The highlight of Stephen Colbert’s testimony before Congress today was the following exchange with lunatic Rep. Steve King (R-IA).
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told Colbert that he’d watched the YouTube video of his day at the farm, and he found it curious that Colbert was unloading crates of corn rather than loading them. “I only presume they must have run the film backwards,” King said.
Colbert explained that he “was packing corn. I was a corn-packer,” adding that, “I know that term is offensive, to some people, because corn-packer is a derogatory term for a gay Iowan.”
Of course, I think it was disrespectful for Colbert to testify in character. I don’t think it should have been allowed. If he wants to advocate for farm workers, he can do it like any other witness.
Yeah, it’s really weird. I still don’t get who allowed it or why they wanted it to happen. Couldn’t have been a Borat-style dupe, could it have?
It’s pretty funny how few people can take a joke. It’s fine to waste congresses time with endless hypocritical speeches, debased politics and lies.
But.. Take a few minutes to tell a few jokes and shed light on an important topic.. DISGRACEFUL!!
Look, it’s easy to say that Congress has no integrity, so who cares?
But that’s just lazy and needlessly cynical. To me, Colbert disrespected the people he was there to advocate for. As for the congresspeople, they showed a lack of self-respect.
A witness wants to sit there an insult them all and insult them individually, and they lap it up?
I love Colbert’s schtick, but he shouldn’t have testified that way. He should have taken the issue seriously and then done the joking part of it on his show.
It’s not a big deal, but if wants to complain about lowering the level of discourse, he shouldn’t participate in doing exactly that. Blame all around on this one. Conyers should have stuck with his instincts.
How did he lower the discourse? He made his point very sharply, in a light-hearted way
It seems that Congress has lost so much respect that no one even cares anymore. I understand what people are saying. Congressional hearings are a farce anyway, so what’s wrong about taking out in the open?
But why give in to this cynicism? Why celebrate it?
Witnesses take an oath to tell the truth. Colbert didn’t tell the truth. He’s up there in character pretending that he agrees with all Republican policies. He’s openly insulting Congress (“like most of you, I haven’t read the bill”) and basically calling Rep. Steve King a closet case.
I’m sorry, but the congressional witness table is not the White House Correspondent’s Dinner. He ought to tell the truth, take the proceedings seriously, and he can his points with some humor without turning the proceedings into a joke.
And, I don’t think he helped raise awareness of the issue. He made the issue himself.
I don’t think it is cynical to point out that the Repug’s cro-magnon approach to immigration has serious economic effects – like no domestic veggies.
He has generated enough attention to this important issue that some of related information might actually sink into the minds of the audience.
The RIGHT move for those with a media outlet who agree with him on policy would be to turn to this now gathered crowd and take a second to reinforce the message that no one would be hearing today if Colbert had decided not pushed the envelope (instead of whining):
Mindless immigration policy will have serious negative effects on YOUR, MINE, ALL OUR LIVES.
Maybe you are missing my point. Or, maybe it’s my fault and I’m not being clear enough.
If you care about the plight of migrant farm workers, then you are probably disappointed that all people are talking about is how Stephen Colbert made a spectacle of himself in front of Congress. Even the people defending here have very little to say about the farm workers. Rather, they are enjoying the visceral thrill of seeing Colbert give Congress the finger. That means he failed to help the people he ostensibly wanted to help.
But let’s be honest. Most people don’t give a shit about migrant farm workers. In fact, Colbert’s best moment was when he dropped his act and made that exact point.
Maybe he would have gotten some attention on that issue if he hadn’t made it all about him.
I don’t want to make it seem like I actually give that much of a shit about this, but I want to make clear that I think Conyers was right to want to protect the integrity of his committee.
I don’t think anyone was well-served by the performance today. And I blame Congress and Colbert equally for that.
Boo:
What happens when any famous person testifies before Congress? Do you remember when Pearl Jam testified(back in the early 90’s) before Congress about that monstrosity called Ticketmaster? It basically becomes a clusterfuck. it didn’t matter what Colbert said today. Just by him going to testify made it a clusterfuck. So he did the best he could while making Congress look like fools. And I’m glad Colbert hurt Chuck Todd’s fee-fees. Todd should go back to being an over-glorified Nate Silver.
I thought Frank Zappa made a difference when he testified before Congress. I still have a bad opinion of Ticketmaster thanks to Pearl Jam. I am firmly convinced that Rafael Palmiero and Mark McGwire are douchebags thanks to their perjury before Congress.
I don’t see a big problem with celebrities appearing before Congress. I thought Al Gore gave great testimony on global warming last year.
It’s not any kind of guaranteed train-wreck to have celebrities testify.
I should have made it a little more clear. It becomes a clusterfuck in relations to media coverage. Did Al Gore testify before the Senate? If so, that’s a different beast. Since Gore was once a Senator, of course the Pukes aren’t gonna say what they really feel. Since he’s one of them, so to speak.
I think you missed my point. Instead of whining, take a moment (unless you don’t have the interest/will/formed opinion) to use your media outlet to redirect the big crown to some useful information. This was the opportunity Steven Colbert gave YOU. Here, I’ll help:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128358334
.. thats crowd…
What didn’t Colbert tell the truth on? That he didn’t read the bill? He’s not a lawyer. When was the last time a laymen could read a bill Congress produced and understand what it was saying with out help?
And King is a closet case. The guy is batshit insane, just like Virginia Foxx(and 95% of the rest of the Republican caucus).
Boo:
That ship sailed 25 years ago. I am pretty sure you are around my age. I still remember the Ollie North hearings like it was yesterday. North just insulted them day after day, and they took it. When is the last time Congress had hearings that mattered. Or that most of them took their job seriously?
Actually, Calvin, I watch an embarrassing number of congressional hearings. It’s how I attempt to know what I’m talking about. The big, showy ones are basically farces. But the little noticed ones are mostly substantive and actually help congresspeople learn about problems and write legislation.
Democratic hearings are significantly better than Republican ones, both for the seriousness of purpose and for the quality of witnesses, but even the Republicans held substantive hearings than meant something. But, hey, on the stuff we pay attention to, it’s all written by lobbyists and the hearings are stage-managed.
I don’t write a lot about policy, but I do take what Congress does seriously. One of my biggest complaints about the state of our politics is that too many people treat it as a sport and as entertainment. I don’t just accept that this is the way things have to be, and I don’t like to see is casually accepted.
snore..
Frankly I don’t care. It’s not like this committee was doing this to actually accomplish anything. They invited Colbert for one reason – cheap PR for themselves. If he took advantage of the opportunity to mock them so what?
Exactly. Disrespectful to Congress??? To Steve King? There’s some other way to see them?
It’s a very fine line to walk to adopt the role that Colbert did in the Correspondents dinner roast of W and in his testimony today.
I thought that that Colbert turned ambivalent about the role he wanted to play, but the content was good and a couple of the jokes connected. But it was worth it to have Steve King (R-IA) go on Fox News and complain that Colbert’s work as a migrant laborer in the field was “staged”.
In the current Congress, for Colbert to testify in character is entirely appropriate. The jester has to show the royal clowns how it’s done. And it did what Colbert wanted it to do — generate buzz about the UFW’s “Take Our Jobs” campaign. And elevate the salience of the hearings and the bill. He wouldn’t have accomplished that without the rumor that he was going to be in character. And given the rumor, he sort of had to deliver.
And the complaints about Colbert deconstructs how Congressional hearings are staged.
I think that Colbert extorted the appearance out of Zoe Lofgren after she refused to have an anchor baby with him. 😉
Kevin Costner testified this week about oil and water. Should he have come dressed in a baseball outfit or dressed as a Sioux? Would that have raised the saliency of the issue?
Gods forbid. He should have come dressed in a $3000 suit like the rest of the clowns he was facing. That sure would have made it salient. Or he could have taken a page out of your book and arrived with a big stick up his ass.
ROFL
I understand you want seriousness, but the point of ridicule and satire is truth. That can’t be too bad can it? It’s the difference between Colbert’s ‘testimony’ and W saying he’s convinced man and fish can coexist peacefully. One is saying a gruesome thing in a funny way, which makes it bearable rather than taboo/censored. The other is saying ‘nothing’ in a funny way, which makes that ‘nothing’ strangely bearable or the context even more unbearable (like some kids are scared of clowns…). The truth matters. That’s the difference between a comedian and a clown.
Costner came dressed as Mr. Smith. And Colbert did not show up in his work clothes and straw hat.
What raised the saliency was the rumor that Colbert would be in character. Without that, there wouldn’t have been the attention.
I do understand where you are coming from. One of the things that we have lost over 40 years is the assumed dignity of politics. The Supreme Court has moved from being the high priests of the law, in their vestments and temple, to being crass politicians as evidenced by Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. The Presidency has gone from the dignity with which Eisenhower and Kennedy were treated to the media side show that sidetracked the Clinton administration and provided cover for the Bush administration and now encourages the Tea Party crazies. And the Congress has gone from the stirring words of Teddy Kennedy, for example, to the rantings of Virginia Foxx. Exactly as officials have become more and more distant from contact with real people. Yes, security plays a part, but a fear of accountability plays a larger part. Message discipline has replaced conversations with constituents. And that goes to hearings as well. I don’t think that it is possible to disrespect this Congress by virtue of its own behavior. And I don’t think that people who testify at hearings should be held to a higher standard of dignity that Congress holds for itself.
Colbert’s mild craziness of feeding back the sound bites of members of Congress was a lot more respectful than the hysteria about immigrants that the Republicans have unleashed. His deference to the committee was not part of his shtick.
If you think this makes sense, then I’m not entirely sure you understand satire or how deadly serious and powerful it is.
Colbert’s act at the Correspondent’s Dinner was masterful because his job was to expose the president for the criminal that he was while highlighting the absurdity of the press’s enabling relationship with him.
His job today wasn’t to show-up Congress. It was to highlight the plight of farm workers. As satire, it failed utterly.
His job today wasn’t to show-up Congress. It was to highlight the plight of farm workers. As satire, it failed utterly.
KO doesn’t think so.
Well, it’s OK if you think that it failed as satire, but you didn’t address the problem with your belief that there is some sort of analogy between Colbert appearing in character to testify and your example of Costner appearing in a baseball uniform. This suggests to me that the larger problem may be that you kind of don’t get it.
FWIW, I think that part of his job WAS to send-up Congress. Part of Colbert’s job is always to highlight the absurdity of the existing power structures. IMO, he rarely strikes a sour note. I personally think, for reasons others have articulated in this thread, that he succeeded extremely well in spotlighting the problem of the powerlessness of migrant farm workers.
I guess I think you might not have really heard him because you were too incensed over a notion you had that it was disrespectful for him to testify in character.
He’s not supposed to make people comfortable. If he did, he wouldn’t be doing his job.
Steven Colbert truly is America’s Voltaire.
Check Memeorandum for the top 10 stories right now. They are all about Steven Colbert, and none of them are about migrant farm workers.
Oh, come on. First of all, no top stories are about Colbert or the hearing as of when I just checked right now. But even if they were all about Colbert, so what? The non-seriousness of our media is now to be lain entirely at Stephen Colbert’s feet? I don’t think so.
Anyone that clicked through from any of those stories to listen to his testimony — regardless of what Chuck Todd or Megyn Kelly might have decided to make the story about — will have gotten his message about the rights of farmworkers loud and clear. That’s over a quarter of a million people on CSPAN’s YouTube site alone, and many tens if not hundreds of thousands more from other sources. That’s a LOT of people who now have this issue on their radar screens for no doubt the first time.
Corn-packer! LMAO! Colbert gave them a big middle-finger up.
Exactly! I think you got the point: I sympathize with Boo’s POV, but as your comment points out (to me) the point is, even more, that the Congress is disrespectful of the citizens.
The way to a higher level of discourse in Congress is then, arguably, not through congressmen, or Colbert, setting examples of discourse, but through citizens setting examples through the kind of ownership they take of the elections and the elected people. I think Colbert did great as a citizen.
Now I’m left with just one word in my mind: Twain.
Many of Colbert’s words cut. I haven’t seen the whole video, but it seems to me that Colbert cares about the issue and his out of character comment at the end was a great summary. I don’t think he was there just to be “in character” and I don’t think he was there to be humorous. He was there to parody the Republicans and heap sarcasm at them.
Congress, especially Republican Congressmen deserve all the scorn and ridicule that can be heaped on them. They hold immense power but they are ridiculous. I realize full well that people generally don’t respond favorably when they are made fun of. BUT, Republicans aren’t responding anyway. What is the down side?
The hubris and apathy Congress shows for the lives of real, flesh and blood human beings is appalling. They endanger lives every day they sit on their butts being the party of NO.
By the way, years ago I worked with migrant laborers for about a month. Nothing has changed since then and they deserve better.
Also, I didn’t realize that many acres in the US aren’t utilized because the labor to work that land isn’t available. Colbert made sure I remembered that fact and many others with his presentation.
Gotta share this very cool site with y’all. It’s a web site that allows you to script and direct animated characters in a real movie!
I threw this animation together in (no kidding) 5 minutes. I can’t wait to see what someone with a brain and a sense of humor could do with this great new technology.
I’d post the movie here, but the code for it would take more time to conform to this site’s requirements than it did to make the movie in the first place. See it here:
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7215721
To make your own movie, just sign up at xtranormal.com.
You and Chuck Todd found something in common:
http://twitter.com/chucktodd
He’s a comedian, sure, but have you ever seen him out of character? Ever? I’ve only seen it once, and it was for a split second when Julian Assange came on his show. It’s more or less who he is.
Actually, I have seen him out of character.
Here’s what Conyers had to say at the opening of the hearing.
Talk about in character:
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-04-23/politics/elmo.hill_1_elmo-instruments-congressional-committee?_s=
PM:ALLPOLITICS
Seems like the MSM had a different reaction to someone appearing ‘in character’ before congress (in 2002). I guess Chuck Todd et al hadn’t realized his self righteousness just yet:
I wrote about that in 2007. Here’s the link.
Why the different reaction? Because the person testifying was crouched under the table?
I found it odd that Democrat John Conyers asked Colbert to leave the chamber and submit his remarks in writing even before he had begun to testify. WTF?! It does appear that Colbert handled that request very well.
Lost in the concern trolling about the dignity of Congress was Stephen Colbert’s final statement:
He did a masterful job highlighting the exploitation of migrant workers. The media types are pissed that he’s encroaching on their territory. Maybe if they did their fucking jobs we wouldn’t need a comedian to educate us about issues.
Feh. Mincing shitheads like Steve King don’t deserve respect.