Kristol on colbert reporrrrrr...ouch

video

the author below exaggerates, but not by much. man, i was feeling a little sorry for kristol. also, reminded me that colbert will be doing the white house press correspondants dinner saturday night, so i’ll be sure not to miss it.

if you don’t want to d/l, here’s a quote of the longer summary:

…Stephen circled to the right and caught Kristol stunned and flat-footed with a right hook to the body. “Why is everyone turning on the president?” he asked. Pressing the advantage, he got Kristol to open up and admit he had called Bush incompetent. Stephen finished the combo with a strong right cross to the head, hitting him full in the face with “Do you support the president?”

Kristol blindly responded in the affirmative and Stephen hit him with a straight right to the midsection. “That’s like saying, `Honey I hit you cause I love you…'” The crowd went wild!!! Dazed and confused, Kristol reached for the ropes and threw a low blow, “Sometimes that’s true…” The crowd boooed… Kristol sheepishly admitted he doesn’t really beat his wife. But the red in his face betrayed his thoughts. Hope you picked up some flowers on the way home, pal.

Stephen danced around a bit and started working the body. “Where are you going to get the troops?” “Do you favor a draft?” Kristol slipped the first few punches and says he doesn’t. Stephen slipped inside…got Kristol to admit he was draft age in 1972,was in the lottery for a year, but after Nixon got rid of the draft he didn’t volunteer. Stephen does a quick head fake, and tags Kristol while he is backing up! “Great Man.” Kristol doesn’t even realize what hit him , but the crowd sees it and loves it…

Requesting more information.

every year the president and a bunch of journalists have a dinner. a big name comedian usually shows up to do an act, usually politics based (past guys have included al franken, ray romano)

5 PM Pacific on CSPAN, Saturday, April 29 (tomorrow).

I watched the video yesterday. It’s an amazing take down.

Honestly it’s nice to see the kid gloves come off.

I feel no pity for Kristol at all. He was spokesman for bad philosophy poorly executed with a high cost in blood and treasure. The whole idea that he gets to distance himself from the results because the people who executed this pathetic vision did so poorly is laughable. The blame rests directly at his feet.

Conservatives seem unable to realize that good philosophies actually produce good results.

“Blood and treasure”? What are you, a pirate?

American Liberals are unable to realize that good philosophies can produce good results. Except by “good” I mean founded on something other than rainbows and kittens.

I really don’t understand why political celebrities who do relatively well in print open themselves up to being destroyed by those who have mastered television, on their home ground no less. I guess it’s a sort of intellectual arrogance.

Helps to have something called “good strategy” tying those two things together, which the American Conservatives were apparently unable to manage. Colbert’s really salient point in this clip for me was, “Which dictator are we taking down next?” If this really was the reasoning for Iraq, apparently the US is embarking on a crusade. Next stop, Iran. After that, North Korea? Are we going to free Tibet as a sidequest?

Yeah, that’s really the sole province of American Conservatives.

Colbert’s really salient point in this clip for me was, “Which dictator are we taking down next?” If this really was the reasoning for Iraq, apparently the US is embarking on a crusade. Next stop, Iran. After that, North Korea? Are we going to free Tibet as a sidequest?

I don’t think anyone important actually used that as a rationale in the decisionmaking process itself. Much like spreading democracy, it’s a red herring to avoid serious analysis of policy. The tragedy of it is that so many otherwise bright people persist in bringing it up as if it weren’t absurdly inconsistent, as Colbert so deftly showed.

Just watched the video. Yeah, it would really be stupid of the Dems if they win the House to try and raise taxes. Fiscal sanity? Absurd!!

I have no idea what you’re babbling about here.

The point is that you can come up with all the “big picture” ideas you want, but if in the end if they bankrupt the country, kill hundreds of thousands, and increase world terrorism, perhaps you need to consider it’s a bad philosophy that’s guiding you, instead of trying to keep throwing people under the bus and pretend that it was somehow there fault for not being perfect enough.

I know! The concept of reducing spending is utterly alien!!!

Yeah, I figured you’d opt for a feigned lack of comprehension. It’s usually a safe bet for you.
I was saying essentially the same thing you were, except designed to show the elephant in the room. Namely, very similar criticisms apply to so-called Liberals in America, or at least to the ruling class of them. There is no genuine opposition to what Bush represents, because most everyone is pretty much on the same program. The minor quibbles over which manifestation of imperialism or just how much income redistribution to corporations or individuals will be necessary to keep the peace, but no one is really launching any serious countermovements.

Yes. Yes it is.

Because your hyperbolic babble is obviously so brilliant it must make perfect sense even if it, you know, actually doesn’t.

I was saying essentially the same thing you were, except designed to show the elephant in the room. Namely, very similar criticisms apply to so-called Liberals in America, or at least to the ruling class of them. There is no genuine opposition to what Bush represents, because most everyone is pretty much on the same program.

I’ll agree that the dems managed to discard their own common sense for the bedwetting panic that took place over the last few years, but I don’t see them marching around trying to pretend that what’s happening is somehow still proof their methodologies.

They are, in fact, changing their behaviour and their goals in light of the current disaster and the huge iceberg that, while melting fast from global warming, remains looming up ahead.

The minor quibbles over which manifestation of imperialism or just how much income redistribution to corporations or individuals will be necessary to keep the peace, but no one is really launching any serious countermovements.

Governance doesn’t always have to be driven by movements and insane apocalyptic ideologies. The ability to provide a steady and sane response to danger seems to me to be a far more valuable skill, and a better way to govern, than the need to whip up fear and anger in the masses in order to justify an ideological response.

Better to buy it and pay for it rather than just slap it on the credit card and hope the rapture lets you escape the bill.

Might i humbly suggest the reason no one wants to cut spending is that it’s political suicide? Taxes suck, but the public certainly acts and votes like it it’d rather have more taxes at the moment than less spending. Sure, sure, political courage or whatever, but there’s a reason they’re doing what they are.

Well, it apparently is to our ‘conservative’ president and his political party.

There is no genuine opposition to what Bush represents, because most everyone is pretty much on the same program. The minor quibbles over which manifestation of imperialism or just how much income redistribution to corporations or individuals will be necessary to keep the peace, but no one is really launching any serious countermovements.

Well observed and well put, LK. (And that’s coming from a Bay Area liberal.)

William Kristol had the temerity to insist that the United States could no longer tolerate the unchecked flaunting of international demands on WMD proliferation, particularly when the violators were nations with a rich history of sheltering, arming, and encouraging terrorist groups. This is common sense. Whatever the ultimate consequences of America’s invasion of Iraq, the man was right to insist on that.

Nonsense. Taking the arrogant view that the United States of America has some position of natural or deserved superiority from which to unilaterally dictate what other countries can/can’t do for their own defense is what got us into trouble in the first place. People don’t fly planes into our landmarks to express their admiration for our high minded philosophies.

If this is something that you really think, then I’m curious to know what it is that you think Bush represents.

Actually, Bill Kristol had the temerity to pay lip service to international demands. What he really had the temerity to do was to claim that any nation who disagreed with either the U.S. or Israel was by definition an enemy of the United States which should be invaded and destroyed.

And, incidentally, Iraq, while historically an abuser of its own people (and to the people of Iran), is not a country with a “rich history of sheltering, arming, and encouraging terrorist groups.” Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, and Libya, yes. But Iraq? Hardly.