Guys, come on. Are we done with Colbert yet?

Okay, he drew blood. But the world does move on and this stupid inside the Beltway titter session has now assumed the importance of the runaway bride or lost blonde of the week. Please, there are elections coming in the fall. Rubbing *'s nose in his own poo might be gratifying but it doesn't get us any closer to moving his supporters in congress back home to their districts as private citizens.

Starting another thread about a topic you don't want discussed is not a very good way to not discuss the topic you don't want to discuss.

Colbert Rules!

:hi:

LOL!

:spray:

Let the celebration continue for weeks, and every time you talk to a Fundie/Republican/Bush bot tell them about the performance, rub their faces in it till they say uncle.

get people to look up the video if they haven't seen it. Work this for all it's worth.

As long as he is funny and current he will be a topic.

Go Stephen!!!!!!!!!

The culprits who spread the dis-reality created in the WH were all in the room. Some big benefactors of the dis-reality were also in the room.

The person who is so carefully and expensivley protected from the reality that the people are not happy was exposed to a different reality.

A single person cracked through the dis-reality and was within five feet of Mr. dis-reality. This was a big deal.

We can't forget this while we naturally move on - especially moving on to voting integrity - their theft of our vote was a dis-reality - they attempted and continue to attempt to say that everything is fine, the machines are fine, the software is fine, the communications are fine, the switches are fine, the technicians are fine, and Democrats are stupid.

the Beltway titter session and to runaway brides/missing blondes totally trivializes the IMPORTANCE of what Stephen did. With people like Colbert pointing out how totally corrupt and lawless this administration is, it can only help at getting rid of the Republicans this fall.

For Skinner to do the "crunch time" thing and retitle the forums "General Discussion: Colbert" and "General Discussion: Everything Else"

That would have been GREAT! :rofl:

mock some RW blunder and then half of DU will want to burn him at the stake like that other traitor Keith Olberman.

:hi:

What Colbert did was important, but we need our elected officials and intellectual community to be doing this....not comedians. We can't continually rely on Al Franken, Stephen Colbert and J. Garofolo to carry the sword for us.

Low rent hacks like you see on Leno and (sadly) Letterman have made people forget that stand-up comics, since Lenny Bruce, have always been at the forefront of social commentary and criticism. The line of comedian critics is rather long and illustrious: Bruce, Pryor, Carlin, Hicks, Rock and dozens of other, lesser-known or more short-lived comics. And there's a new crop rising. In some ways, stand-up comics are among the most powerful social and political critics because they, by definition, have carte blanche to be critical. It's just that most of them today aren't in it to be a voice, they're in it to make a buck.

Hicks said it best: the comic is supposed to be the guy standing at the back of the posse who raises his hand and asks "We're going to do what to whom why?"

Mostly

I'm not going to be convinced that Franken or Colbert or Lewis Black, while very talented, can take the place of people like Noam Chomsky or John Rawls. The work of comedians is relatively consequence-free compared to pure political thinkers and leaders.

Much as we might like to hear him criticize and rage against the status quo, his audience is largely composed of the choir. Chomsky barely registers a blip on the radar of most Americans - the fact that he's a "household name" among us is irrelevant; DU is by no means a barometer of American cultural awareness. Simply put, he's a non-factor in the back fence discourse that really has the power to change things. Nobody talks about Chomsky over the back fence.

But people do talk about the latest songs, stand-up routines, skits, etc that they've seen through pop culture. As a result, those are the keystones of real political sea change, not just changes in who has the House or Senate, but real, tangible changes in thought. Simply put, people are more likely to be moved by those things they connect with. Comics, comedians, songwriters, etc. are far easier to relate to for most people than are people like Chomsky.

I believe this has to do largely with perception of a body of work. Anybody aware of Chomsky would look at his body of work - books, recording, speeches, etc - and realize almost immediately that he's pretty focused on a very narrow area of interest and that he has a particular view. On the other hand, somebody like Chris Rock or George Carlin has far more to their body of work than just the political stuff. As a result, the view point, the axe to grind, is not quite as obvious. The result is that people are more likely to give Rock, Carlin, et al a chance because their views aren't as overt as somebody like Chomsky, whom many people would choose to tune out because he's all politics, all the time. Normal, typically centrist people just don't identify that strongly with politics, so they don't want to deal with it in concentrated doses.

This is yet another thing where the Republicans are just miles and miles ahead of us. Limbaugh was their first incursion into "comedy as political discourse". Limbaugh's popularity is predicated on quotability, his ability to make things into little vignettes and easily repeatable "bits", much like a comic. His show, or large swaths of it, can be "packaged" in the listener's mind, and they can regurgitate it later, just as an audience member will repeat the best parts of a comic's act. That's the genesis of the talking point, of the soundbite, of the bullet point: the ability to create a conceptual framework that is emminently repeatable and easily digestible.

Chomsky has no such ability - at center, he's a policy wonk who can't speak in anything less than $8 words and piles of statistics. His work is admirable and I like to hear what he has to say, but I can't come close to keeping it together in my head, let alone try to slip it into conversation.

It seems that Democrats are stuck on the idea that political discourse has to somehow stay in the margins defined by Jefferson and de Tocqueville and Henry. That somehow we're crapping on the Constitution if we don't use lofty rhetoric sent to us from on high. We have to start accepting the fact that Americans are not interested in that kind of hoi polloi anymore - the mindset is much more utilitarian in nature today.

That's where comics, songwriters, etc - all the common rubbish of pop culture - are at and it's why they will and should be on the forefront of commentary.

I don't even know who Rawls is, so that should tell you something about the penetration he's getting. I'm certainly not within the top 80% of DU's most aware and savvy members, but the fact that I know about PNAC and Arbusto and Scaife and all the others and yet I don't know who Rawls is kind of proves my point.

Mostly

...as public commentators. I'm saying we shouldn't look to them as leaders for a political movement. They can play an integral part in it, but seriously...do you think there's any benefit to making Al Franken or Chris Rock or Bruce Springsteen the guiding light of our movement?

I think we're talking two different things.

You're talking about who the movement leader is. Personally, I'm not sure anybody is capable of that right now, as the left/liberal side is terribly fractious and prone to in-fighting. It's an army that can't be lead in some respects. That's why the Democratic response has been unfailinly inept in recent years: you can't lead a bunch of individuals, only a group.

However, I don't see any significant drawback to using somebody like Franken as a movement leader, as I think he's honed an image that walks the line between comic/humorist and serious political thinker. I'd also argue that Limbaugh was the standard bearer for the Republicans from about '90-'94 when it was clear that GHWB wasn't going to toe the line as the neo-cons wanted. So I don't even think having an entertainer as de facto leader would be a precedent.

I think there's more here than just one leadership position. Take Dr. Dean for example. Great fundraiser, great at connecting with the grassroots. But, I would argue, not the best guy to have on point for message. Not the best guy to have on point for action and policy. There are a lot of open slots for leadership in something as sweeping as a movement. We need policy leaders - the people who decide on the movement's course and true sweep. We need action leaders - the people who get stuff done. These would be the Congressional reps all the way down to the school board and zoning committee people. We need funding leaders - the people who can beat the bushes for cash. We need message leaders - the people who get the word out. And I believe this is crowd to perform for, they are capable of playing a leading role in getting out a message (along with other messaging apparatus as well, such as pundits and columnists, etc).

So while I agree with your essential point, I'd tack on the disclaimer that lack of leadership worthiness in one arena doesn't necessarily make comics, performers, etc. useless as leaders in other respects.

Mostly

He's more of an administrative guy...get the funds, craft the message and organize the troops.

And you're right about comedians and musicians being useful in other areas.

I guess one of my concerns about putting too much direction in the hands of someone like Colbert is that there is too much "flash in the pan" potential and how fast society moves today.

are facing a totalitarian junta who will hear no dissent. So, while normally, Colbert, Franken et al would just be icing on the cake. That we jump for joy and send roses when we have ONE, just ONE reporter (Helen Thomas) who dares to ask a single, uncomfortable question of the Decider, and that we celebrate for days when a single comedian grabs his one chance to tell the junta to their face, and their propaganda arm, that we may not be being heard, but we're on to them, should make it painfully clear how little opposition there has been to this criminal administration.

Bush's reaction, and the reaction of his aides as reported this morning, is proof that this was no 'runaway bride' moment ~ Colbert took his best shot and he hit his target. By supporting him, vocally and loudly, it will give courage to others to do the same ~ and soon what has been a mere trickle of public dissent could become a flood.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

You are correct about most people not discussing Chomsky at the water cooler and you are correct that comedians and other popular figures have a greater likelihood of influencing the masses, but it is not correct to state that Chomsky does not matter.

His work matters to those people that read and understand it. His work undoubtedly has provided a great number of people insight and understanding of the narrow issues he discusses. They, in turn, can influence people in their own lives with a better informed opinion. To say that Chomsky doesn't matter in such a sweeping, general manner is unfair.

Intellectuals like Chomsky are the educators, so to speak, of other intellectuals and political thinkers/activists. But they are not the ones who take the message "to the people", so that actual change can happen. That is the bottom line, isn't it? Without real effect in the real world, this is all mental masturbation.

This is where the Democrats tend to fall way short, the message. Ironically, it was one of Chomsky's subjects. Why was Clinton able to wrest the White House from the clutches of the right for two terms? It wasn't the policies, which were garden variety moderate dem. It wasn't that he is so smart, there are plenty of democratic eggheads. He knew how to communicate his message. That is part of what makes him such a great politician. The problem is this was a native gift, and when he left office, it was over. The party failed to appreciate why he was successful and imagined it must have been some magical DLC policy strategy. Republicans know that you can sell fire to the Devil if you package and frame it correctly. The Dems are just starting to learn this.

:hide:

We cannot let them get away with it.

and how they've losing Americans - particularly younger Americans and better informed Americans.
We're in a different world now. The internet has changed everything.
And the MSM media refuses to acknowledge the impact.
People I wouldn't have thought even know there IS a correspondent's dinner - or could care less - have been downloading Colbert's remarks. And now they're asking about "Mrs. Wilson"...what's that all about? They want to "get" the jokes they hear other people cackling about all day.
So. No. We're not "over" Colbert. This is more than Colbert. It's about all of us "out here" in cyberspace. We're not buying into the MSM.
It's failed us.

and Mike Allen of Time, I will post in his defense.

I do think it will start to fade on DU by tomorrow.

It's a nice break from scandal fatigue.

Not to worry, the attention will be on another disaster soon enough.

NOPE.

:) :patriot:

No ONE PERSON has called Bush and his cronies AND his enablers out on their corruption and lies in a public forum right in Bush's presence.

He is a hero of democracy and history will record such.

President of the United States and said what all of us have been wanting to say to his face... Since the M$M will not cover it, it is up to us to get the word out as much as possible.... He is a Hero in my book....

number of threads that Du will have about it. I got a feeling we'll be longing for all these Colbert threads on the 19th.

:applause: :woohoo:

Why the big rush to get it off the table??

hmmm seems not to be out of my system yet.

What other insignificant topic would you like to talk about? War in Iraq? President refusing to follow 750 laws? Corruption in the White house?

Want to move to the "moral issues" of gay marriage, immigration, abortion, religious discrimination against the white christian majority?

Seriously, you want a new topic don't tell us to stop talking on this one, bring a new one up and if it is interesting, they will come (to quote the cheesiest baseball movie in history).

No, not out of my system yet either.

Watching that address (which I did for the third time last night) is like drinking a big cup of liberal coffee. It gets me jazzed to get out there and do what needs to be done.

NOPE, I guess not.

DUer 'Dr_eldritch' started a thread proclaiming a campaign
to make the phrase "Colbert's balls" a popular & common expression:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1068610

I started doing some PhotoShops to help the effort in my own
pointless, inexplicable little way.

The photo there is one of the famous series taken by Lewis W. Hine
during the construction of the Empire State Building in 1930 & '31.

It has long been noted for the 'unfortunate' positioning
of those big spherical crane-cable weights, so it seemed
like a natural for the project.

I think when someone Rubs * nose in his poo (and the press nose in the pResidents poo too) for the first time in 6 years..in a public forum; I think we are going to gloat a bit.

:rofl:

I guess some of us take a more serious approach to the criminal administration that must be ousted. I am not a humorlous person. In fact, I have a great sense of humor, but enough is enough with the Colbert threads and posts. Having agreed, we run the risk of childish ridicule, and of being called the thought police, but the answers you are recieving on your thread are a prime example, a microcosm of why we are so ineffective as a party. We are schizophrenic. We are manic-depressive as a political party. We are much too easily distracted by sideshows and geeks of the week. We are obsessed by too many peripheral, ultimately less important issues. We are easily led to distraction by the MSM and the Republican party. Speaking of parties, I realize I sound like a party pooper. I watch Stephen Colber every night he is broadcast, and I think he is great, but I am mature enough to keep him in context of importance to the grave problems our country faces.

I guess kids will be kids, Skidmore, and you and I can't stop them from having their fun and over-enjoying their Colbert moment. I just think it would be nice if I could see as many investigation, impeachment and anti-war threads here as immigration and Colbert threads.

n/t

They seem lost. I believe we could show them the way.

Perhaps they will want some of that adoration for themselves.

Surely they know it would translate into $$$, volunteer time & votes...

Until then, they are stuck listening to the "strategists" who lost the last 3 elections- I'll bet a good many elected DEMS dont even know what occurred.

The more the better for my taste, at least as long as someone can come up with some new take on the situation.
It makes me feel good unlike the more depressing things about what Bush is doing and the misery he is causing the world.
I get a thrill when I know that there are many others that like it too.
If it feels good do it.

The only question is whether he is ever going to be able to ever "best" last Saturday's performance.

but he's got his 15 minutes of fame. This was a comedian's way of saying "Give Me Liberty or Give me Death."

Liberty = Freedom from Bushworld -- may we live to see it.

I wouldn't imagine it would be at another WHCD.

I meant "15 minutes of fame" (re. Andy Warhol) in Colbert's whole career. Meaning he's made his mark.

I knew that's what you meant--yes, it'll be hard to top this performance but Colbert can ride this wave awhile. When it's long past, I'm sure it will stand out--he's up there with Cindy Sheehan's one-woman Insurrection at Crawford.

Nah, we'd just be posting more 2008 threads. Whenever I try to post a 2006 thread it sinks like a stone.

But anyway, it's just a thread on a messageboard. As such, it doesn't mean we're obsessed and talking about nothing else all day. It's just a thread, one of many.

This was the first time a member of the media has had the temerity to get in Bush's face and pull him to the rug for his crimes. We're talking about it because the MSM refuses to.

:rofl:

Sorry.

...that topics like this are going to have a half-life beyond anybody's control (no matter how much chiding in an attempt to tamp it down). It'll burn itself out in another day or two. Always has. Always will.

n/t

You go ahead and be done with Colbert, ok? That's your choice. :shrug:

...like he did, we could focus on them instead of an actor.

Until they decide that telling the blunt truth is nothing to be frightened of, I'll go with Mr. Colbert.

picture show following! No doubt about it!

This story was email and blogged so much that people who normally ignore the news came looking for this piece. Instead of the latest American Idol episode being discussed I heard some people talking about Colbert story around the watercooler. Are other issues more important? Absolutely, but why put out a fire that's burning the butt's of the bad guys? I think we can all multi task our discussions.

It will be a long time before I've indoctrinated everyone I know to the truth as presented so concisely in Colbert's speech.

Will be a long, long time before I stop talking about it.

It's the talk of the office today - guess who initiated that :D

trying to set up a revolving circle for getting meals over there everyday. I'll provide you with a link when we get it all set up if you'd be interested in signing up. :hi:

Because god knows I can't do both.

:)