know what I’m talking about. Would you say it was funnier than Colbert? In better taste?
And Clearchannel is now a government agency? That’s ridiculous. And please do not try to say the administration ordered it – you know damn well that would have been public knowledge in a minute or less.
I think you’ve now changed the terms of the debate. Nice going. You’re original statement was Colbert knew full well he would suffer NO harm whatsoever for doing his routine. I guess I missed the (from the government) at the end of the sentence.
Still no comment from you on Bush’s WMD comedy. It truly was a classic performance.