Stephen Colbert is amazing

Lying to Congress? On what grounds?

 

On the grounds that the buffoon didn't like it.

 

What's lost in all the fauxrage is Colbert made some decent points about the way migrant workers are treated. And his experience of spending one day in the fields gave him more insight into the job than any 1,000 pages of Congressional studies.

 

Yeah, that's just stupid.

The republicans would be smart to attack the Dems for asking him/making him testify, but going after Colbert is just idiotic.

 

This is where Colbert knocked it out of the park:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/22094299

 

Agreed.

As for Colbert's 'good points,' I haven't watched the clips or read the transcripts, but I'm much more than a little skeptical that he said anything that hasn't been said thousands of times.
And one or two days in the field is not even close to informed research when comapred to the real studies and reports that have been done on this.

 

Chuck Todd, filling in for Chris Matthews on Hardball is ripping the performance. So are his guests, Vaughn Ververs (MSNBC) and Jon Ralston (Las Vegas Sun).

Todd questioned why members didn't walk out on the performance.

Ververs says it reinforces the negative opinions people have about Congress & predicts "a lot of backlash" over it.

 

Take a little time to watch the clips. You might be pleasantly surprised.

As for Colbert not saying anything that hasn't been said thousands of times: Well, he probably didn't say anything new. But his delivery was new, and for that, people listened.

By the way, all the party strategists on both sides and the political media types debating Colbert's effect on the election can go fuck themselves with Charlie Cook's back scratcher. Again, what they don't like being told, especially to their face, is that the focus on gaining power instead of doing something with it makes for a desiccated republic.

(After seeing YankeeFan's post): Chuck Todd should eat his new hairpiece. Why doesn't Chuck Todd ask why Congresscritters don't walk out when oil company and bank executives lie to their faces? Oh, because Colbert didn't feather their nest, so to speak, before he walked in. This worry about seriousness of Congress is laughable, given some of the shit spewed from actual Congresspeople.

 

Well, you certainly wouldn't want to watch or read and know what you're talking about. That would just be a waste of time.

The point is not that it hasn't been said thousands of times. The point is that it hasn't been heard thousands of times. It's a weird part of the world that people pay more attention to celebrities, but all he was doing was using his public profile to bring awareness to something he doesn't think enough people have considered.

 

Look, if you think Colbert was brilliant or hysterical, God bless you.

But that's not the point. Did he succeed in advancing the cause he was advocating for?

If the public finds the whole performance to be a farce that only reinforces their opinion -- and motivation -- to, "throw the bums out," then he hurt his cause.

 

How do you measure "advancing the cause?" I can't imagine too many Congressional hearings outside Mark McGwire when public opinion was changed measurably by someone who testified there. I doubt having Colbert there turned Steve King and his supporters into proponents of immigration amnesty, or, on the hurt-your-cause side, made John Conyers and his supporters want to lock the borders. As for the upcoming election, I doubt many were undecided, heard what Colbert did, and set their positions.

I can understand reps at the meeting not taking too kindly to Colbert's approach. Whatever. But it galls me that so many political types -- especially political media types -- have their collective panties in a bunch over this. If they just thought it was ineffective, that's one thing. But they're reacting like Colbert took an enormous, steamy, runny dump on House floor. Or that Colbert is the first to do it. Get over yourselves, folks. To me, it's symbolic about how so much of what happens in Washington, particularly the coverage, is about politics and process, and not what people are actually saying and doing.

 

I'm sure that most undecideds didn't watch it, but they may see the coverage that is saying it was a joke and an embarrassment.

It could also be a theme (or at least play into a theme) in political commercials.

And, with this being a midterm, it's all about enthusiasm. The story is that the Dems are suffering from an enthusiasm gap. I don't think today helped them.

It will probably be hard to tell, since Dems are already projected to lose seats, but I really don't think today helped the Dems chances and may have hurt them.

And, if he hurt the Dems, he hurt his cause.