the targets of his derision, infamous for their refusal to expose themselves to criticism, were in the audience. THAT’S funny.

maybe. i don’t generally find impudence per se funny; tweaking the noses of those in power is worthwhile only when there’s a reasonable chance that doing so will actually damage their power base. so what if Bush got a little steamed during the speech? his handlers will explain to him that Colbert poses no threat, and nothing will happen.

being heckled by an opponent who poses a plausible threat is something to pay attention to; being heckled by an opponent who doesn’t just makes the opponent look pathetic.

-steve

yet another priceless Bush Moment and hilarity for you, the home viewer

only since “i, the home viewer” am already opposed to the current administration. to someone who is pro-(Bush|neocon), “Bush Moments” aren’t particularly funny, or even noteworthy. to someone in the current administration’s power base, seeing Stephen Colbert mocking Bush to his face reinforces the frame that the “liberal media” are a bunch of jackasses and marginalizes Colbert even further.

the way i see it, Colbert’s speech was a failure in terms of comedy and a failure in terms of politics. he had the opportunity to do something useful, and instead he wasted it mugging for the camera. i suppose, given that he is an entertainer by profession, i shouldn’t be surprised.

Colbert’s “media attention and private buzz” does nothing to address the problems with the political system in America. i’m glad his stunt was a success for him, but i wish he had found a way to promote himself without doing damage to causes that i think are worthwhile.

-steve

Liberal hollywood elites is a totally different category from liberal media.

you are quite correct; i got my stereotypes mixed up. he in particular, though, like Jon Stewart, kind of straddles the fence, since he’s a comedian pretending to be an anchor/host.

-steve

fair enough. we disagree on some points:

1. as far as i can tell, Jon Stewart’s “continually expanding influence” is pretty much restricted to people who are already inclined to be anti-Bush-administration. i may be mistaken, but that’s the sense i get. as such, while he may be motivating people who might otherwise have stayed home to get out and vote, i think he’s accomplishing little else. specifically, i don’t think he’s damaging the neocon power base; worse yet, i think he’s reinforcing some of the frames that the Right has been trying to establish for decades, particularly the “liberals are snarky/arrogant/mean/condescending” frame. i also think Colbert’s trying to succeed using the same model; it seems to be working for him as well, which is great, but i don’t think it’s good politics.

2. i wasn’t suggesting that Colbert attempt to behave in a way that neocon pundits would approve of; that’s an unattainable goal, because the job of right-wing pundits is to get a message out in order to establish certain frames of discourse, and it doesn’t matter what any of their “opponents” do, they’ll find a way to get their message out.

any and all criticism of the Bush 2 Cabal in the press, no matter how truthful or tactfully worded, have been responded to with knee-jerk derision and outrage.

this is because the current administration is not interested in engaging in “discourse” in the way that you or i might think of it. frankly, why should they be? they have the upper hand politically, and they’re under no obligation to invite anyone else to the table. the “derision and outrage” you refer to is not so much a reaction to criticism as an already written message that was just waiting for an opportunity to be delivered.

so, what do i think Colbert should have done instead? i think he should have done the following, and nothing else:

• picked a more useful frame (such as, perhaps, “the current administration is beholden to large corporations”, or “the current administration is irresponsible”, or “the current administration is untrustworthy”, rather than the tired old “Bush is dumb”)
• formulated a few short, memorable phrases that evoke his chosen frame
• built his speech in order to deliver those phrases as many times as possible
• made some effort to avoid playing directly into the hands of his counterparts on the Right

then again, it would only make sense for him to do something like this if he were primarily interested in doing some damage to the Right’s political position, and i don’t think that’s his first priority; i think his first priority is advancing his career as a comedian, and i don’t blame him for that.

i’m just unhappy to hear so many people holding his piece up as an example of effective political speech, since i don’t believe it’s anything of the sort.

-steve