Tip of the hat to the folks over at the Comedy Central Insider for bringing this story to my attention. The always delightful Grover Norquist* spoke to the Washington Examiner about what it’s like to be interviewed by Stephen Colbert. From the Examiner:
Stewart v. Colbert: Norquist double dribbles Comedy Central
POSTED May 16, 5:50 AM. . .
“It was one of the most challenging interviews I’ve ever done because it’s so unpredictable and he’s so bright,” said Norquist. Still, he thinks he held his own. “I think Colbert was off his game, perhaps because I appeared on the same day that the Bush administration listed polar bears as an endangered species.” (Colbert famously jokes on his show about his fear of bears.)
. . .
Norquist said he wasn’t nervous and called Colbert “a delightful guy.” He also conceded to preparing for both appearances by watching some clips of the shows on YouTube. “If any conservatives want to go on, I’d love to brief them,” said Norquist. “It’s less scary and more fun than you think it’s going to be.”
What’s your take? Do you think Norquist held his own? Have a look (and his Daily Show appearance is here, if you’d like to compare the two):
* You may have read a touch of sarcasm in that subject. Just possibly. How ’bout that?
Heh. :-D Just a *touch* of sarcasm, Ms. I.? Norquist is a total tool…box full of sweetness and light. A-hem…
And he’s delusional to boot, if he thought he “held his own,” because Stephen nailed him with his own trusty hammer.
NAILED HIM!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
He thought Colbert was off his game? Stephen nailed him during this interview.
At least he stated that Stephen is an intelligent and delightful guy. We already knew that didn’t we?
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
What the douchebag didn’t realize is that Colbert did a stealth attack. The interview itself he wasn’t raked over the coals too bad, although he did get nailed, but the rest of the show in context hammered him
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
That was a sad interview, Norquist’s preparation seemed to be to memorize a handful of phrases to keep repeating and not to venture away from them.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
SIGH. *eyeroll*
…That is all.
(reCAPTCHA: “WASHINGTON Larry” …Yeah, Larry! WASHINGTON!!!)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Conservatives always think they “do well” on The Colbert Report. They’re not much into admitting they’ve been nailed, or even pricked, by any sharp satiric observer/critic let alone Colbert. ;>
The “foreigners” line horrified me and by the sound if it, the audience as well. Considering the source, I guess it’s not surprising that he repeated the comment again anyway.
Norquist seemed unable to articulate exactly how or why he wants the government to “get off our backs.” Pointing out the ridiculous law or policy here or there isn’t proof, but he couldn’t even come up with anecdotal examples of what he’s against or what he wants. In the end I suspect it all comes down to money — he doesn’t want taxes, he doesn’t want taxes, he doesn’t care he doesn’t want taxes!
It’s odd that such people are the first to claim America is the greatest country on earth, yet firmly believe they shouldn’t be obligated to pay a price for the privilege of living in the USA.
As one of my words is “crumbs,” I’ll say Grover Norquist did a crumbelievable job of making his argument.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
The right’s capacity for delusion is what helps keep the TCR satire going so in an oblique way Norquist was doing Colbert a favor. Carry on you wayward son.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
“oblique” + Kansas = LOL
There’s an owl outside my window now.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
BTW: Speaking of right wing delusionals, Mike Huckabee was filmed making this appalling “joke” at the NRA after he heard a loud noise.
“That was Barack Obama,” Huckabee quipped, “He Just tripped off a chair. He was getting ready to speak. Somebody aimed a gun at him and he…he dove for the floor.”
I hope Stephen NEVER has him on the show again. (above quoted from HuffPo). Given the crazies out there, this was at best, irresponsible and tasteless, at worst, a taunt. Disgusting.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I never think that Stephen lets conservative guests off the hook or “treats them nicely”. I think Stephen’s criticism, in the form of taking their beliefs/ideals to the extreme (eg bunker in wilderness, 19th century south, build own roads), is the most direct way to confront these conservatives short of saying “You are ridiculous.”
Not that I think those kind of arguments are valid. He didnt say “by off our backs I mean we should be hermits”, but Stephen did go ahead and say it for him. But that type of “debate” certainly isnt anything unique or even commonly used seriously by Stephen, but it feels like it was this time. (conversely, it seems like conservatives use that logic all the time, in a genuinely serious manner)
I’m pretty sure someone will misunderstand what I mean, because, even I must admit, my phrasing and word choice are really very primitive. I had a pretty tough time deciding how to write my thoughts, and I still dont think I got it right.
I think what I mean is: dont mind me.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
i agree and thats why stephen colbert is such a unique satirical voice on TV. the way to criticize any radical position would be to engage it directly take that position to even more radical extremes. He is the only mainstream comic who does this.
Interestingly, this is the way satire has been played, and stephen and his writing crew are the latest in a long line of satirists. you have swift, and his “modest proposal” to eat street children, and bastiat, who suggested to protect candle makers from their competitor — the sun! these guys were the colbert’s of their time.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
@vigwig Agree absolutely.
The way Colbert ended the interview, by yelling the title in a rather loud, petulant, and almost hysterical voice was the perfect capper.
It made the book seem like it was written by a spoiled high school adolescent forbidding mommy and daddy from entering ‘their’ room. Really funny! And pretty much nailed.
And Grover felt like he did ok only because Colbert didn’t press him to respond to the obvious counterexamples…what *about* those publicly funded roads (and schools, and street lights, and public utilities, etc) ?
In other words, all those *fundamental *projects that make life relatively safe, and relatively civilized.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
@ jam I think your point is correct, and pretty clearly made.
Colbert takes the principle behind his guest’s claims (whatever they happen to be), and runs what’s called a ‘reductio ad absurdum’ on it.
That is, he takes their principle to it’s most ludicrous, yet utterly logical, extreme. And I think he uses the technique quite often, and quite successfully.
It’s a common technique in debating, or philosophy or law; it forces your opponent to modify their position.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
hmm, well ignorance is bliss isn’t it? ;)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0