Posts Tagged ‘Stephen Colbert’
In 2009, Barack Obama inherited a situation with crumbling infrastructure and a lot of people out of work. In a 2+2=4 world, the logical step would be to take the people out of work and have them build up infrastructure. Even if everyone couldn’t do those skills, there were enough people who could, and if they had jobs, other jobs and businesses wouldn’t have fallen in 2009 and 2010.
In 2009, if CBS or any other broadcast network came out with a show idea about giving someone a job, that could have turned into the next “American Idol” or “The Voice” or “So you think your smart 5th grader has talent.”
In 2013, President Barack Obama, having been elected to a second term, has proposed a “Fix it First” to help rebuild infrastructure. Obama said 70,000 bridges were in need of repair, among countless problems. Jon Stewart thought the bridges were a rather immediate concern.
In 2013, CBS is running a show called “The Job” where they make people go through humiliation for a “dream job” such as being an editorial assistant at Cosmopolitan magazine. As the promo notes — “the employer has all the power” — a rather depressing and not altogether accurate statement.
This feels more about humiliation than help; Stephen Colbert put it best when he labeled the program despertainment.
“And with one hire per show, ‘The Job’ should run for 12.3 million episodes.”
In both cases, the feeling is “too little, way too late.” The difference is that Obama is being sincere and CBS, well, doesn’t look like they really want to help.
Our infrastructure still needs fixing as does our job market. So we can certainly use the help. One bridge and one job at a time is too little, but better than we have had lately.
Getting infrastructure improved and a jobs program requires help from the GOP, and that party isn’t interested. Nor are Republicans game for raising the minimum wage.
Republicans preach about the value of work, yet they aren’t willing to pay for it. The proposed raise to $9/hour wouldn’t be immediate. The minimum wage would go up incrementally over three years to $9. Even then, the minimum wage will be undervalued, worse if someone is a tipped employee.
Liberals joke that the GOP wants the world of “Leave It to Beaver” brought to life. If the minimum wage reflected buying power in 1957, the wage would be well beyond $9 right now.
The United States needs rebuilding, but the GOP doesn’t want to pay for it. Poor people need a raise, but the GOP doesn’t want to pay for it. The GOP wants people to get jobs, but won’t submit any plan to get those jobs.
The good news for the Republicans is that Barack Obama can’t run for president in 2016. So they might as well give Obama the chance to succeed or fail based on his requests. Don’t worry, Obama won’t get as much horrible stuff as you think he will, or anyone else for that matter.
We need help, but the GOP doesn’t want us to get that help. The GOP House controls the House. So as the saying goes, “Lead or get out of the way.”
“There are 47 percent … who are dependent upon government … who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.” — Mitt Romney
“Entitled to food” is a rough concept to accuse an individual for doing, much less a larger paint brush of 47% of the country. People don’t gleefully say they are receiving food assistance. Nobody holds up their heads with pride or whistles in line at a food pantry. You are there because you feel like you have no other choice.
As much as people who paid $50,000 for a plate of food to hear Romney speak at that Florida fundraiser in May would like to view the world, no amount of private outlets can satisfy the need for food assistance even in pretty good times.
Government has the resources to step in and help people, especially since the Recessive Depression of 2008. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to sharply cut that alleged “gravy train.”
2012 South Carolina GOP primary
|Candidate||Votes||% of total|
If you stayed home on a Saturday night to watch the South Carolina coverage, you heard a lot about the top 4 finishers. Though for the one millionth time, Ron Paul got asked (by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer) which of the other candidates he likes best. Ron Paul get asked this question because the MSM loves to pat him on the head like he’s a child wearing a tie or a grown-up dress. To Wolf Blitzer and any other overpriced MSM person: if you want to ask Ron Paul that question, ask it to all the other candidates first and see what their reaction is to your stupid lame question.
What the MSM left out of the conversation was how Stephen Colbert, er, Herman Cain did on Saturday night. True, if you only get 1.1% of the vote, you won’t get much attention. But South Carolina is an unique scenario in the last two election cycles thanks to Stephen Colbert.
The MSM is massively confused by what Colbert does. They don’t even see it as being worthy to be a distraction. Diane Sawyer, reading the story of Colbert’s exploratory committee, had the same look as your dog after someone farts. When Colbert spoke at the White House Correspondents Dinner, the MSM went out of their way not to mention what Colbert did or even his existence. That attitude hasn’t really improved.
Colbert runs for, as he puts it, president of the United States of South Carolina. His attempt is never terribly seriously since he would try to get himself on the ballot. So even during all of what happened, everyone involved knew Colbert couldn’t get on the ballot, and South Carolina rules don’t allow write-in candidates.
Colbert caught a break in 2012 as Herman Cain’s name was on the ballot but had dropped out of the race. Cain’s campaign seemed slightly more legitimate than Colbert’s, yet the MSM gave him much more credit than he deserved. As difficult as it is to believe that a United States state doesn’t accept write-in candidates for the highest office, someone who leaves the race over 45 days before the election can’t be removed.
Herman Cain got 6,324 votes in the South Carolina primary. While that number sounds low, Cain had more votes than Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman (both active when the week began), Michele Bachmann, and Gary Johnson combined.
Even if you think that Colbert was responsible for 80% of Cain’s total, a really conservative estimate, 80% of Cain’s total is still more than the other 4 candidates combined.
Naysayers would note that Colbert was scoring 5% in a South Carolina poll, just before Huntsman dropped out of the race, and only got 1.1% in the election.
Established candidates with staffs and campaigns that just withdrew from the race days before the election did poorly than a late-night comedy show host under a nom de plume that ran a campaign for a week. Colbert didn’t hit the ground in South Carolina until the day before the election, and still outdrew 4 presidential candidates.
The Colbert/Cain rally was described by seasoned political reporters as larger than rallies of major presidential contenders. The idea that people are frustrated with the avalanche of Super PAC ads and that a random billionaire has more power than actual voters is foreign to the MSM. Colbert recognizes this and so does his audience. Colbert’s Super PAC (with Jon Stewart in control) have run spot-on ads criticizing the dependence on money.
We assume that people who run comedy shows are trying to be funny. Colbert and his staff want you to laugh, but his audience is smart enough to know there is a message behind the humor. They are pulling the curtain to expose the madness of millionaires and billionaires who are not “coordinating” with each other.
The Colbert Report has done more to show people the significance of Citizens United on the presidential race. We criticize the MSM as being highly lazy. All we ask is that they watch the Colbert Report Monday-Thursday nights at 11:30 pm Eastern, take notes, and report what you see. MSM people: if you can follow what Colbert is doing, you will be so much smarter.
We knew that some of the 2012 GOP presidential candidates would be practically eliminated after South Carolina. Two of them jumped before they were pushed.
– Jon Huntsman’s timing was bad because it looked like he dropped out as he realized he would lose to Stephen Colbert. Huntsman endorsed Mitt Romney, which seemed sad since most independents, if they had to vote for a Mormon former governor with great hair, would have picked Huntsman over Romney.
– Rick Perry’s timing was bad because it looked like he dropped out as he realized he would have to debate one more time. Perry endorsed Newt Gingrich, which seemed sad since if the coin had come up tails, Rick Santorum would have had the endorsement. Perry likes coins because they offer only two options; he never remembers the third option for some reason.
– Herman Cain’s timing was great because it looked smarter for staying out. Cain endorsed Colbert’s bid to campaign under his name, which seemed sad since Colbert is a better candidate as a fake candidate than Cain was as a real candidate.
– Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich combined would represent a serious threat to Mitt Romney. Not quite in a Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton kind of race, but the tightest race the Republicans have had since, well, William Howard Taft and Teddy Roosevelt. The problem is even though they are vested and experienced politicians, while they know they are splitting the conservative vote, neither of them can get the other one to leave. Santorum’s Iowa win, now confirmed, would give him that momentum, but Gingrich’s loudness overshadows Santorum’s attempts to get noticed. After all, Santorum didn’t have an ex-wife on “Nightline” this week. Gingrich should be thankful it was only one.
– Gingrich got a partial standing ovation for confronting John King on asking the question about an open marriage in Thursday’s debate. As offended as Gingrich appeared to be, he had to love the question so he could react the way he did. As for Gingrich, when you protest that way, we assume your ex-wife’s charge is true.
Gingrich puts his marriages on the record because he preaches family values, the “sanctity of marriage,” and his hypocrisy during the Clinton years. So he shouldn’t pretend to be miffed.
If politicians really could admit what they’re thinking, especially GOP politicians, wouldn’t it have been great for Gingrich to say, “Yeah, I wanted a open marriage. What does that have to do with running the country and getting the economy back on track.” The problem for Gingrich and other “holier-than-thous” is that they would have to admit that family values and “sanctity of marriage” have nothing to do with running the country.
– If you had to name the two most consistent GOP presidential candidates besides Mitt Romney, Rick Perry is the most obvious choice for finishing consistently bad and saying really horrible things but Ron Paul has had two solid finishes and is looking for a third in South Carolina. This isn’t to say that Ron Paul will win or should win. The MSM’s curious coverage of Ron Paul lends itself to conspiracy theories from people who aren’t normally paranoid. The voters have spoken in Iowa and New Hampshire, and later today in South Carolina; the MSM should start listening. If you are running for president and score as high as Ron Paul does, attention should be paid to you. If not, then you aren’t doing your job.
– We would like to welcome back Keith Olbermann to anchor coverage of the South Carolina primary tonight on Current TV. Coverage gets underway at 6:30 pm Eastern and runs 90 minutes. The coverage resumes at 9:30 pm Eastern for another 90 minutes. You might remember that Olbermann sat out coverage of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Building a news operation takes time; even within that, Current TV has been off to a bad start. The graphics issues and lighting problems are real, and Olbermann has every right to be concerned about the professional approach of the cable channel. Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks, Jennifer Granholm, and former Vice President Al Gore, head of Current TV, has done a pretty good job, though their coverage has been sidetracked at times, especially when you want results. I drifted back to MSNBC at times. It does help that MSNBC is in HD and Current TV isn’t, but Rachel Maddow was focused. Olbermann had that potential to keep the focus; Olbermann has done a lot more anchoring than everyone in this paragraph combined. The best solution would be to combine the two approaches into one, but it looks like everyone we’ve seen so far in coverage won’t be there tonight.
The debate in the emerging “emergency financial manager” syndrome under new Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has been about the right to autonomy over failing cities vs. the loss of democracy. But the unasked question is what happens if this works and how will we determine when this doesn’t work.
I will stand up now and declare that perhaps I am too close to Benton Harbor, Michigan to be considered a unbiased expert. I grew up in the area and have written about the area several times over the years. However, because I am as familiar with the city, unlike most outside people, I bring inside knowledge to the debate.
And I will toss Gov. Snyder a bone and assume that Joseph Harris has what it takes to save Benton Harbor. Harris will get manufacturers to settle within the city limits and get the jobs flowing toward the northern banks of the St. Joseph River. Oh, and Harris will improve test scores in the schools, cut down on dropouts, and of course, reduce drug use and dealing in the streets.
Abandoned houses will be bulldozed, grass will be cut, and parks will be rehabilitated.
What? Joseph Harris will do none of these things? Then how will he save Benton Harbor?
Benton Harbor has had the short end of the stick, even in a state such as Michigan, for 2-3 generations. The idea that one person can come in and save this city would be Superman-ish. The problem isn’t that Joseph Harris is brought in to “save” BH; the problem is that the goal isn’t to save BH.
Harris isn’t there to improve the long-term economic growth of the city. He may do some flashy things, and probably screw over the city on a controversial golf course involving a swap for city land. But when Snyder gets tired or bored about being tough, Harris will leave and the city will still need help.
As Stephen Colbert has noted, Harris has talked about combining the police and fire departments. Yes, this is what has been wrong with a city where the official unemployment rate for African-American men in the city has hovered around 40%.
What does Gov. Snyder want Harris to do with Benton Harbor? How much would Harris need to do before Snyder proclaims, “Mission Accomplished”?
Whatever miracles Harris will do won’t take long. Harris said he could be finished with his job in the city as early as next year.
The governor was the grand marshal at the Blossomtime Parade last Saturday. This parade is the harmonious meeting of the mostly white St. Joseph and the mostly black Benton Harbor. Not surprisingly, the governor was met with boos and protesters.
The people of Benton Harbor would like to live in a better city. Even if the people in the surrounding area often make fun of Benton Harbor’s plight, they would like Benton Harbor to be in better shape.
Unfortunately, the two people who don’t want the city to be in better shape are Rick Snyder and Joseph Harris.
Snyder would be considered a genius, both in Michigan and nationally, if he could fix Benton Harbor. Harris could be king of Benton Harbor, well, okay, right now, he is king, but this time, king in a good way.
But Gov. Snyder’s plan to fix Benton Harbor is…. Oh, yeah, there is no plan. And Harris doesn’t have a plan, either.
State officials of both major parties haven’t done a whole lot to help Benton Harbor. National politicians haven’t done a whole lot to help. Benton Harbor has suffered enough over the years to be a pawn in a political chess game. For all the audacity of risking democracy, you better have a serious plan. And Snyder’s plan is as much empty as it is outrageous.
Curing desperate situations requires well-thought out plans that happen over a period. Putting down a “king” into a desperate situation and having him stay less than a year — the people of Benton Harbor, the Twin Cities, and all of Michigan deserve a lot better.
And if this is a ruse to bust unions, as one might suspect from a Midwestern governor, Benton Harbor (nor anyone else) can be “fixed” that way. Hopefully, Snyder and Harris will be judged by what they do in Benton Harbor once the people again have the right to vote.
Next time you are in a bar talking politics, or encounter an in-law or your sister’s date who decides to jump into the hot water of political discussion, and that person tells you that the media treats Republicans worse than Democrats, calmly tell that person the story of one John Ensign.
Amazingly, we have reached 2011 and John Ensign is actually resigning from the Senate (effective May 3), but only because the Senate Ethics Committee is finally getting serious about Ensign’s many sordid activities.
This isn’t just about the affair Ensign had with one of his staffers, or that she was on his payroll, and her husband was on the payroll, and that their teenage son was given a $5,400 job from a political operation controlled by Ensign, and that her salary was doubled, and that Ensign’s parents paid off the mistress. Well, it is about those events and the others that are too many to mention.
It could be about Ensign’s hypocrisy about calling on President Bill Clinton to resign in 1998 over far less than Ensign has done, and speaking on the Senate floor in 2004 in defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment (anti-gay marriage legislation), and said, “Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded.” Or his involvement in the highly controversial C Street religious house in Washington.
The MSM, it is said, loves a political scandal. And really loves a political scandal with sex. Unless the politician is a Republican.
We saw more ink and video tape about John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer than John Ensign. Put one of those first two names in the blanks when Ensign’s name actually goes, and see what the reaction to that raw meat would be.
There has been more MSM coverage of Donald Trump’s impression of a birther than on the John Ensign sex scandal, and Ensign has better hair.
Yes, Ensign announced earlier that he wouldn’t run for re-election in 2012. We have known for almost two years about Ensign’s affair and other elements, yet finding stories outside the inner political circle were like looking for a job in 2009 or 2010. When the scandal first broke in 2009, and I was covering politics for my day job, we were stunned that the MSM would look at a juicy sex political scandal in the eye and look away.
Then again, we can’t be that shocked. David Vitter, fellow hypocrite and senator, in as much admitted to a crime — a sex crime — as U.S. senator — that didn’t warrant any significant coverage, especially given reports about visiting prostitutes back in his home state of Louisiana. And Vitter got re-elected after doing all of these things.
When thinking about the lack of coverage of Ensign and Vitter, you have to think about when Stephen Colbert did his take at the White House Correspondents Dinner. You could hear a pin drop as the MSM worked to obliterate Colbert’s name from the evening. Yet when you ask most Americans to remember one guest speaker from any year of the WHCD, and they will say, “Stephen Colbert.”
Not every story is a conspiracy by the MSM. But every so often, a story that obviously should be covered — isn’t. And those stories favor conservatives. If anyone from the MSM would like to share with us why the Ensign story hasn’t received more press, leave a comment. Or better yet, write a guest column. We would only edit it for spelling, grammar, libel, etc.
Help us out. Good reasons, bad reasons: just let us know why John Ensign and David Vitter received such glowing non-press.
In lieu of a regular column this week (hey, it’s Christmas Eve), we thought we would spotlight some of the recent food politics coverage from our sister blog, BalanceofFood.com.
Most of the coverage concerns school lunch bills and food safety bills, but we’ll start off with a look at the “Happy Meals” lawsuit. Enjoy the holiday season.
National Review’s Kate O’Beirne can’t fathom poverty, food deserts in her ‘cereal and a banana’ crack
And this is just from December. There won’t be as much to write about in terms of food politics for at least the next two years, thanks to the new GOP-led House of Representatives.
They seemed concerned that there was a political agenda, because they look for political agendas in everything. They don’t get that the rally is about blasting the modus operandi of the MSM, because they are as oblivious to self-criticism.
Was the rally political? Naysayers will say “yes” and that it leads Democratic and it’s a desperate ploy to rally people to vote against the teabaggers on Tuesday.
As Stewart put it, sanity is in the eye of the beholder.
If the rally was political, you would spell it with a small p. Political in the sense of getting politicians to get things done, to come up with solutions, to recognize that there are problems and they need solutions.
There is a strong disconnect between the people who elect the politicians and the politicians themselves, which is really bad given that we live in a representative democracy.
Jon Stewart’s agenda is to tap into that disconnect.
He notes that the 24-hour pundit cable news channels “did not cause our problems. But its existence makes solving them that much harder.”
There was a lot of music: the Roots, Mavis Staples, Jeff Tweedy, Sheryl Crow, Yuself Islam, Kid Rock, Ozzy Osbourne, the O’Jays. Comedy reigned supreme with the Daily Show and Colbert people along with Father Guido Sarducci.
There were messages in the comedy: Medals of Reasonableness. Colbert’s fear mongering was tempered by Stewart’s reasonableness.
The analogy at the end of cars going from several lanes to one fit Stewart’s vision of America: regardless of one’s positions, it’s “you go, then I’ll go.” Compromise as part of a normal day’s activity leading to solutions.
“Americans live their lives more as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do. Often, something they do not want to do. But they do it. Impossible things every day that are only made possible through the little reasonable compromises we all make.”
What Jon Stewart really wants isn’t to vote for a particular politician or party. What Stewart wants, and what the Americans who were there really want is for politicians to say, “We know there are problems. We may disagree on what the solution will be. And even if we disagree with them, they are not evil.”
Stephen Colbert’s character personifies the things that Stewart attacks, but they want the same thing but go about it in different ways. Spotlighting the fear and showing that there is a reasonableness to the world is better than preaching for three hours on tolerance.
“We live now in hard times, not end times. We can have animus and not be enemies.” Stewart got a nice round of applause for that line. That line struck a chord with the crowd and perhaps millions more who watched live at home either on Comedy Central or on C-SPAN.
The only question is whether the people who really needed to hear it — politicians and cable pundits — can or will hear the message. And the only question for the people is whether they will vote for people on Tuesday who understand that. Oh, and whether they will have the enthusiasm to vote.
Too often, the people are told that they don’t matter, that reasonable Americans don’t matter in the cable TV news landscape. Stewart and Colbert and a mess of other people showed them that they do matter.
And a representative democracy works best when the voices of all the people are heard by those in power. If they aren’t going to listen to Stewart and Colbert, they should think about reasonable people who gave up their weekend to hear what Stewart and Colbert had to say. If those people, and millions of others, utilize that power, they can get the change they want, real chance through active solutions to our troubles.
pictures courtesy of Lisa Beuning
The sense that many in the establishment still don’t understand Stephen Colbert continues to amaze those who have been in on the “joke” since the Colbert Report debuted in 2005.
They didn’t get him in 2006 at the White House Correspondents Dinner, and they didn’t get him Friday during his testimony about farm workers before a House committee.
As the topic has a food-related angle, I wrote about this for my sister blog, Balance of Food.com.
Here is the column. Enjoy!
You likely have seen some video of Basil Marceaux, a Republican candidate for governor in Tennessee. Either you saw the original video or the Colbert Report take on the candidate.
There were a number of ramblings both in the video and on Marceaux’s Web site; seriously, this guy makes Alvin Greene sound as smart as Bill Bradley.
Marceaux would promise as governor that if there was a national health bill that the government will not measure waistlines, as they do in other countries (counties??).
There are no countries or counties that are doing this or planning to do this. The idea of this is totally made up, much like the concept of death panels, but a little more weird.
Just because you throw an idea out there as to what the “other side” is doing doesn’t make it so. Sitting around making up odd scenarios doesn’t mean they are true.
Credibility has to count for something, but we are in odd times.