Bush and Colbert At WH Press Correspondants' Dinner

One was funny, the other wasn't.

Steve Colbert offered up the standard arch-liberal complaint about the media: that they were "too easy" on Bush as far as WMD intelligence and, get this, tax cuts. (!!!???)

Allah has a link and a pan, and sagely notes:

In Colbert’s defense, he might not have been playing for laughs. The dissident posture is very important to our friends on the left; if SC had kept things light and wasted his opportunity to speak “truth� to power, they’d have crucified him for it. As it is, the moonbats will be building statues of him tomorrow. To paraphrase another delusional comedian who wasn’t as funny as he thought he was, better to be Kos for a night than a schmuck for a lifetime.

The media is swooning over Colbert's performance -- despite the fact that he all but accused them in complicity in pushing the Iraq War. (And-- TAX CUTS!!)

Why? Why are they so happy to be insulted?

Because the media loves being criticized from the left.

They want the license to move further to the left than they already are, and, to have a pretext to do so, they require critics who accuse them of being too conservative.

When they get accused of being too conservative or too easy on Bush, they get to claim, absurdly, "Well, we get it from both the left and the right, so that proves that we're straight-down-the-middle fair and balanced."

Translating this from liberal-media-speak: "Keep the criticism coming, fellow liberals, because we need to be able to 'prove' we're not liberally biased. And, because we care more about what YOU say -- you agree with us and we agree with you, even if we have to play this Kabuki theater where we pretend we're in disagreement -- we'll be more responsive to your liberal/left complaints than we've ever been regarding complaints from the right."

It's the left's claims of the press being "too easy" on Bush that have inspired them to reveal extremely-damaging national security secrets in order to regain the praise from the only people whose opinions they care about-- other liberals and leftists.

And if Poland is exposed to an Al Qaeda attack, well, that's a small price to pay to regain the admiration of their fellow travellers.

Bush, meanwhile, was actually funny, as he goofed on himself alongside dead-on Bush impersonator Steven Bridges.

But then, his mission, unlike Colbert's, was to entertain, not to "educate."

As Thomas Jefferson said:

Jackass TV clowns who fancy themselves philosophers really steam my beans. More with the seltzer down the pants, Joke-Monkey, less with the retarded commentary.

Either I'm Psychic Or Liberals Are As Predicatable As Monkeys With A Big Stockpile of Feces Update: In his own update, Allah notes that a part of the broadcast he didn't include contains an endorsement of my liberals-need-to-be-told-they're-too-easy-on-Bush-as-an-excuse-to-go-harder-on-him theory.

[]Mark Smith, the president of the Correspondents Association, made exactly that point when introducing Bush.

I'm sure he means Smith made the "we're too easy on Bush" point, rather than explicitly asking for liberal critics to attack the press. But the invitation is there: Please call us cowards so we have the leeway to be "more brave," and by "more brave," I mean, of course, "more liberal." (They're synonymous, aren't they? After all, liberalism is the highest form of courage. James C. Calhoun said that.)

I didn't see the event, but Johnny Coldcuts, the time-travelling foul-mouthed baloney sandwich, saw it three months ago, so he tipped me to this angle.

posted by Ace at 02:06 PM

| Access Comments