Colbert's routine took the skin and most of the flesh off the president. A sample line:
"When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday - no matter what happened Tuesday."
As Colbert walked from the podium, when it was over, the president and First Lady gave him quick nods, unsmiling. The president shook his hand and tapped his elbow, and left immediately.
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.
Several veterans of past dinners, who requested anonymity, said the presentation was more directed at attacking the president than in the past. Several said previous hosts, like Jay Leno, equally slammed both the White House and the press corps.
"This was anti-Bush," said one attendee. "Usually they go back and forth between us and him." Another noted that Bush quickly turned unhappy, and left the dais shortly after while most seated near him, including Colbert and Snow, glad-handed the crowd. "You could see he stopped smiling about halfway through Colbert," he reported.
After the gathering, Snow, while nursing a Heineken outside the Chicago Tribune reception, declined to comment on Colbert. "I’m not doing entertainment reviews," he said. "I thought the president was great, though."
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" to power.
God forbid that anyone in the U.S. should speak too much truth to the president, eh?
Best line of the night: (paraphrasing)
Bush believes all religions, be it Hindu, Muslim, Jewish have the right to worship the one true lord Jesus Christ as they see fit.
Well, if we had the Fairness Doctrine, Colbert would have to give equal time on his show... right? :)
Oh, wait... it's fake news.
I might be killed after suggesting that Rush Limbaugh be given the death penalty on the Missouri Radio message board (or at least become "Official Soap Picker Upper" in prison). I for one want the the Fairness Doctirine brought back, but I also believe that there should be tax exempt status for African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Gays and people with media degrees from Missouri State University who like female bartenders at Chilli's (guess which group I'm in).
I might also be killed for making fun of VINCENT DAVID JOHN JACOB JINGLE SHOTENKIRK SHIMMY SHIMMY KO-KO BOP RAMA LAMA DING DONG OOO-EE-OOO-AH-AH TING TANG WALLA WALLA BING BANG BANANA FANNA FO FANA SHA NA NA PA PA OOM MOW MOW ANIHIEM AZUZA AND CUKA-MONGA JERICO, a.k.a Mullet Boy (Actually, I believe he is really Kenny Strode). Yours truly, Desdinova the Eternal Light.
You want government to bully privately-owned radio and TV stations into forced "balance"?
That's part of the problem: Expecting government to *solve* problems. It rarely does.
I hope Air America doesn't fold up, or we will see more calls for this kind of police power of government call for action. Funny that the Fairness Doctrine doesn't apply to the printed word, or NPR (they want an exemption to the doctrine)...
Also, the idea of giving certain groups tax-exempt status, over other groups... well, that's just wrong. It flies in the face of the Constitution.
Sorry to pound on you, Desdinova, but you've got this wrong, too.
God, I'm grumpy this morning... :)
Hey, Ron Davis ... you need to start exploring the "Hookergate" scandal IMMEDIATELY!
If you don't know what it is ... time to find out!
Get on the stick over there at Chatter!
Your friend, Korny ....
Hey, investigate all of 'em... Reps AND Dems. Most of 'em are dirty, so don't limit it to just a "hookergate" investigation - you probably can't swing a dead cat* without hitting a corrupt politician.
* Somewhere, a PETA supporter is furiously writing their Congressman, demanding the phrase "swing a dead cat" be part of a "hate speech" bill...
The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast media because the public owns the airwaves and broadcasters are licensed to serve "in the public interest, convenience and necessity." The Supreme Court has established many precedents allowing for government oversight of public airwaves. Deregulation has allowed broadcasters to ignore their "public interest, convenience and necessity" obligations.
The Fairness Doctrine never required "balance" or "equal time." It only required that opposing points of view be presented. Broadcasters were also required to provide "public service" programming that dealt with issues of concern to the community of license. Today, that would mean KKLH 104.7 would have to deal with issues of conern to Marshfield, Alice 95.5 would have to deal with issues of concern to Pleasant Hope, KGBX would have have to deal with issues of concern to Nixa, etc.
Government regulation isn't always a bad thing.
What you describe may be the INTENT of the doctrine, but the liberals* who push for it now want a minute-for-minute "balance" - three hours of Limbaugh gets three hours of Randi Rhodes in response.
IMO, though, it's Big Government mandating to broadcasters. And where does it end? Will it be applied to cable, satellite TV and radio, and the internet? Why did NPR ask for an exemption? Would AirAmerica, should it survive (let's hope), be subject to equal time?
I'd say there are those who want exactly that, and are willing to use the police power of gov't to get what they want.
Sorry, but I don't share your lack of mistrust about the power of government. It never gets smaller or less obtrusive, nor does it cost less. Always more, more, more.
* In this instance, I'm talking about the unhinged, socialist liberals - not the ordinary Joe types.
I usually leave out something...
"That government is best which governs least." - Thomas Paine
From my POV, and I'm not alone in this regard... Paine was a smart dude. We could well use about 400 like him in the House of Representatives.
Or, at least, a few hundred Ron Pauls...
>>"That government is best which governs least." - Thomas Paine <<
Hey, Libertarian Guy! When are you moving to Iraq? They have the kind of government you love over there!
Oh good job, Korny! Let's go together and buy Libertarian Boy a ticket out of the country. Signed, Desdinova.
Three years from now, when the country is being run by a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Repiglicans will be screaming their heads off in support of the Fairness Doctrine's return. Just you hide and watch.
I'd rather stay here and make my country what the founders wanted... a Constitutional Republic. Not, btw, a "democracy".
Oh, and Des... having lived 42 years on this mudball, I think my "boy" days are about three decades behind me. Thanks anyway, though...
This, BTW, is what I love about being a libertarian - I get abuse from the left AND the right. S'okay, though... I get to watch the dog'n'pony show on C-SPAN, eatin' popcorn whilst the RepubliCrats figure dandy new ways to run our lives for us.
Before this turns ugly...
I firmly believe that anyone who is 100% "liberal" is just as misguided as someone who is full-bore, bull-goose "conservative". I think "nanny-state" types are fools, no matter which Brand X party they belong to.
There are "Reagan Democrats" and "crunchy conservatives" and "South Park conservatives" and "Blue Dog Democrats" and... well, you get the picture.
I simply refuse to believe it is the job of gov't to run my life for me. SOME laws and SOME gov't are necessary... however, we don't need steaming piles of either to make America function.
Keep in mind that YOU own the airwaves and due to physics, there are limits as to who may use them and in what way. This is why broadcasters have licenses. Anyone with the financial resources may start a newspaper, magazine, book, etc. But neither you nor I can just start a radio station.
I don't know that the Fairness Doctrine is necessary. But I would like more voices to be heard and that may only be possible by limiting the number of stations any one entity may own.
Sorry, Doc... I'm a free-market person. AirAmerica should survive on its own merits, not expect a handout from the fedgov. For that matter, neither should NPR.
If there's a market for non-conservative airwave media, it should do so in the market, not with the visible hand of D.C. forcing stations to carry it. And that's what I see with this FD return effort: Eventually, it will expand beyond the scope of airwaves and into the realms of satellite and internet. Look at the horrible McCain-Feingold Incumbent Politician Protection and First Amendment Evisceration Act. That's not a good way to "fix" campaign finance...
Don't want to go on a rant here, and this is getting blog-post lengthy here. Just not a big fan of "if there's a problem, government can fix it" thinking. Sometimes, gov't is NOT the answer.
BTW, I think the FCC dropped the ball - they were thinking of loosening the strings, make it easier for people to start low-power FM stations, but now they're too busy listening to tight-fisted butt-clenching bluenoses who spend all day sniffing out "obscene" material...
How did such a good topic get so much boreing comment? Colbert delivers a knock out performance and you are all c-rappin about the fairness doctorine?
FYI, I get most of my news from the Daily Show/Colbert hour... now, if only The Onion did a TV version...
God bless Helen Thomas.
The Daily Show or Colbert should be representin' in the WH press corps.
Post a Comment