Matalin is deliberately sucking the oxygen out of the event by making it seem boring. If she puts any descriptive energy into it she risks stimulating curiosity about it. Bush doesn't need that. Nope, nope.

Of course, Colbert transcended comedy that night. What he did was guerilla warfare, and he is now elevated from respected satirist to national treasure in my estimation.

Apparently Matalin (and whoever hired Colbert for the gig) assumed that, because he'd he'd be in character, he would respect the whole nauseating Correspondents Dinner conceit and give them an amiable "I kid 'cause I love" routine that would make the powerful audience members look like they can laugh at themselves. That's how the Correspondents Dinner works! It's supposed to be a friendly, "We're all pals here" roast! And the Bush administration prizes that kind of "rapport" particularly highly -- Bush is just a regular guy who won't let a little thing like running the country get in the way of his having *fun.* You know, he's "sophisticated."

As Colbert talked, you could see the astonishment dawning on the faces of those (like Bush) who weren't laughing: "Wait, he's actually leveling valid criticism, unmitigated by good-natured self-deprecation! No fair!"

My favorite part was how not-intimidated Colbert was by being in the presence of the POTUS. My respect for him went up another notch every time he looked Bush right in the eye, called him "Sir," and then pointed out some major weakness in his administration/leadership. I don't think Bush would intimidate me, either, but there would be major ass-kissing and up-sucking going on if I ever met Colbert.

"At the recent White House Correspondents Dinner, master comedian Stephen Colbert performed magnificently. With the rapier of wit and the mace of truth, he respectively skewered and censured the presidency of "dum'ass botch". And that's not all Mr Colbert accomplished.

Tucked away in his address to the dinner's flabbergasted attendees, like a ticking time bomb, there was an "easter egg", which we had absolutely . . . here "we" is a polite nod . . . NO right to expect. Like a mischievous Easter Bunny, Mr Colbert delivered a bon mot, so profound as to approach philosophical.

oh, before I reveal Mr Colbert's casual accomplishment, I should like to preface with a cave-- . . . "

The above text, which is enclosed within quotes, can be found appended to the article, which is located on the other side of the below hyperlink.

thanking you in advance for your gracious patience,

toodles
...../
.he who is known as sefton

http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/04/rehabilitation-of-and-by-and-for-right.html

. . . oh, yeah, I should add that the full title for that post is "rehabilitation of and by and for the right wing" . . .

Say, um, let's parse this:

Stephen Colbert portrays a right-wing talk-show host, who orotundly mouths ludicrously overblown right-wing positions, and via this reductio ad absurdum satirizes those very same positions, striking blows for his own, quite left-wing views.

He appears at the White House Correspondents' Dinner as the featured speaker, in character, and proceeds to deliver a monologue which simultaneously praises and eviscerates the President of the United States, seated ten feet stage left of him.

And THIS does not pass for sophisticated and creative? This is predictable, Bush-bashing kind of humor? What? I am stunned.

How left-wing is Colbert actually? Or Stewart, for that matter? I don't watch the shows and really I'm just asking.

I don't think either of them is all that left-wing, certainly not by our standards. Colbert is harder to parse b/c he's always in character--which is why I don't get why people are so upset, as Stewart said in Monday, he did what he always does, just more so and without the props--but I think the best way to suss out Stewart's preferences are in the goofy things he does on the side and the less famous authors he picks as guests. He likes experts who are well-versed in their subjects, and people who are clearly serious about their work without being serious about themselves. I think his objections to the Bush administration are firmly rooted in objections to incompetence and the lack of intellectual professionalism.

The vast majority of the Washington establishment is made up of a bunch of selfish, mean-spirited types, thinking mostly in "us vs them" terms. When the WaPost's Kay Graham died, Sally Quinn (wife of Ben Bradlee) recalled how the three of them almost ran down a parking lot attendant and roared with laughter at the time. One of "them," or as they were described in Post articles at her funeral, "the little people." The press clearly slithers into the establishment circle, getting fed juicy tidbits for their loyalty and "niceness," or unwillingness to tell the truth to the "little people."
Screw 'em all.

I always like to jump in to enlighten people with information that I don't have.

When McCain was on the Daily Show, Stewart said something like: "If this man is president, I think we'll be all right." Now Stewart seems like a genuinely nice guy who doesn't like to offend his guests. And so that might have been just a friendly pat on the back.

Like Chomsky saying to Jonathan: "Your English is mighty fine, my son. As long as you make sure your little jokes can be parsed by a nondeterministic pushdown automaton relativized by a quantum logspace BPP oracle, well, I think we'll be all right!"

"How left-wing is Colbert actually? Or Stewart, for that matter?"

Do you have to be left-wing to find the Bushies grossly unacceptable? Was Eisenhower this bloodthirsty? Even the much maligned Gerald Ford, in spite of having 2 of the evil 3 in his administration, wasn't as wacko as this crew, and he even seemed concerned about the deficit. Remember when republicans cared about the deficit?

Jonathan -
I agree with you; that's why I asked. I suspect that neither Colbert nor Stewart are really appropriate champions for my beliefs, although I appreciate that at least somebody (if on the comedy channel) is standing up for common sense.

I don't know what the big deal is. Shailagh Murray, the WP's congressional reporter, attended the dinner and she saw right away what was really newsworthy. Here was her response to a question about it Monday:

Austin, Tex.: Ms. Murray,

Did you attend the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday? Give us the dirt. Please!!!!!!

Thanks for the chats - we LOVE them!

Shailagh Murray: Hello everyone. Thanks for joining. Tell me what you think of the $100 gas rebate, the immigration strikes, etc.

Yes, I did attend the dinner, and as usual, when I observed the sea of prom attire, I thought to myself, who the hell are all these people? I'd never seen most of them before. But there was one table that stood out -- the one where George Clooney was seated, which had so many cameras flashing around it that it looked like a fireworks display. President Bush was very funny, by the way."

And she explained later that Bush was funnier than Colbert, who was rough. Rough Rough Rough. Not like the hilarious president. Shouldn't he be president, like, forever? Can't there be a presidential signing to that effect? Makes you laugh! And makes you cry, too! The man is likeable, charming, and can he make fun of himself! He's like that frat guy you just dreamed about dating in college? Except he was sooo far above you? And then he asked you for a date? It was like a perfect meet kind of thing?

... Sorry. Just dreaming about Stutts days of yesteryere.

Another thing Murray said that came right from Stutts famous Econ 101 class! Remember old Hickenbocker, with the Exxon Chair in Macro!

Q: "Are there any Democrats who are calling for a presidential cap on gasoline prices that would require oil companies to reduce their profits? Wouldn't this be a strong issue for the Democrats in the 2006 elections if they spoke out for the cap and the Republicans as expected took the side of the oil companies?

Shailagh Murray: Capping gasoline prices is a non-starter. It's un-American and as short sighted as a rebate, or suspending the gasoline tax, or anything else that puts money in consumers' pockets."

When Matalin says she & the audience expected something more "sophisticated & creative" what she really means is that she expected Jay Leno & got Buffy the Vampire Slayer instead. She wanted someone who would tell conventional jokes w. a punch line. Someone to let everyone have a few good yuks so they could all go home feeling pleasant & warm-fuzzy inside. And finally, she wanted jokes that were uncomplicated, not ones that required thought.

Instead she got a slasher out for blood. How unsettling it must've been for her & her crowd. Mary, the anesthesia's wearing off & America's finally coming round. Colbert was the wakeup call & a fine one it was.

Colbert has talked like a feminist doing satire more than once. Then again, the anti-feminist Flanagan or whatever she calls herself agreed with every parodic statement he made, so maybe this kind of talk happens all the time on the other side.

uh, I knew that. Ok, I really wasn't sure. I guess my point, Aaron, is that the big-shot marquee journalists have failed to discern that Bush II represents an embarkation from even the GOP from an earlier era, and they're behaving as if taking note of that is somehow political advocacy.

Although Bush II can probably trace his ideological lineage back to McCarthy, so he didn't exactly spring forth from whole cloth.