(airport wi-fi blogging is cool)
I overheard a couple of people talking at the airport about how Stephen [tag]Colbert[/tag] killed at the White House Correspondents’ Association [tag]Dinner[/tag] over the weekend. I caught a snippet here and there, and thought it was a fairly typical roast-like stand-up routine.
But after seeing the whole thing, and then gauging the reaction, one gets the sense that Colbert’s appearance was a real jolt to the political establishment. The president didn’t care for the routine, and the press corps seemed entirely put off, which is probably why those who aren’t impressed with the president or the press corps think Colbert deserves a medal.
“Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don’t pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in “reality.” And reality has a well-known liberal bias…. So don’t pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he’s not doing? Think about it. I haven’t.
“I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound — with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.”
On the [tag]press[/tag] corps:
“I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president’s side, and the vice president’s side.
“But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they’re super-depressing. And if that’s your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good — over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn’t want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.”
The correspondents’ dinner is supposed to have its jabs, and Colbert ran with the opportunity. I loved every second of it. The audience in the room was far less impressed.
Those seated near Bush told E&P’s Joe Strupp, who was elsewhere in the room, that Bush had quickly turned from an amused guest to an obviously offended target as Colbert’s comments brought up his low approval ratings and problems in Iraq. […]
Strupp, in the crowd during the Colbert routine, had observed that quite a few sitting near him looked a little uncomfortable at times, perhaps feeling the material was a little too biting — or too much speaking “truthiness” (Colbert’s made-up word) to power.
Asked by E&P after it was over if he thought he’d been too harsh, Colbert said, “Not at all.” Was he trying to make a point politically or just get laughs? “Just for laughs,” he said. He said he did not pull any material for being too strong, just for time reasons. (He later said the president told him “good job” when he walked off.)
Helen Thomas told Strupp her segment with Colbert was “just for fun.”
In its report on the affair, USA Today asserted that some in the crowd cracked up over Colbert but others were “bewildered.” Wolf Blitzer of CNN said he thought Colbert was funny and “a little on the edge.”
The edge, I’m afraid, has gotten a little dull if Colbert’s send-up was enough to offend the establishment. Isn’t political humor at its best when it pokes fun at the elephants in the room that official Washington isn’t “supposed” to joke about? If Imus’ infidelity comedy was below the belt because it got personal a decade ago, Colbert’s was the opposite: it was a blistering commentary on Bush that never strayed from the substance.
I think it’s an important distinction. I’m not prepared to say that Lenny Bruce-like comedy is perfect for the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. I can imagine someone going too far. But this wasn’t it. The fact that Colbert’s stand-up is still a story at all suggests the establishment is taking itself far too seriously. “Safe” comedy is fine; slightly “edgy” comedy is upsetting, and apparently, best ignored? Since when?
It’s a little reminiscent of Jon Stewart hosting the Oscars a couple of months ago. Both the Academy Awards and the White House correspondents picked comedians to deliver funny speeches, but they also chose people who find humor in mildly uncomfortable subjects. Somehow, both institutions seemed terribly surprised and disappointed when Stewart and Colbert delivered exactly the kind of comedy they do every day, and which have been made both of them wildly successful. By any reasonable standard, neither crossed any lines of decency; they just poked fun at the things those in the room care most about.
It’s a shame. Humor is obviously a matter of taste, but I thought Colbert was funny and poignant, and the reaction from those who were skewered has been overwrought. How about you?
