Laughing With Our Presidents Or At Them?

By: Vaughn Ververs
Topics: Stuff We Like

(AP)

Only in Washington can even comedy become controversy. For the city's 2006 version of the White House Correspondent's Dinner, organizers went after one of the hottest names in show business for the post-dinner entertainment – Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert. They got him but now do they wished they hadn't? It appears Colbert may have violated the rules of official Washington with a comedy routine that may have had more attendees cringing than laughing.

The annual dinner is Washington's prom, homecoming and Oscars all rolled into one night. It's a night for elbow-rubbing between the press and the people they cover. Whether the idea of a newspaper publisher or network anchor dining and drinking with cabinet secretaries and senators is a good one is a topic for another time but this is, for better or worse, one way high-level connections are made in the nation's capital. Throw in a few movie, rock and sports stars in black-tie attire and you've got yourself a bona fide event.

Of course, the highlights of the dinner are the comedy routines. First, the sitting president does something self-deprecating to prove his ability to laugh at himself. That part is nearly guaranteed to succeed despite the quality of the material (which has been top-notch in recent years). President Bush did not disappoint this year, handing in a routine featuring an impersonator as his private thoughts. Regardless of what's happening to the president politically, it's pretty much guaranteed he'll get a few laughs.

The celebrity entertainer faces a much tougher job trying to negotiate the many landmines in official Washington while being funny and edgy at the same time. The success rate there is much lower. Some comedians just don't connect with this "inside" power crowd, some play it too safe and, sometimes, they just aren't funny. Being just unfunny is one thing. A much more serious offense is to make the president angry.

Colbert may have done just that, according to Editor & Publisher's take of the event:

A blistering comedy "tribute" to President Bush by Comedy Central's faux talk show host Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondent Dinner Saturday night left George and Laura Bush unsmiling at its close.

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. "You could see he stopped smiling about halfway through Colbert," he reported.

Here's how the USA Today saw the event:

Colbert's humor was so satirical and silly that left some people bewildered and others tearing up with laughter.

In a sincere sounding voice, he said, "It is my privilege to celebrate this president. Because we're not so different, he and I. We both get it. Guys like us, we're not some brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We go straight from the gut. Right, sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Did you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than in your head? Now I know somebody will say I did look it up and that's not true. That's because you looked it up in a book. Next time look it up in your gut. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works."

He mentions his various beliefs, including, "I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq. Ladies and gentlemen, believe in yogurt. I refuse to believe it's not butter. I believe in this president. I know there are some polls out there that say this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in reality. Reality, that's a well known liberal bias."

So far, most of the coverage has focused on Bush's routine, but Colbert's performance is boiling over in the blogosphere and it's unlikely to just go away. It reminds me of the flap created by radio host Don Imus when he delivered a shock-jock performance at the dinner in 1996. His jokes about President Clinton's womanizing (pre-Monica) made the White House angry enough to ask C-SPAN not to re-air the dinner (they did run it again).

Imus, whose show Clinton appeared on as a candidate, was nearly black-balled by Washington society. Some journalists refused to continue appearing on the program, others kept their distance for awhile. At the time, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd observed: "Washington press dinners are based on a charade. If political humor is going to be really funny, it has to be impolite. But the press and the pols want to cozy up, so the comedy is supposed to singe but never burn, as the Gridiron motto goes."

Of course, the tangible result was safer entertainment in following years. Afraid of a repeat, the entertainment became more bland and predictable – in other words, less funny. After watching Colbert's performance, I'm not convinced it merits Imus-level hysteria. It was tough and perhaps a little unfair, but that should have been expected from someone who skewers conservatives by playing a parody of a conservative cable host. I couldn't really tell how President Bush reacted to it, but he shook his hand afterwards. Colbert might not be your cup of tea, but doesn't it say a lot about the nature of Washington, and our political life, when even a comedian can be so controversial?

21 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 21 Comments


by innov8ion May 4, 2006 6:05 AM EDT: Goldman - Why wasn't the Colbert story covered initially? Perhaps because it wasn't newsworthy at first. It did become newsworthy eventually, but not because of the comedy; only because the controversy began to heat up through water-cooler talk throughout the nation. The theory regarding the MSM protecting Colbert wasn't mine -- I read it here: http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzFjOWQzNGUwYzgzMTZlYmU1M2NmOTA1MWQ2YWJkNTg= Bottom line, I agree with Stephen Spruiell of the National Review when he says, "The truth in comedy is what makes it funny." Besides the bullying, the lack of truth in his humor was the only issue I had with Colbert's act.; Reply to this comment


by innov8ion May 4, 2006 5:42 AM EDT: Singinsanity - We're talking politics and you reference, "Yo Mama?" ***? Ok then, there should be no intellectual truth in comedy. I have plenty to laugh about you then ;) Alphaa - Fair enough, Alpha. Here's the transcript: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002461887. What did I object to regarding the said act? Looking at the transcript, Colbert comes off as a smug, rude bully, pure and simple. I don't know about you, but I never thought rude bullies were very funny. He makes a snap comment about Fox News calling them shills of the President. Even if this were true, which isn't worth defense, then one could easily call CBS, ABC, NBC shills of George Soros. Independent Media investigation shows this trio to be left of center; not to mention CBS' ethical infractions. Fox provides balance to the liberal media. If you don't like it, don't watch it. More bullying with the Hindenburg reference. WMD slam - Even Kerry voted for the Iraqi War. Iraq did have WMD programs and had plenty of time to hide them in Syria: http://www.nysun.com/article/26514 Some parts were funny. The mallomar thing. The McCain thing. They were jokes rooted in actual truth. That's funny. But much of the rest was simple liberal rhetoric.; Reply to this comment


by singinsanity May 3, 2006 10:04 PM EDT: Digistic, in regards to Colbert's "act" as you call it, you make a weak rebuttle- lots of humor isn't true..take the new MTV show "Yo Mamma"- they insult eachother, without any real knowledge of their opponent's life or situation. A lot of people watch it, granted their mostly teenagers- it's a targeted production..just as the Dinner is targeted to a politically aware crowd. Comedy is not about being "intellectually honest" it's about getting a reaction. What's really apparent here is that you need to lighten up.; Reply to this comment


by alphaa10-2009 May 3, 2006 2:25 AM EDT: Digistic, your brush is broad and fairly laden with smear and innuendo, but do you think you can do better? Let's have an explicit example of what you object from Colbert. You can have all the rope you want (just bring it back when you are finished with it.); Reply to this comment


by goldman503 May 3, 2006 12:28 AM EDT: Digistic, I have to say your claim that the reason we haven't been hearing much about Colbert's monologue (until today, that is) is because his performance was *so* awful and the mainstream media want to dearly protect him from criticism that they would avoid a great front page train wreck story. Have I got that right? Although an original explanation, it is ludicrous. Whereas there is evidence to support some of the theories I proposed -- ripping off syndication copy, for instance -- I'm willing to bet that the proposition that the MSM virtually blacked-out Colbert because they were trying to *save* his sorry %$& is entirely without support. The onus is on you.; Reply to this comment


by innov8ion May 2, 2006 8:30 PM EDT: Blucaller: Sure, humor can be presented in many forms. Slapstick, irony, sarcasm, innuendo, etc... The point is that Colbert's "humor" was based on many mistruths that are prevalent in the liberal message akin to the former democratic posterboy, Michael Moore. And yes, Michael Moore is a first-rate manipulator and liar: http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/ If Colbert's humor were based on truth, then fine. But really, however witty Colbert may be, he is intellectually dishonest.; Reply to this comment


by blucaller May 2, 2006 8:03 PM EDT: Digistic, If you have to "look up" the meaning of comedy, I think I can understand the problem from your side. It's not all joanie and chachie, doesn't always have laugh tracks, and when it's most effective, it's downright subversive and dangerous.; Reply to this comment


by innov8ion May 2, 2006 7:44 PM EDT: Goldman - The public has an interest in trainwrecks too. Problem being, Colbert was the trainwreck and the liberal media likes Colbert and doesn't want to hurt him. Singinsanity - I'm not offended that Colbert acted like an overgrown child. That's his karma, not mine. Look up the definitions of comedy or humor in the dictionary and compare it to Colbert's "act." His intent obviously wasn't to make people laugh -- it was meant to mislead and upset. Maybe Colbert is Michael Moore's successor -- He's got the lies down pat. I'm condoning the wrongs of society? That's utter rubbish. And yes, I can criticize Colbert's actions as I have read the text and seen the video.; Reply to this comment


by goldman503 May 2, 2006 1:07 PM EDT: That is, 9:45 EDT (Eastern Daylight Time) not DST (daylight standard time), which I'm pretty sure doesn't exist. Just for anyone keeping track.; Reply to this comment


by goldman503 May 2, 2006 1:03 PM EDT: I thought I'd do a quick quantitative comparison of the public's interest in both Colbert's monologue and Bush's routine with his double. As of 9:45am DST 5/2/06 at youtube.com of the top 20 most viewed videos of the day, 1,140,366 were of Colbert's monologue and his sketch with Helen Thomas over 7 submitted videos (which also means Stephen Colbert occupies more than a third of the top 20 most popular videos). As for George Bush's routine, there were 80,668 views during the same time frame occupying two places in the top 20. Now how can any one justify that a story with 14 times greater interest which went either unreported or trivially gestured at in the mainstream media is not deserving of getting on the cover of every national paper? The most scathing public humuliation of the most powerful man in the world is most certainly front page news. So the question is, what's going on here? Is someone pulling the strings, or are reporters and editors making the decision to ignore Colbert's monologue independently of each other? Or is that they're just unquestioningly ripping the AP's and Reuters' servile feel-good reporting of the event? We need some answers.; Reply to this comment