Wow.
The obvious discomfort of those in the audience, politicians and press, made it all the more delicious.
That was pretty powerful. And Colbert has huge balls.
I have a feeling that he really wasn’t playing it for laughs.
BTW, I had not seen the introduction the first time I watched it and was unaware that AP decided on the guest; my mistake on an earlier post. But then, had it been someone in the White House that invited him to speak it’s unlikely their job would be in danger.
Unless they might write a book about it.
The depressing thing is that Colbert didn’t have to exaggerate his points for comic effect.
“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.”
“Here’s how it works: the president makes decisions. He’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know – fiction!”
YOWCH! :eek: 
Stephen Colbert is the only person who makes me laugh every time I watch him, these days. The Correspondent’s Dinner confirmed that, thank god, satire is not dead, and maybe it’s the only way to get across any truthiness anymore.
I thought it was interesting to see which audience members were shown laughing. Scalia was laughing his ass off, for instance, Helen Thomas was obviously a great sport, but they never showed McCain (who took it hard too), nor much of the Bushes, nor most of the generals. I bet those folks were not as openly amused.
Hm, the video clip I saw showed a reaction shot or two of McCain. And, no, he definitely did not look amused.
This one line best captured the disaster that is George W. Bush.
Brilliant!
Wow, what huge brass cajones. I didn’t think someone could outdo Jon Stewart’s famous Crossfire appearance.
Has Jon Stewart (or Colbert himself) reported on this yet?
They both did, yeah. It was the opening bit on each show - Jon detailed the story and said they were very proud of Stephen, and Stephen opened the Report by talking about what an honor it was and making a joke about people not laughing. They also discussed it during the toss, that was the best part. Jon said something about Stephen having to run all the way from Washington to New York, which Stephen called “an ultra-marathon.”
Stewart called the performace “balls-a-licious.”
My god, that was incredible. I hope my future kids watch that someday in history class, and again in journalism class.
Sounds like Colbert did a great job.
I thought that kind of sucked too. I’m not a Bush fan or a fan of the guys on Crossfire or anything, but I think these Daily Show folks are starting to get a little full of themselves. As Stewart himself says, his show follows a show about puppets making crack calls.
While I agree with most of the statements these guys make, I’m not sure what is the point of these performances. Are they trying to be funny? Are they trying to make some kind of political statement? Are they trying to get attention and appear “edgy” by “sticking it to the man”?
What is the point of any political satire?
From Merriam-Webster
Satire: 1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
synonym see WIT
From me
Also see Volataire, Swift, Twain, and this entry in the Wiki.
I especially liked this quote “Satire is a mode of challenging accepted notions by making them seem ridiculous. It usually occurs only in an age of crisis, when there exists no absolute uniformity but rather two sets of beliefs. Of the two sets of beliefs, one holds sufficient power to suppress open attacks on the established order, but not enough to suppress a veiled attack.
Further, satire is intimately connected with urbanity and cosmopolitanism, and assumes a civilized opponent who is sufficiently sensitive to feel the barbs of wit leveled at him. To hold something up to ridicule presupposes a certain respect for reason, on both sides, to which one can appeal. An Age of Reason, in which everyone accepts the notion that conduct must be reasonable, is, therefore, a general prerequisite for satire.”
–Jacob Bronowski & Bruce Mazlish, The Western Intellectual Tradition From Leonardo to Hegel, p. 252 (1960; as repub. in 1993 Barnes & Noble ed.).
Satire has been around as long as there has been “The Man”.
Well, the point is to entertain and amuse your audience. It seemed to me that his audience wasn’t all that amused.
I should also point out that John Stewart’s appearance on Crossfire was not satire. It was him getting on a soapbox.
You think he was trying to make Bush laugh? Really? The people on this board and the viewers of his show were at least as much the intended audience as the people in the room at the time.
The audience was expecting something innocuous (if the past hiring of Jay Leno was any indication) and didn’t get it. That doesn’t make him unfunny or a dick. He did the exact same thing he’s been doing on his show since it started.
I thought his timing was off, but if anything that made the performace more admirable. He was obviously packing death, but did the job. The taped segment was long and dull, though.
I disagree that the point of satire is merely to “entertain,” but Colbert accomplished that in any case.
If you’re talking about Bush and all his bobos at the dinner, I would call those people his targets, not his audience. They weren’t supposed to laugh.