Terrific and timely Amrita, thanks!

You think they really didn't know who they booked?
I will cherish those few painful moments forever.
Speak truthiness to power forever, Stephen!

Just hope he isn't broadcasting from Canada in future...

Great review, Amrita. You leave me wishing that I'd seen it for myself.

Click the URL under my name to see the entire Colbert performance on youtube.com.

great article! thanks!

That's exactly what everyone on the right has come to expect from the liberal media. Those people control you like lemmings and you love it.

No wonder 5 of the 6 greatest genocides in history have been committed by leftists, you guys work yourselves up into a frenzy of blind hate which I find totally revolting.

Wonderful. This was such a great performance, and it is shameful how it is being ignored.

re comment #6

Steven Colbert is personally responsible for five of the six greatest genocides in history? The man I once called Lincolnish?
He's dead to me.

Superb analysis. You kicked it right in the gonads, something Colbert has an abundance of, while the correspondents in attendence have lost theirs in the aftermath of 9/11

If only the cameras had covered the presidential facial responses with a closer shot. That, too, would have been priceless.

Do you really believe that the outgoing president, Mark Smith, had no clue about Colbert? Or that he simply pled ignorance in honor of the White House guests? After all, willful ignorance is what they practice over there.
No, Smith knew precisely what he was doing. By pimping the main stream media as much as the oafish, war-mongering president with whom we now suffer, Smith started something good. He got the press corpse to wake up from the dead.

Glamberson, the White House Correspondents dinner never gets any coverage. And it always has someone speaking who takes the president to task. I'm sure he's used to it by now. I also doubt it was a surprise at all, since Colbert regularly does the same schtick on his show 3 times a week.

The truth is that his jibes were relatively mild and of the sort which the president has taken in stride before. In fact, they're rather similar to the kind of self-deprecating humor the president himself uses on a regular basis.

Dave

Thanks. Now here's a question: why was this not considered newsworthy by most of the media?

The serious newsmedia doesn't like to cover itself, and that's a good thing. It leads to the horrible incestuous back-patting we saw recently with the Katie Couric career move.

And the Correspondents Dinner is a relatively inside-affair and I suspec they'd rather not have it over exposed.

Dave

The best line was the Valerie Plame joke. The sketch at the end was rather drawn out. And yes I heard some of those other jokes already.

that'd be dais, hon..
spellcheck take the "day off" ?

This story is under-reported because the beltway media does not like being told, to their faces, that they are not doing their job and are complicit with this administration in its crimes.

Hey everybody - thanks for reading! To answer the most frequently asked question about Smith and how much he knew - I dont know. :)

On the one hand, he appears pretty clueless. In the weeks before he was puffing off the fact that colbert was making an appearance but one got the feeling that he'd just watched a few shows once Colbert's name was brought up to familiarize himself with the man. Then he said he didnt know about the truthiness fiasco. But on the other hand he was pretty quick to dump all responsibility on Scully. Click the first link in the article for the interview he gave.

@ RedTard - why do I get the feeling that you're not what you seem? Anyhoo, Colbert is one of those interestingly placed people - he says he was never especially political before he started working with Jon Stewart and since he began his show [which is hilariously based on "Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly"] he has managed to confuse people on both the right and the left as to his political leanings. In fact, one commentator on another blog mentioned that this was the first time he could definitively make out Colbert's side of the fence.

@ Dave Nalle - I agree that the guest speaker always ribs the President. But if you see the tapes you can clearly see Bush go from a "whatever" grin to a "Oh no you didnt" grim. Pretty funny even with awkward camera angles I thought - but that's just me. However, according to Editor & Publisher, the one org that actually reported it, several people on the condition of anonymity felt the burn on the President's behalf and thought it was more than a joke. And the President himself couldnt wait to get out of the room.

@ Aaron Barlow - I dont agree with Dave that the news media hates to report on itself. I think most of them have no idea how to report it. can they go after him for being "partisan" when he does it every day on his show and everyone applauds him for his satire [which stretches to the right and left btw] safe in the knowledge that only 1 million or so people watch him compared to the millions who tune in to such blowhards as Anderson Cooper and Bill O'Reilly? And I dont think they can applaud him because - well, he made them uncomfortable. Really REALLY uncomfortable. Like leap off the screen of my TV uncomfortable. If you get C-Span check if they're re-airing it and see for yourself. I dont think the net videos adequately convey the awkwardness you could see on TV.

@ de thoth - thank you! Its not my spell check, its entirely my sloppiness.

http://thankyoustephencolbert.org/

Red, that's absolutely ridiculous. The room was filled with the liberal media and there was more gasps and uncomfortableness than laughs. If your theory was correct, there would have been whooping it up to embarrass and humiliate the President even more, but I wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your truthiness.

Dave, I watch these regularly. The speaker does usually take the President and the press to task, but everyone is usually laughing. Jay Leno and Darrell Hammond didn't make the room this awkward. The President didn't seem amused at all based on the cutaways. I haven't seen it so uncomfortable since Don Imus. I also disagree that the serious media doesn't like to cover itself.

I thought Colbert was amusing, laughed out loud a couple of times, but had heard some jokes from his show. The video went on waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long, very anti-climactic.

I put the videos up on my blog if anyone wants to watch it.

I thought he hit where it hurts and at least someone had the balls to do it. It felt more like a huge critique than a skit or humor. Much needed sarcastic bitch slapping was handed out and it had to be Colbert to do it. (Either him or The Pundit Show killer Stewart)

yeah, dave, bush constantly claims responsibility for the plame thing and likes to talk about how iraq's government is less than effective. yes, yes. reminds me of his self-deprecating humor, yes. mmhmm. bullshit.

Stephen Colbert is hilarious, and his performance at the dinner was no exception (though the video went on too long), but Bush didn't seem put out from what I could see.

All in all, this seems to be a tempest in a teacup. People need to watch a few more of these before getting too excited.

Hey Red Tard!

5 of the Greatest 5 Democracies have been started by leftists (including the one you so luckily live in)!

No wonder 5 of the 6 greatest genocides in history have been committed by leftists, you guys work yourselves up into a frenzy of blind hate which I find totally revolting.

Yeah. You certainly wouldn't be caught DEAD in a frenzy of blind hate. Obviously.

"5 of the Greatest 5 Democracies have been started by leftists"

You guys love democracy especially when there's only one party-one choice. I doubt most of the founding fathers of this country would get anywhere near the modern left, too much distrust of big government, but that's an academic debate. And yes, I am lucky to live here where the government is currently unable to shut me up.

"You certainly wouldn't be caught DEAD in a frenzy of blind hate."

I hope not.

What do you think Comment 6 was?

A little overreaction and maybe a little of what could be described as hate, but certainly no one was killed.

I didn't say you killed anyone; I'm just pointing out that the left by no means has a monopoly on hate.

Incidentally, as I've pointed out elsewhere, I assume you're not counting Hitler among your "leftist genocides" since Hitler wasn't a leftist.

once a political party gets to the point where it's killing its own people, it's not really much of a people's party anymore. since definitions of "left" and "right" change from era to era and location to location, i assume that redtard is pretty much referring to so-called "socialist" or "communist"-labeled parties. i don't think that the people of cambodia or the people of the soviet union really got together to elect a bunch of people that would send them off to slave labor/death camps... and i also don't believe that either one of them were true "socialist" governments, nor did they follow what present-day americans consider to be "leftist" ideals.

in fact, current day right-wing ideals like oppressing homosexuals, immigrants and women is a bit more like it... not nearly as bad, but then again, we can't all be hitler.

5 of the Greatest 5 Democracies have been started by leftists (including the one you so luckily live in)!

Those who founded this nation were liberals, not leftist. Liberalism is dead in the American left today and the remnants of it live on weakly in the GOP. Those who confuse the socialist populism of the democrats with liberalism need to read up on what real liberals actually believe and how fundamentally incompatible it is with the paternalistic statism of the American left.

Dave

Notice that REDTARD didn't name the leftists.

So, Red Tard, do you think the Founding Fathers would like the way GWB is thumbing his nose at the 14th Amendment? They overthrew a king who thought that he was "the decider" for them. They didn't want an imperial presidency.

The news media is a bunch of gutless cowards.

Bravo, Colbert! and THANK YOU!

The notion that the Correspondent's Dinners aren't covered in the news is a fallacy. When Don Imus spoke at one in 1996, the coverage was immediate and widespread.

eX pat in australia - thanks for getting into press and pres - we in australia get more information and news about the U.S. and know more about what the pres and sidekicks are doing - saddens me that my fellow Americans are so ignorant - think you probably - on C Span - informed more than they ever knew before - keep up the good good work - IMPEACH THE MAN

i wish i had seen it!

Stephen Colbert, you are my hero! Anyone who thinks Bush enjoyed it every time you punched him "where it hurt most" is pissin' in the wind.

dave you are incredibly correct on your assessment of liberalism. Classical liberalism is perty much DEAD.

#36 and others, have you guys never watched a White House Correspondents Dinner before? Note Colbert's introduction -- it is customary and usual and completely expected for the speakers to roast the President as Colbert does. Bush tells the man "Good job" as he shakes his hand, and seems to be smiling or laughing almost every time the camera shows him.

I'm glad you're all enjoying your adoration or Colbert, and I don't blame you -- he's a comic genius. But stop kidding yourselves that his "speak truthiness to power" act is some unprecendented. The only thing out of the ordinary about it is that it's more funny than these dinners are most years.

So, Red Tard, do you think the Founding Fathers would like the way GWB is thumbing his nose at the 14th Amendment? They overthrew a king who thought that he was "the decider" for them. They didn't want an imperial presidency.

By the time the 14th amendment was passed most of the founding fathers had been dead for 40 years or more. I doubt they would care about it one way or another.

As for GWB thumbing his nose at amendments, perhaps you mean the 4th amendment? Last I checked there wasn't one word in there about telecommunications over the public airwaves, and if the FCC can regulate radio broadcasts, why can't the FBI listen to them?

Dave

the word "genius" sure gets thrown around these days.

Ok, this is fast headed towards the familiar terrain of Bush Love/Hate but I thought I'd nip in and re-address the one point that keeps coming up - how much of Colbert did the Press and the Pres take in their stride?

If you wanted it from someone who was there in the flesh and intimately involved, visit comedy central and look up the video for tonight's The Daily Show: opening monologue and the Check in with Colbert segment that airs at the end. Its pretty clear i think. not to mention hilarious.

Those who founded this nation were liberals, not leftist.

Technically, I think we'd have to say they were radicals.

Let's call them radical non-left liberals then. If anything, but modern standards they were radical, conservative liberals, since they wanted to return to an idealized model of past naturalistic government which was basically liberal in nature, and were willing to use radical means to achieve that goal.

Dave

I applaud Colbert. Bush and his criminal crew should get at least what Colbert gave them and more. These crooks get to laugh all the way to the bank, stepping over the dead bodies of American citizens and the nations poor. They'll never understand what an honest hard working American goes through because they really don't give a shit. At the very least, a good lashing by Colbert in a public forum should be their punishment for their stupidity and blind ignorance. Bravo Colbert. I wish we had a million more like you. Maybe we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

radical non-left liberals? radical, conservative liberals? um... you're just throwing words together. i don't think "we" should be calling them anything, because our understanding of their motives is obviously fucked up. everyone wants to claim that the "founding fathers" would be on "our" side (left, right, liberal, conservative, dem, rep, etc, etc) and all that shit, "if they were around today." they aren't around today. politics and the world has changed plenty since their day. their views on minorities, women, homosexuality, abortion, immigration, nearly every damn thing that is important today in politics... their views would be woefully ignorant and backward, laughable from our current perspective. they would have no clue what we are talking about. no fucking clue. so, trying to say what political stripe the founding fathers would follow, in today's terms, if they weren't a bunch of rotting bones in the ground somewhere in virginia, if they didn't wear wigs or write with feathers, if you had any goddamn clue what you were talking about, if they weren't politicians but honest people, if if if... you can't really say anything for sure.

adical non-left liberals? radical, conservative liberals? um... you're just throwing words together.

People are complex, so their political beliefs are too complex to be summed up in a single word unless you want to be a simplistic fool.

Zing, I think you write the founding fathers off too easily. They may have been from a different era, but basic principles of good government haven't changed since the days of Socrates. Give Paine or Franklin or Jefferson the contextual background on our modern America and they'd know exactly what was wrong.

There are plenty of people out here today who have that same vision - they just aren't mostly in a position to be listened to and won't be until we have the equivalent of another revolution.

Dave

the basic principles of good government have been debated since the days of socrates.

politicians are politicians. they wouldn't know exactly what was wrong any more than our current day politicians do. they'd know it was wrong... but they wouldn't be able to fix it. politics have become too complex, the issues too many, the pov's too far apart.

i think you give them too much credit. they were fumbling about in the dark and left too many problems without solutions. within 70 years we were killing each other off. something was wrong.

Amrita, glad to see BC coverage of this--I missed it live, but the recorded performance is brilliant! His delivery is spot-on, and the fact that he's making the whole audience--and Bush--uncomfortable with his perfectly aimed laser makes it even more fun to watch.

Bravo Colbert!

I have no idea what our Founding Fathers had in mind. I doubt that solid basic principles of good government exist. But, I do think the following passage taken from Alexander Tyler's "From Bondage to Spiritual Faith" is very indicative of where we have been and where we are headed:
"
From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage."

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. Seems we are pretty much on track. I wish I could be around to read "The Rise and Fall of the Great American Empire"...

OK, thought experiment time. Same event, but with Nixon. Haldeman and Erlichman are in the audience. Colbert magically appears. He has a lot of material - Watergate, the illegal bombing of Cambodia, the Pentagon Papers, Viet Nam, forthcoming indictments, extremely loe approval rates...

Would anyone expect his material to be funny? For the audience to crack up? Would anyone complain about his timing? Would he be accused of going too far?

Now, as then, there is a pall hanging over our country. People are deeply concerned. The legal framework for despotism has been laid by this administration.

What's to laugh about?

I don't believe it was meant to be funny. I think it was just a clever way to sock it to Bush in a situation where he couldn't respond. I read a bumper sticker yesterday which said "Somewhere In Texas There's A Village Missing An Idiot". Now, that made me laugh...but, the one that said "Be Nice To America Or We will Bring Democracy To Your Country" had a scary ring to it.

That is scary, but it does seem to be the Bushite M.O., doesn't it?

COLBERT FOR PRESIDENT! The man has big brass ones, for sure.

Colbert (it's French, bitch) did exactly what he was supposed to do. He stood there in his schtick and laid open the raw wounds of both the Administration and their lap dog lackeys, the WH press corps.

Not only didn't the President like having his feet held so close to the fire, but the Press corps themselves were squirming.

If you didn't find it bitingly amusing, and appropriate satire, odds are you were a target.

Which would explain why the MSM are skipping over it completely.

NR...I guess we should have known Bush would be looking for a reason to bomb any country when he declared himself a "War President". I will never understand how he came to be the leader of our country. Oh wait, now I remember...Jeb and Katherine! That was a strong signal that he is "above the law"....at least in his opinion.

politicians are politicians. they wouldn't know exactly what was wrong any more than our current day politicians do. they'd know it was wrong... but they wouldn't be able to fix it. politics have become too complex, the issues too many, the pov's too far apart.

Wrongo. You clearly don't get it at all, Zing. Plenty of people know exactly what's wrong with our government and even have a good line on how to fix it. The problem is that they lack the will or the honesty or the integrity to do it. Or else thye aren't in a position of power where they could do anything to fix the government, and aren't likely to get there specifically because they lack the qualities of corruption which can get them into office.

Dave

I just finished watching Colbert's routine and I must say that it was a thing of beauty. It took massive balls to eviscerate the president from a distance of 5 feet. Colbert is my hero.

Mr. Nalle speaks truthiness in #55.

dave--what does it matter if YOU think that someone (YOU?) have a "good line on how to fix it" if you don't have the ability to do anything about it? at that point, it's just another opinion in a line of opinions, a mob of them, that matter far less than if hillary c is sexy or if bush can say "new clear."

you say exactly what i do, read it again, but you say it differently. i say, maybe they know what is wrong, but they wouldn't be able to fix it. you say, they know how to fix it, but they wouldn't be able to fix it. see that last phrase in both those sentences? exactly the fucking same aren't they?

so... really, if i don't get it, you don't get it either. but i think we both get it. i just realize that it's not just "corruption" that gets in the way, it's politics itself. it's not an individual thing, it's the way the fucking world works. so don't tell me i'm wrong when we come to the same conclusion. makes you look silly.

Youtube has taken down the colbert segment of the dinner, citing "copyright infringemet". Yet the UNfunny "comedy" duo of Bush and Faux-Bush remains.....Maybe cspan only allows a certain amountof copyright infringement? Or maybe the TRUTHINESS HURTS....

Washington Post...

The White House Correspondents' Association announced that faux blowhard pundit Stephen Colbert , star of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," will entertain real Washington egomaniacs at the annual dinner in April. "His whole persona is skewering the self-important," said association President Mark Smith of AP Radio. "What isn't perfect about having him skewer 3,000 of America's most self-obsessed people?"
....

I think Mark Smith was in this with Colbert.

I think it speaks volumes that this was on youtube within hours, and it's already been appearing across myspace bulletins. So the young people care...Now if we could just get into voting booths.

I put a link to your column and to the Colbert video at my
new piece on the Daily Show.
Great job.