Stephen Colbert & the National Press Dinner

<p>Attacking Bush personally for his alcoholism, his drug use, or his wife would be rude and classless. Attacking the failed policies that will be with us for the next 20+years, as well as a press that appears to serve the White House rather than the American people is not.</p>

<p>You’ve pretty much nailed it!</p>

<p>Reasonable people can disagree whether Colbert was funny or not - that is hardly the issue. But what Colbert tried to do was to use his own inimitable style of humor to address non-personal issues that were legitimate areas of concern to many in this country. What is even more incomprehensible is that the organizers and White House would be the least bit surprised by Colbert’s “truthiness” since that is his hallmark.</p>

<p>The reason why Bush and his crowd did not like it was because it was one of the rare times when he was confronted with his appalling record. Unlike the usual staged events there was no control over what was said and no opportunity to cut off criticism.</p>

<p>The mainstream media did not like the fact that Colbert hit uncomfortably close to home on their abysmal record of uncritical acceptance of this administration’s policies especially with regard to the war in Iraq.</p>

<p>Some of the negative responses to this incident remind me of the reaction Eartha Kitt got back when she criticized the Vietnam War while a guest for lunch at the Johnson Whitehouse, the implication at the time being that it was bad manners, as if the Whitehouse didn’t belong to all American citizens, and as if war and death were such unseemly topics to get into while we’re eating.</p>

<p>She used the platform which was available, and so did Colbert-- Because these topics need to be discussed, in public, with public officials listening, and the press reporting.</p>

<p>His appalling record all at once, line after line, event after event, and the audience had let stuff slide for years so they could still have access</p>

<p>bunch of weenies</p>