Colbert lampooned conservatives who equated Ahmadinejad letter with Democratic-progressive talking points
SUMMARY: Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert mocked various conservative media figures for recent outrageous statements, all of which had been noted by Media Matters for America.
On the May 15 edition of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, host Stephen Colbert mocked various conservative media figures for recent outrageous statements, all of which had been noted by Media Matters for America. Specifically, he targeted conservatives who equated Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent letter to President Bush with the positions of Democrats and progressives, and replayed Fox News host John Gibson's call for non-Hispanic Americans to "make more babies," in which Gibson claimed that Hispanics are on track to become the majority in 25 years.
Colbert targeted Gibson, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes, Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger, and nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh for equating Ahmadinejad's letter with the positions of Democrats and progressives. Colbert first mockingly "agree[d]" with the conservative commentators that Ahmadinejad's "letter sound[ed] like it was written by [Democratic National Committee chairman] Howard Dean, proofread by [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [CA], spell-checked by [actor and radio host] Janeane Garofalo, and then stuffed into an envelope by [actor] Alec Baldwin." Colbert then stated, "Democrats, when are you going to learn that when an evil dictator like Achmen-inin-Michael-Moore-ijad starts using your talking points, you've got to disagree with them. If he says there is too great a gap between rich and poor, you say there is not enough of a gap. If he says there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you point out that sand is a weapon of mass destruction when used properly. You could sort of toss it in someone's eyes during a knife fight."
He then underlined the absurdity of the comparison:
COLBERT: You see, if someone is sufficiently evil, everything about them and what they believe is wrong, whether or not it's right. That's why I'm not a vegetarian. Because Hitler was a vegetarian -- and I'm sorry, I'm not a fan of Hitler. I know that's going to disappoint a lot of Democrats. And for that matter, you know what, speaking of Mother's Day, why are we celebrating mothers at all? Because it just occurred to me: Stalin had a mother. Shame on you, mommies.
Later in the show, Colbert played Gibson's May 11 call for Americans to "[d]o your duty" and "[m]ake more babies," as well as Gibson's apparent rationale: "Half of the kids in this country under five years old are minorities. By far, the greatest number are Hispanic. Know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic." Colbert then commented, "All you need to know: John Gibson is ready and willing."
From the May 15 edition of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report:
COLBERT: Anyway, I didn't have anything to do, so I wound up reading the 17-page letter Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to President Bush. I know what you are thinking, yes, reading other people's mail is a federal crime, especially when it is reprinted in the liberal press, but something changed my mind. This trenchant analysis of the letter by John Gibson of Fox News. Take a look.
GIBSON [video clip]: That nutjob running Iran, President -- let's see if I can pronounce it -- Ahmadinejad, sent President Bush a letter, and if it weren't postmarked Tehran, it may have been mistaken for a crank letter from an angry leftist in L.A. or Boulder [Colorado] or Cambridge, Massachusetts. WMD lie, says the Iranian president: Democrat talking point. Human rights abuses in Gitmo: another Democrat talking point. The gap between haves and have-nots: the Iranian president and the Dems in lockstep on that one too.
COLBERT: I couldn't agree more. That letter sounds like it was written by Howard Dean, proofread by Nancy Pelosi, spell-checked by Janeane Garofalo, and then stuffed into an envelope by Alec Baldwin. Oh, and a quick apology to my viewers. Earlier, when I mentioned the Iranian president, I neglected to note the difficulty of pronouncing his name. I assure you, I will not pronounce it correctly again. Anyway, John Gibson and I aren't the only ones who noticed how much the Democrats sound like president -- oh boy, let's see if I can get this right -- Achmen-in-nin-nin-jihad. It's tough. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard pointed it out. So did Daniel Henninger over at the Wall Street Journal and, of course, Rush Limbaugh. Man, that guy is back at the top of his game now that he is off the goofballs.
And I got to tell you, when I read President -- oh, Lord help me, help me get my mouth around this crazy name -- Aman-olly-olly-oxen-free-ninijad-iad -- something like that. When I read the letter myself, I found even more Democratic talking points. Listen to this: "All governments have a duty to protect the lives, properties, and good standing of their citizens." Democratic talking point. "We also believe that Jesus Christ, praise be upon him, was one of the great prophets of the almighty." Democratic talking point. "The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world." Democratic talking point.
Democrats, when are you going to learn that when an evil dictator like Achmen-inin-Michael-Mooreijad starts using your talking points, you've got to disagree with them? If he says there is too great a gap between rich and poor, you say there's not enough of a gap. If he says there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you point out that sand is a weapon of mass destruction when used properly. You could sort of toss it in someone's eyes during a knife fight. Works.
You see, if someone is sufficiently evil, everything about them and what they believe is wrong, whether or not it's right. That's why I'm not a vegetarian. Because Hitler was a vegetarian -- and I'm sorry, I'm not a fan of Hitler. I know that's going to disappoint a lot of Democrats. And for that matter, you know what, speaking of Mother's Day, why are we celebrating mothers at all? Because it just occurred to me: Stalin had a mother. Shame on you, mommies.
[...]
COLBERT: And finally, on the May 11th edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, host John Gibson said this:
GIBSON [video clip]: Do your duty. Make more babies. ... Half of the kids in this country under five years old are minorities. By far, the greatest number are Hispanic. Know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic. ... Put it bluntly, we need more babies.
COLBERT: All you need to know: John Gibson is ready and willing. We'll be right back.
Colbert is going too far again. He should respect Gibson and all those others by avoiding the subject.
Bad bad Colbert!
Glad I watched it, I don't watch TV too often anymore, but I may TiVo Colbert after watching that clip.
Good stuff.
the billboards already: 'The US needs you ... to reproduce'
(PS: more christian conservative rearing recommended)
Thank you, Stephen, for fighting the good fight-with intelligence and wit.
Just waiting for the special Fox approved undergarments to be issued. Fox cultists and their preachers like Gibson are going to need extra support thanks to the cynical light of day and reality from folks like Colbert and MMFA. Good thing they, in general, don’t fully understand irony or parody. It’s more fun this way.
Kudos to Colbert for some very funny stuff here. John Gibson, while I thought he was pretty good covering the OJ trial for CNBC back when he was Geraldo's lackey, isn't much of a #1 guy. I think the Peter Principle applies to him.
Typical left wing smear tactics!!! Using truth and wit to expose the GOP and FOX News.
no ... it is just one of the new dating techniques of Gibson:
White male looking for white female to save the white race; you will be paid by delivery!
Must not be bothered if baby has helmet hair.
It was obvious the Colbert's audience doesn't watch Fox News. As the clip of John Gibson ended (make more babies), there was an audible gasp from the audience, along with some nervous laughter. They couldn't believe anyone would say such an outrageous thing!
If true, does that make Colbert's sublime lampooning any less funny?
Actually, I think it makes Colbert's lampooning even funnier, and more important. Since the audience wasn't aware that comments like Gibson's are made on Fox, Colbert has given them a good lesson.
I don't know what's said on Fox either, except for sites like MMFA, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report. I appreciate them keeping me up-to-date on all the MSM BS.
attacks Gibson, not his audience.
how this type of conservative concern meshes and intersects with abortion talk. white people can't get abortions but they are free for racial Others. I think that Gibson's demagoguery can best be described as an attempt to "scare up some tail."
This guy's as funny as Jon Stewart...maybe funnier.
His bit about Ahmadinejad's letter was priceless. Which brings me to a QUESTION I'm hoping someone here can ANSWER.
Bush&Rice blew off the letter...and I don't REMEMBER hearing any kind of RESPONSE to the letter or the dissing of the letter by any Democratic leaders...did I simply MISS it?
I know MOST of you here have NO use for Pat Buchanan, HOWEVER he wrote a terrific column about Iran I think you all SHOULD read. Here's a snippet:
**Yet, in this same quarter century when the U.S. military has been so busy it is said to be overstretched and exhausted, Iran has invaded not one neighbor and fought but one war: an 8-year war with Iraq where she was the victim of aggression. And in that war of aggression against Iran, we supported the aggressor.
Hence, when Iran says that even as we have grievances against her, she has grievances against us, does Iran not have at least a small point? And when Russian President Putin calls Bush's America "Comrade Wolf," does he not have at least a small patch of ground on which to stand?
Which brings me to the point. There is no reason to believe Iran wants war with us. If she did want war with America, she could have had it any time in the last 27 years. If she did want war with America, all the old ayatollah had to do was continue holding those American hostages after Ronald Reagan raised his right hand. He didn't. As Reagan recited the oath, the hostages were clearing Iranian air space.**
You can read the rest of it HERE:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50168
I like Pat. I used to listen to him regularly on the radio where he had a liberal counterpart for a decent debate. He's a straight shooter and there's a strange but sound logic to even his more controversial opinions. At least he doesn't try to dress up his views and sell them as something they are not. However, he's way too honest for the neocon crowd.
Randi Roades (lover her or hate her) has made mention repeatedly how she respects Buchanan although their views are often at opposite ends of the spectrum -- Recently, however, she has admitted multiple times that she, Buchanan, as well as many others across the political spectrum (not directly tied -- hogtied -- to the Bush administration) agree on this and most other issues regarding this wacky presidency...
Be afraid when lefties and righties start to agree ... be very afraid. Thanks for the link.
Jeter2,
I agree with Buchanon that "There is no reason to believe Iran wants war with us". However, what I find difficult to reconcile is Iran's frequent apocolyptic threats to our biggest ally in the region, Israel.
If we go to war against Iran, our leaders need to be honest with us. This war is not about terrorists who might sneak nukes into the US. It is about protecting our relationship with Israel.
I think our alliance with Israel is worth defending (even pre-emptively if positive proof exists to justify action), but before we send our own people off to die, we should make sure everyone knows the real reason here.
What would you consider positive proof? Is the statement "Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the earth," positive enough to justify action? It certainly seems to be with the actions the Bush Administration has been taking in handling this situation.
Luckily, Israel has us on their side. Lots of states in the region want to wipe out Israel. They know doing so would be suicide, as does Iran. Thus, all the nuts who are getting their panties in a wad over Iran are just demogoguing.
Buchanan is giving the impression that the Iranians gave back our hostages because they were afraid of Reagan, and not because they and Reagan's people had worked out a deal before the election to keep the hostages in Iran to help Reagan win. Priceless how these conservatives cling to the "tough guy" notion of Reagan. This is the man who responded to Libya's terrorist attacks on our country by assassinating their president's tent and daughter. The guy who pulled our troops out of Lebanon in response to a terrorist attack. And then the Conservatives lampoon Clinton for caving in to terrorism.
Unless selling arms to Iran and using the profits to fund the Contras in Nicaragua in violation of the law is considered bargaining with terrorists.
That little maneuver was a two-fer! Selling arms to a terrorist country to support a terrorist group.
And of course, selling arms to both sides of the same war isn't very indicative of a clear moral compass.
You know that the Right wing of the Republican party has gone too far when they are lectured on values by Iran!
It is also obvious that they (the Right wing) have lost all perspective when they are willing to denounce democratic principles just to take a cheap shot at the Democrats.
How have the noble Republican beliefs been so hijacked? The tail wagging the dog! The strong arming of DeLay! Why? Money and power.
They let the shrills represent them so they can get a few more votes from the extremists... which is silly if you think about it. Where else would the shrills go? The principled Republican's need to take back their party and boycott Fox. The thoughtful and reasoned Republicans are loosing their credibility with these pundits as their mouth-pieces.
As a natione we need to get back to what is best for our country... not a party. Common goals (making America the best it can be) with different (not sinful or traitorous) paths.
..Colbert's intentional mispronouncing of Ahmadinejad 's name. The pundits in the conservative media love to mispronounce his name. I guess to them, it's an insult and a status thing. Kind of a "you're not important enough for me to even pronounce your name properly!"
When will they grow up?
Oh, and I caught the "Michael Moore" reference when I first watched this episode. Hilarious. Does the Colbert Report team read MMFA?
Gibson IS the joke.
I find myself more in tune with Pat Buchanan than the NeoCons. I used to think that Buchanan was a finge element; however, over the course of the last 10 or so years many times (not always) Pat seems to represent a more well-considered if not reasoned line of thought from the GOP. Which begs the question how screwed up is this the policies and platforms adminstration and the GOP? When your right, right, right-wing thinkers are making more sense to the conservative to moderates on the left end of the spectrum than the "mainstream", what is happening inside your party? Is politics become like Einstein's theory on space and time and folding in on itself, becoming curved as it were? Is the truth, thought, and reason the idealogically connection (read wormhole) that could join those concerned on the left and the right with the welfare of the country and place political power back into the hands of the people? Only time will tell, but it is nice to imagine it would, if only this century could find its John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
You made me think... is it possible that they were smart enough to plan this shift?
If we think about it, if they take the regular "rabid" conservative of a couple of years ago, and create these uber-rabids of today, then it will eventually make their original crazies seem more sane.
In other words... maybe they pushed the extreme right to shift where the center is.
To me, that is really a scary thought. Appealing to the fringe extreme has never brought a good result that I can think of.
Always one of my favorite parts of Repub. radio & Fauxnews, the finding of common ground between Dems & "Terrorists". Especially when these things are founding principles of our country.
I guess to describe these as occasional would be stupid of me. Basically five years of " You don't like the bush Administration? Neither does Saddam/ obl/etc. therefore..."
Well, yeah, but I don't like cat poo and saurkraut stew, and your average member of Al Qaeda probably doesn't either, but I wouldn't consider someone who is partial to that dish superior to me for the fact that they DON'T have that in common.That's just me.
... sounded awfully familiar.
"Hitler believed a larger, racially purer population would enhance Germany's military strength and provide settlers to colonize conquered territory in eastern Europe. The Third Reich's aggressive population policy encouraged "racially pure" women to bear as many "Aryan" children as possible.
This policy took its most radical form in 1936 when SS leaders created the state-directed program known as Lebensborn (Fount of Life). In an extension of the SS Marriage Order of 1932, the 1936 Lebensborn ordinance prescribed that every SS member should father four children, in or out of wedlock. Lebensborn homes sheltered illegitimate offspring and their mothers, provided birth documents and financial support, and recruited adoptive parents for the children."
-------
Just goes to show, Rightwingers like Gibson are the heirs to lots of "ideas", which were written for them long ago by leaders whose names are not so terribly difficult to pronounce....