Dinner & A Joke
I watched the last 20 minutes or so of Stephen Colbert's schtick at the WH correspondents dinner, and did not laugh. Perhaps I have lost my sense of political humor. Actually I believe I stopped laughing at politics around January 2001. The resultant shitstorm the ruling elite stirred since then just doesn't seem to be comedic material.
At last year's correspondents dinner Laura Bush made the peculiar remark that "Andover and Yale don't have a real strong ranching program. But I'm proud of George. He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse. What's worse, it was a male horse." Eeeewwww, what an image - not to mention this particular joke is old, old, old toilet humor.
This year, throughout Colbert's finale rant, Dubya sat with a matron's pursed-lip semi-smirk. A pose he inherited from Mama Babs, who last year Laura likened as more Don Corleone than Aunt Bea.
The version of this year's dinner didn't have much guffawing laughter, but polite tittering. Seemed the dinner guests were an uncomfortable majority. Colbert pointed to Bush's falling poll numbers, wiretapping, secret prisons, Cheney's shooting a lawyer, Bush photo-ops. Old talking points. The Helen Thomas taped segment, and I'm not sure what that was all about, was pointlessly goofy.
Certainly Bush's handlers had knowledge beforehand of what to expect at this dinner and from Colbert. Dubya's expression was one of a delinquent teen suffering another lecture from Dad. An uneasy, uninterested boy who needed a double dosage of Ritalin or Adderall to sit through it.
Nice too that Joe Wilson and his wife felt compelled to attend and break bread with those who "destroyed" Plame's career in retaliation for Joe's criticism. Must seem rather silly now for BushCo to have attacked Joe while Colbert and others are invited to criticize the Shrub's illegal activities. Fortunate for Bush and Operation War that Wilson waited until after March 2003 before "outing" the administration on that Niger yellow cake.
I recall long ago when SNL debuted, at the time so outrageously politically incorrect. Some of us, younger and dumber back then, thought the country was on the road to change, as evidenced by SNL's relentless uncensored unforgiving lampooning of politicians. But the cast progressed on to other venues and fortunes (or overdoses) and I haven't watched SNL in decades.
Comedy/comedians today have no more effect on politics than did SNL in the '70s, but at least the originally crew of SNL was hilarious, I think. Or maybe it takes a mind younger than mine to find humor in ridiculing BushCo.
On the other hand, I wouldn't have found hope or humor in Hitler's leadership dinners either, at least not while the führer was still in power.
8 comments:
This post deserves an award!
Thanks for saying so much of what needed to be said.
BG,
You are most welcome. ;)
Agreed, it wasn't funny. However, since this was the very first time the President's been publicly told off, exhaustively, to his face, and without the opportunity to belittle / shrug off / dismiss / cut short the attack, it was a deeply satisfying and memorable moment. I suspect that Colbert was not going for laughs - that, in fact, guffaws would have spelt some kind of failure. Instead, what mattered was the evident discomfiture all around, the undertow of anger and indignation, not least the President's. And if a public dressing-down, and a charge sheet full of particulars, can help rouse some citizenry, then who knows? There could be political consequences after all.
It's a shame the most this thug has received in 5 years is a public dressing down by a fellow conservative and entertainer/host. The evening was merely one long shrug-off for Bush who was far from "blistered" by Colbert as there was no mention of war crimes, torture, stolen elections, looted billions, 9/11 truth, or the PWAT (phony war against terror), etc.
I didn't feel the audience undertow of indignation or anger. Seemed to me the crowd was, at most, irritated they had to sit through Colbert's quips on WMD, Katrina, wiretapping, leaking Plame, etc. As they attend these "tributes" only to rub famous elbows and race to the after dinner party activities, Colbert was a wet blanket, briefly.
Personally I think it will take events much much much more painful than a political comic roasting Bush to rouse the American citizenry.
Colbert was not there to be funny. With protestors always sequestered out of sight and out of mind, all T-shirts carefully sceened for pro-democracy(Therefore anti-bush) statements and all possibility of dissenting opinion squelched in the "master's presence", Colbert came there with every intention of telling Bush, his cabal and its media lapdogs everyhting they have refused to hear for the past six years.
And I'm not sure Stephen is a conservative, he only plays an over-the-top one on TV.
This was a black tie affair so the chances of the highbrows wearing T-shirts of dissent was zero to none.
Was the "liberal left" protesting en masse outside the dining hall?
Colbert's livelihood and life depend on the same media lapdogs who do the squelching. His spiel was approved by the powers that be.
The "left" should stop placing so much importance on the scripted appearances of media personalities. The squelching lapdogs are throwing a bone to Joe Blow - or dissent is on the way, as seen on TV, next episode coming soon, stay tuned for time and channel.
I know exactly what you mean about the early days of SNL. But looking back on it, that show began at the end of about 15 years of wrenching protests and change - the civil rights marches, Vietnam, assassinations, Watergate. By the mid 70s, people were looking for a time out from all of that.
But I think today is different. There is pent-up emotion building for change. At least I'd like to think so. And comedy like Jon Stewart's show is one way of reaching people who might not otherwise be interested.
I believe Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner was intended to light a fire. Not under Bush - that's hopeless. But under the media that has let Bush get away with so much. It may not work - this media may be beyond shame - but I give him credit for trying.
Also, Colbert's performance was nowhere near as tasteless and cynical as Bush's WMD skit at the WHCD a few years back. Now that was shameful.
abi,
I think the idea of reaching people who might not otherwise be interested is what bothers me. Those not interested are not watching Cspan, news channels, or political comics for coverage although they catch the occasional highlighted blurps.
The uninterested are watching desperate housewives or trucks on great big wheels. Homer and Hank Hill are their comics. Or Foxworthy, Mencia, Dave Chapell.
I don't think Colbert's performance tasteless - it was too mild, joking about that which doesn't interest Joe Blow (Plame, wiretapping, etc.). I admitted a long time ago that simply because it all interests me doesn't mean my neighbors are interested in any of it. There are huge areas in America where politics are the last topic anyone wants to discuss.
That which gets Joe's attention - cost effects at the pump, unemployment, cuts to social funding, immigration, corruption - and even 9/11 questions, Colbert left untouched.
The only fire I've seen lit by Colbert were 3 days of beneficial sound bytes for himself; perhaps his ratings are up for a few weeks. Keep in mind the same kudos were poured on Michael Moore, Loose Change, Neil Young, etc. etc. etc.
The media is blowing smoke. There are no fires to fan (yet). We should be due for another new star and episode of "Whistleblower" or "Frogmarch a Minion."
Post a Comment