The Passion Of The Colbert
May 9th, 2006 at 8:39 pm by CrankyConfederate Yankee discovers the new affliction of the Left: CADS – Colbert Assurance Derangement Syndrome.
Those afflicted are yet to get over the fact that Stephen Colbert simply bombed when addressing the White House Correspondent’s Assocation Dinner. No, to them, Stephen was suppressed for speaking truth to power. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron, conspirator or hypnotized by Karl Rove.
This near-fanatical adoration of Stephen Colbert hasn’t been rivaled for nearly 2000 years.
Check out these messianic creds:
- Stephen Colbert was crucified by the right-wing press for speaking uncomfortable truths.
- Colbert, by his mere words have inspired a world of gratitude
- Stephen Colbert’s fans insist that he didn’t die at the WHCAD.
- Speaking against Colbert is tantamount to blasphemy and is punishible by his devoted followers.
- Stephen is being spoken for by a multitude of self-appointed prophets.
Uncanny, no?
May 9th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Reaction to Colbert at the White House Correspondents Dinner…
Special thanks to the chick whose name I can't remember for introducing me to that film.
UPDATE:
…
May 9th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
And yet, the mighty Roman Empire was taken over by that Jesus cult not too terribly long afterward.
Curious.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Donna,
I’m horrified by the thought of the President of the U.S. in 2014 converting to Colbertianity. Do you realise the implications of what you’re saying? Jon Stewart will be his prophet.
NO!!!
May 9th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
I say we take a hint from Andrew Sullivan and start calling them Colbertists.
May 10th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
While Colbert’s comedic timing may be have been off, it’s definitely the first “messianic cred” that is the kicker. This may have been the first time in Bush’s Presidency that he’s had to sustain 20 minutes worth of criticism. That’s the real reason for the euphoria. Post 9-11, the “left-wing media” has been as pathetic as the Democrats in giving Mr. Bush a free pass. In a free society, a loyal opposition is a dandy thing. Colbert’s no messiah, but he did spark a hope that there could actually be a loyal opposition in this country again.
May 10th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
This may have been the first time in Bush’s Presidency that he’s had to sustain 20 minutes worth of criticism. That’s the real reason for the euphoria.
You see? That’s the hyperbole. I admit that I like Colbert and Jon Stewart (just not as much as I used to).
Bush didn’t earn his 31% approval rating alone. Although he did much of it all by himself, can you seriously tell me that the media and other celebrity types with access to the mic haven’t had their say?
Didja know the economy is hot? Bet you didn’t see that on the 11:00 news.
May 11th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Of course that’s hyperbole, a grand staple of the Buffet. Without having to lean too far left or right, you have to see that Mr. Bush has lived a distinctly insular Presidency up to the current drop in the polls.
Sure there are good things to report on the economy, and I saw some of those on the news this morning. On the other hand, Bush and the Republican Congress have been spending the country into record debt like a sex addict in a whorehouse that takes MasterCard.
Sure there are roads and schools being built in Iraq, but there are still no WMDs and no end in sight to the insurgency. When Bob Schieffer interviewed Bush earlier this year, he didn’t take the President to task for any of that, he asked him what it’s like to be President, and what he thought of Bush 41’s love-fest with Bill Clinton.
It isn’t about a political bias, either. It’s dumbness and laziness. Nobody checks anybody’s facts anymore. Reporting what Bush says followed by what Pelosi says isn’t balanced reporting, it’s just laziness. Both are prevaricating and counting on the newsmedia to report the prevarications verbatim. Pelosi’s just more inept, and the White House has been far more effective in their prevarication strategery. As far as celebs with access to the mic, Sean Penn, et. al. only damage their cause when they open their mouths.
Only recently does it seem that the massive layers of guano piling up in the White House briefing room have gotten deep enough that the American public has stepped back for a collective “hey, waitaminute…”
So likewise Colbert’s recent coup has nothing to do with comedy or whether he was funny. It’s just the fact that after six years, he’s the first one to stand in front of Bush and make some kind of listing of the prevarications.
Also, please note that the “mainstream media” went for days reporting on Bush’s sketch with his twin Skippy, while mentioning nothing about Colbert beyond his presence at the event. If they were in any way gunning for Bush, you’d think they could’ve edited together a clip of one of one of Colbert’s zingers and a clip of Bush looking unimpressed, but no, there was nothing but George and Skippy.
May 15th, 2006 at 9:39 am
“Colbert’s recent coup has nothing to do with comedy or whether he was funny.”
Exactly. It’s called “satire,” and the targets of satire rarely, if ever, find it funny.