Bush and Colbert

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Looking at the video, I too thought that it wasn’t necesarily hilarious, except maybe in a few spots. Really, not all that funny. There were indeed problems with timing, and the joke video with Doubting Thomas did drag a bit.

No, no. Not funny. It was better than funny. It was mordant. It was vicious to the point I experienced fleeting feelings of sympathy for the victims. But only fleetingly.

When you count the entire “Bill O’Reilly” setup Colbert uses, the Washington press corps took a good half of the damage, along with the administration. I’m not surprised they weren’t exactly rolling in the aisles. Everybody in that room was being ridiculed and pilloried for all the country to see, and deservedly so. Rather than making them giggle, I hope the after-dinner entertainment made at least a few of them sick to their stomachs.

Colbert’s real target that evening was the tight little relationship between the media and the administration. Maybe in some distant future when the fourth estate has purged the shills and the doormats from its ranks, the press dinner can get back to being a good-natured ribbing.

Meantime, the Daily Show is as good a place to get your news as any.[/quote]

Well said.

62

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
…

Meantime, the Daily Show is as good a place to get your news as any.[/quote]

This explains the political positions of many posters here.

63

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
…

Meantime, the Daily Show is as good a place to get your news as any.

This explains the political positions of many posters here.[/quote]

Jon Steward was right when he said that the Daily Show allready requires a lot of knowledge to be understood and to be entertaining.

All in all it is a meta-news show.

64

Though I normally give comedians a lot of leeway when it comes to appropriateness in the political arena – I think that Colbert crossed a very obvious line in this performance. I realize that this is, and always will be, a partisan argument – but I sincerely hope that even those to the left can understand that this event was intended to be in good favor with the President of the United States… and he played along gamely for a majority of it.

Give Bush credit for poking fun at himself during his skit with Steve Bridges. The Press Corps generally despises Bush, so to stand up there and acknowledge his own pronunciation mishaps and bumblings is commendable. Bridges (who played Bush’s alter ego in the aforementioned skit) was on Meet the Press on Sunday morning, and specifically stated that he thinks there is a certain respect level that must be noted when dealing with the POTUS.

In regards to the arena that he was in – Colbert flopped. He was there to entertain and midly roast the President of the United States, not to carry on like he’s giving a stand up show at the Apollo. I think decency and appropriateness has a lot to do with venue and company present.

Those on the left are eager to see Bush’s reaction to this embarassing performance – purely out of partisan resentment. I suppose this is only to be expected from partisans, but I would expect more from a national comedian who was invited to the White House to entertain the President and his guests.

65

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
…

Meantime, the Daily Show is as good a place to get your news as any.

This explains the political positions of many posters here.[/quote]

Yeah, well I’m not sure the feeling that Washington is failing us is any longer a political position, properly speaking.

Yeah, a comedy show has become a great place to get the news that’s too embarrassing to print. Which is quite a lot of the news these days, if you think about it.

Stewart’s whole shtick is “The Spin Stops Here.” A true conservative should be able to find something admirable in that, provided they haven’t been completely hypnotized by good old Fair and Balanced.

66

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:

Yeah, a comedy show has become a great place to get the news that’s too embarrassing to print. Which is quite a lot of the news these days, if you think about it.[/quote]

Where? When has this happened? When has the Daily Show covered news that other mainstream news media would not report on?

This is a fiction.

67

[quote]NorskGoddess wrote:
Though I normally give comedians a lot of leeway when it comes to appropriateness in the political arena – I think that Colbert crossed a very obvious line in this performance. I realize that this is, and always will be, a partisan argument – but I sincerely hope that even those to the left can understand that this event was intended to be in good favor with the President of the United States… and he played along gamely for a majority of it.

Give Bush credit for poking fun at himself during his skit with Steve Bridges. The Press Corps generally despises Bush, so to stand up there and acknowledge his own pronunciation mishaps and bumblings is commendable. Bridges (who played Bush’s alter ego in the aforementioned skit) was on Meet the Press on Sunday morning, and specifically stated that he thinks there is a certain respect level that must be noted when dealing with the POTUS.

In regards to the arena that he was in – Colbert flopped. He was there to entertain and midly roast the President of the United States, not to carry on like he’s giving a stand up show at the Apollo. I think decency and appropriateness has a lot to do with venue and company present.

Those on the left are eager to see Bush’s reaction to this embarassing performance – purely out of partisan resentment. I suppose this is only to be expected from partisans, but I would expect more from a national comedian who was invited to the White House to entertain the President and his guests. [/quote]

You mean you felt his attacks should have been even harsher? I think the Pres has worn out his entitlement to “nicely, nicely.” This has happened often before in American History. This kind of thing is routine. She’s called Democracy, and She’s not some alabaster form draped by an artist to stand there cool and aloof, she’s a right regular little hellion she is, with nasty habits.

If you think it is just the Left that can enjoy seeing egg on those little well-fed faces at the dinner, you should talk to some actual conservatives.

I think they were just at some hotel, not the Whitehouse, and in any case the venue was television. They weren’t there to entertain the President, this is a working gig for the President. No, they were there to get him a nice little positive sound-bite, figuring they would be operating under “King’s X.” Ha ha.

68

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:

Yeah, a comedy show has become a great place to get the news that’s too embarrassing to print. Which is quite a lot of the news these days, if you think about it.

Where? When has this happened? When has the Daily Show covered news that other mainstream news media would not report on?

This is a fiction.[/quote]

Oh yeah sure, this is a news send up, so the news always got printed somewhere else. On page 27. Dressed up with so much spin you wouldn’t recognize it. Or maybe even reported only in the foreign press, I think that has happened, but I can’t cite.

Certainly I think we’ve seen some stories that missed CNN and FOX, that got put on video for the first time with The Daily Show. Regardless of who got it first, they get the stuff up on the marquee in lights, bless 'em.

The one big story they always cover that is too embarassing for our media to tell, is to point out what clueless boobies We the People are to get this stuff pulled on us.

I love their little items from the heartland that show where America’s heart and mind are at in the present crisis. Like painting yourself from head to toe in the colors of your favorite football team. Yeah, I think they break some of those stories for sure.

69

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
You mean you felt his attacks should have been even harsher? I think the Pres has worn out his entitlement to “nicely, nicely.” This has happened often before in American History. This kind of thing is routine. She’s called Democracy, and She’s not some alabaster form draped by an artist to stand there cool and aloof, she’s a right regular little hellion she is, with nasty habits.

If you think it is just the Left that can enjoy seeing egg on those little well-fed faces at the dinner, you should talk to some actual conservatives.

I think they were just at some hotel, not the Whitehouse, and in any case the venue was television. They weren’t there to entertain the President, this is a working gig for the President. No, they were there to get him a nice little positive sound-bite, figuring they would be operating under “King’s X.” Ha ha.[/quote]

In the past, the WHCD equally roasts the President and the press. It also is expected to walk the line of decency and respect. In reading the transcript, I believe the line was crossed. And perhaps our difference in opinion lies in the fact that you believe the dinner is intended to entertain the people at large, whereas I sincerely think its there to promote comraderie between the WH Press Corps and the administration.

And I think your asumption about ‘real conservatives’ is insulting. This term is thrown around so much recently that its becoming the new “disenfranchised”… how do you presume to know my beliefs or values? Or any “real conservatives” for that matter?

70

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:

(jibberish)[/quote]

That wasn’t an answer.

Having an opinion on the news is not reporting the news. You said the Daily Show reports news other media won’t touch out of some ‘fear’ or somesuch. Show me.

71

[quote]NorskGoddess wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
You mean you felt his attacks should have been even harsher? I think the Pres has worn out his entitlement to “nicely, nicely.” This has happened often before in American History. This kind of thing is routine. She’s called Democracy, and She’s not some alabaster form draped by an artist to stand there cool and aloof, she’s a right regular little hellion she is, with nasty habits.

If you think it is just the Left that can enjoy seeing egg on those little well-fed faces at the dinner, you should talk to some actual conservatives.

I think they were just at some hotel, not the Whitehouse, and in any case the venue was television. They weren’t there to entertain the President, this is a working gig for the President. No, they were there to get him a nice little positive sound-bite, figuring they would be operating under “King’s X.” Ha ha.

In the past, the WHCD equally roasts the President and the press. It also is expected to walk the line of decency and respect. In reading the transcript, I believe the line was crossed. And perhaps our difference in opinion lies in the fact that you believe the dinner is intended to entertain the people at large, whereas I sincerely think its there to promote comraderie between the WH Press Corps and the administration.

And I think your asumption about ‘real conservatives’ is insulting. This term is thrown around so much recently that its becoming the new “disenfranchised”… how do you presume to know my beliefs or values? Or any “real conservatives” for that matter?[/quote]

Okay, go talk to a “small government” Libertarian, if you want to be specific. It ain’t just the left who’s pissed with the Pres.

Decency and respect. That’s rich, concerning that crowd in that room.

72

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:

(jibberish)

That wasn’t an answer.

Having an opinion on the news is not reporting the news. You said the Daily Show reports news other media won’t touch out of some ‘fear’ or somesuch. Show me.[/quote]

Fear? That’s entirely your word, and what bullshit. They won’t give these items the publicity they deserve because it interferes with the publisher’s ricebowl.

And if folks find out about something for the first time while watching that show, then reporting is what they are doing. In fact, they are pretty clear on their facts in those broadcasts, and then you get their opinion, pardon me their lampoon.

73

[quote]NorskGoddess wrote:

In the past, the WHCD equally roasts the President and the press. It also is expected to walk the line of decency and respect. In reading the transcript, I believe the line was crossed. And perhaps our difference in opinion lies in the fact that you believe the dinner is intended to entertain the people at large, whereas I sincerely think its there to promote comraderie between the WH Press Corps and the administration.

A[/quote]

Everything that promotes comradrie, trust or vaguely romantic feelings between the press and the government of said press is evil and must be destroyed.

I mean that.

74

I actually feel it is quite reasonable to refer to small-government Libertarians as “actual conservatives.”

The ones that don’t believe in small-government, or who believe that fairy tale about “starving the beast,” well, I’m not sure what to call you lot. I mean historically speaking, what the heck do conservatives stand for if they can find that this boundless and bourgeoning government interventionism at home and abroad is to the good?

Deluded conservatives, misdirected conservatives, social conservatives, Bush Babies, is there some term you prefer?

75

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:

Fear? That’s entirely your word, and what bullshit. [/quote]

That is why I said ‘or somesuch’ - you never said exactly what it was, so I was taking a stab.

Let me get this right - the mainstream media is ignoring certain stories out of concern that they will lose money if they do?

First, you still haven’t shown that the Daily Show has coverage of stories that the mainstream media won’t cover - for whatever reason. Second, explain exactly how not reporting these important yet ignored stories is boosting media’s business, or ‘ricebowl’. How does that work?

If folks find out about something for the first time while watching the Daily Show, they could be accused of being criminally ignorant.

76

Funny, I was arguing early that the president didn’t act with a level of decorum that I would think necessary of a president… yet I was shouted down.

If you are going to play the clown, while you are president, I think your requests to be treated with decorum are moot. Bush is continously playing the clown now, trying to earn the sympathy of the public.

He’s a joke.

If the position of the president is to be respected (not worshipped like we see around these parts mind you) then it’s incumbent needs to act in a way that wins respect. The position itself does not earn it I’m afraid.

Clinton, and the circus that was unloaded on America to make it public, both did a great disservice to the presidency. Bush, with his cherry picking and directing of intelligence, along with Cheney (swearing at a senator in public session?) and the rest of the idiots at the helm have continued the process.

God help your country if you can’t find a man or woman of integrity to fill that position soon and surround him or herself with an administration of integrity…

Powell did have integrity… but it has suffered while performing Bush’s will. Hillary’s integrity suffers because of her husband. Kerry has been labelled the great flip-flopper, which is a great shame, given the way voting records are not representative due to multiple issues involved per vote… regardless, if people believe that he won’t appear to have integrity.

Rice is part of the current administration, she’s a pit bull, she has no integrity.

Who? McCain is too strange. Maybe somebody will crawl out of a hole, as long as his name isn’t Jeb… it might be worth a shot, but only until the next elections swift-boating starts to happen on both sides.

There’s a song describing your dilemma. Something about going down down down into a burning ring of fire? I think that describes modern politics (and I’m not just lamenting the US system here).

77

[quote]vroom wrote:

There’s a song describing your dilemma. Something about going down down down into a burning ring of fire? I think that describes modern politics (and I’m not just lamenting the US system here).
[/quote]

The rest of your post aside, Johnny Cash’s ‘Ring of Fire’ is about submitting to the flames of white-hot love and desire.

Embarrassing. It is always painful to see someone attempt to be clever and miss this badly.

78

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:

Fear? That’s entirely your word, and what bullshit.

That is why I said ‘or somesuch’ - you never said exactly what it was, so I was taking a stab.

They won’t give these items the publicity they deserve because it interferes with the publisher’s ricebowl.

Let me get this right - the mainstream media is ignoring certain stories out of concern that they will lose money if they do?

First, you still haven’t shown that the Daily Show has coverage of stories that the mainstream media won’t cover - for whatever reason. Second, explain exactly how not reporting these important yet ignored stories is boosting media’s business, or ‘ricebowl’. How does that work?

And if folks find out about something for the first time while watching that show, then reporting is what they are doing. In fact, they are pretty clear on their facts in those broadcasts, and then you get their opinion, pardon me their lampoon.

If folks find out about something for the first time while watching the Daily Show, they could be accused of being criminally ignorant. [/quote]

Ha ha, that’s a good one. Actually dood, when it comes to this forum, I don’t have to do anything. I just happen to be home sick today.

If you don’t understand that the publisher’s ricebowl extends well beyond subscriptions, and that that ricebowl is full of political items as well as financial ones, I’m not sure there’s much juice to be had in any ensuring conversation.

Go away and whip the media for its liberal bias, why don’t you.

79

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:

There’s a song describing your dilemma. Something about going down down down into a burning ring of fire? I think that describes modern politics (and I’m not just lamenting the US system here).

The rest of your post aside, Johnny Cash’s ‘Ring of Fire’ is about submitting to the flames of white-hot love and desire.

Embarrassing. It is always painful to see someone attempt to be clever and miss this badly.[/quote]

LOL.

Slightly pedantic, or just looking to shoot torpedos at me?

I picked a phrase out of the song, for the phrase, not for the message of the song.

However, it’s not far off if you have the mental flexibility to substitute greed and ambition (love of money and desire for power).

Go buy some hand lotion and keep yourself busy for a while.

80

First of all: great post, vroom.

[quote]vroom wrote:
God help your country if you can’t find a man or woman of integrity to fill that position soon and surround him or herself with an administration of integrity…[/quote]

I truly and honestly feel that until there is a fundamental cultural shift, no true person of integrity will ever be elected for public office in this country.

Why?

Ideally, people should elect people that they feel are smarter and more capable than themselves. People that excel at their jobs as political leaders. Exceptional people.

But they don’t – elections are a popularity contest, one that is won by the person that most closely resembles the electorate. This means that the person who gets elected cannot possibly be smarter and more capable than the majority of the population, because that would mean they do not resemble the electorate.

Adulterers get elected because most people have either committed adultery at one point or thought about it. Liars get elected because most people routinely lie. Idiots get elected because most people ARE idiots. Greedy bastards get elected because most people are greedy bastards. People without integrity get elected because most people do not have integrity – even the ones that tell themselves they do.

People want to see a reflection of themselves in power – and, unfortunately, that reflection currently looks like a self-righteous spoiled brat with an IQ of a rhesus monkey…

If that’s not bad enough, idiots get surrounded by idiots – or, to put it under the First Law of American Managers: “never hire somebody smarter or more capable than you”. The corollary of that is that the electorate, given two less-than-ideal candidates – one smarter and one dumber than the average – it will always pick the dumber one, to be on the safe side.

That does explain a lot, doesn’t it?

Now excuse me while I put back my Hazmat suit with flash protection… :wink: