This Cracks Me Up

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:07 AM

When I landed that world-exclusive interview with Stephen Colbert about his presidential bid, I figured the whole effort was more about getting laughs than votes.

D'oh!

Not only was the guy on "Meet the Press" Sunday, but some pundits are openly debating how many votes he'll get in South Carolina.

As Jake Tapper put it on ABC's "World News" (!), Colbert is the only presidential candidate who knows he looks ridiculous. Maybe he will appeal to those who find politics a theater of the absurd.

What does Colbert stand for? He's running on both the Democratic and Republican lines. When I asked him, he sung the praises of South Carolina peaches and shrimp and went negative on John Edwards (for moving out of the state when he was a year old). When I impudently observed that he hasn't lived in the Palmetto State for years, Colbert retorted that he still vacations there and that his wife is a native. We'll have to see whether any broader themes emerge if Colbert actually hits the hustings (as opposed to running from a Manhattan studio).

Meanwhile, the Atlantic's Josh Green called up actual experts and produced a detailed evaluation of the man's chances. On the Democratic side, Green writes, not so much. "Colbert might fare better in the Republican primary. According to one presidential advisor, the South Carolina Republican electorate is 'monolithically white, much more male than female, and younger' than the Democratic electorate--all good news for Colbert. As a rule of thumb, younger voters tend to be more liberal than older voters. But in South Carolina, younger voters are more conservative than their counterparts elsewhere. Factor in 'Reaganiness,' and things could really get interesting.

"The next question is: Which presidential candidates might be threatened by a Colbert candidacy? The obvious group is second-tier competitors, because if Colbert runs more than a 'front-porch' campaign--if he actually shows up and holds a few rallies--he'll suck up the media buzz any laggard needs to break through . . .

"I can't point to anything other than truthiness, but I believe the 'drunken college student' demographic is being overlooked."

Never underestimate the Heineken vote!

Not everyone is laughing about the newest candidate. HuffPost's John Seery admits he's no fan:

"I cringe at Stephen Colbert's buffoonish entry into the presidential arena, tongue-in-cheek though it may be.

"Previous comedians who pretended to throw their hats into the U.S. presidential ring seemed to do so, I want to say, in order to make a larger point, in addition to providing giggles along the way. Pat Paulsen (who ran in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1988, 1992, and 1996) reminded us that speechifying politicos can be bombastic, bumbling, soporific and tone-deaf-lessons that Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry should have taken to heart. Wavy Gravy, in his cross-country 'Nobody for President' campaign (in 1976, 1980, and 1984), gave humorous voice and a protest alternative to the frustration many citizens felt and still feel about our national politics, namely that few candidates of genuine worth offering genuine alternatives seem to be showing up on our ballots.

"But what's Colbert's larger point, or what's the point that cannot be accomplished by remaining on the satirical sidelines? Oh sure, he seems ready and poised to spoof arrogant and self-centered politicians, a natural spillover from his Bill O'Reilly act. But mock self-centeredness is still, in his case, merely self-centeredness. His ostensible expos¿ of others seems hardly more than a ruse for self-serving self-aggrandizement, for both his on-screen and off-screen characters."

Talk about going negative!

Andrew Sullivan pays tribute to Colbert and "a parody as lovingly accurate as all great parodies are. The show's graphics include countless American flags and a swooping, screeching eagle; the regular features include an ominous 'Threatdown' of dangers facing the American people, and a daily harangue called The Word. In style and substance, Colbert has mastered the art of total and absolute certainty regardless of the facts that has become a hallmark of the Bush era. Before long, after all, if you don't cry, you feel the need to laugh.

"Colbert even invented a new word that became 2006's word of the year, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary: 'truthiness'. It's the truth according to the gut instinct of the president . . .

"But the bipartisan guest list cannot disguise the anti-establishment, liberal bent of the show. Yes, [Jon] Stewart and Colbert rib the Democrats. Their coverage of the 2004 primaries was framed with the title 'The Race from the White House'. But with Bush in charge of things, the targets for liberal humour have been unusually plentiful.

"Stewart skewers Bushism directly; Colbert achieves his edge by out-Bushing Bush. He does so with total deadpan sincerity, almost never breaking for a second out of character. My first time on the show, he sat me down and posed the first question: 'How old were you when you chose to be gay?' . . .

"As the religion-drenched era of Republican hegemony wanes a little, the satirists begin to become part of the establishment themselves. Colbert's presidential run may be a step too far. Perhaps, in retrospect, these last, ragged months of the Bush administration will come to seem the high-water mark of the Colbert-Stewart tide."

Not if those drunken college students have anything to say about it. But I do wonder how the shows might change under a Hillary administration.

Now to Sunday night's Fox debate. The New Republic's Noam Scheiber sees the top-tier Republicans divided into two camps:

"So which approach was more successful: the Romney/Thompson appeal to ideological purity or the McCain/Giuliani embrace of authenticity? I'm not entirely sure, but I think a few observations are relevant here. First, the advantage of the authenticity gambit is that it makes a candidate look and sound comfortable in his own skin, whereas the ideological purist must steel himself for the inevitable 'gotcha' moment. McCain seemed as close to capturing the magnetism of his 2000 campaign as I've seen this year; Giuliani flashed his quick wit multiple times to the delight of the crowd. (One applause line: 'I did 210 weddings when I was mayor of New York City . . . They were all men and women. I hope. You got to give me a little slack here. It was New York City, you know.')

"Though Romney and Thompson weren't exactly hemming and hawing--Thompson got off one of the better quips of the night, a shot at Ted Kennedy's girth in which he suggested it would be tough to get to the left or the right of the Massachusetts senator--they exhibited a low-grade defensiveness throughout.

"The second observation has to do with Romney in particular, for whom the disjunction between his conservative packaging and his moderate instincts is more pronounced . . .

"There are obvious tactical reasons for Romney to run as a conservative. But sometimes you can't help wishing he'd run more authentically--as the moderate technocrat he is at heart."

Mitt, who initially refrained from talking much about Massachusetts, made a positive impression on the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder:

"At long last, Romney defended and touted and bragged about the singular political and policy accomplishment of his tenure as Massachusetts governor: the health care system reform that provides every resident there with insurance. Watching him at other debates, it was easy to get the sense that he wasn't sure how to integrate his Massachusetts experience into his campaign narrative. The plan itself was written with the help of Heritage Foundation experts but it did not, in the end, comport with every conservative principle.

"But it stands out as an prime example -- perhaps the ultimate example -- of conservative governance. Romney worked hard at health care in Massachusetts; he worked with Democrats; he worked with Republicans; he wound up with a novel program that, while not perfect and not transferable to other states, stands out as a real accomplishment. Romney calls himself an executive and a manager; with health care, he executed and managed in real time. At their Michigan debate, Republicans seemed a bit reality-deaf and barely acknowledged the sense of economic dislocation that middle class Republicans feel; Romney demonstrated that, given the right scenario, he can connect with those voters better than just about any candidate up there."

John McCain--you know, the guy who all the pundits said over the summer was dead in the water--continues to garner positive reviews. Here's Captain Ed:

"I'd have to say that Thompson did even better than in his first debate. He answered Giuliani's criticism of his earlier votes on tort reform by arguing for federalism, and he skewered the laziness smear effectively. Giuliani gave the classic Rudy approach, with 'You gotta be kidding me' when Brit Hume suggested that people see no difference between Hillary and himself. Romney scored points for himself when he noted that Hillary has never run anything in her life, while he has run a state, a successful business, and an Olympics that had almost collapsed from the weight of its own corruption.

"This debate, however, went to John McCain. He gave better answers on the specifics of foreign policy. He noted that his leadership has been tested in ways that none of the candidates on stage with him have ever had to face."

National Review's Mark Hemingway also singles out the Arizonan:

"McCain really deserves to be back in the top tier. His performance was very strong, he was nimble and funny, and made a good case for why conservative voters need to reevaluate him. Ultimately the differences may stem more from John McCain's (admittedly self-cultivated) media narrative than substantive differences between him and the conservative base. Given the alternatives, McCain's reliability on the two most important issues -- fiscal responsibility and national security -- should cause conservative voters to look at him anew. His big handicap is that he comes off as low energy relative to the other candidates."

Kate O'Beirne has a print-magazine piece urging another look at Johnny Mac:

"Republicans are . . . being told that during these perilous times they should be willing to prioritize a concern with national security over social issues. Voters need not make that tradeoff if they support McCain, who has both a pro-life record and more national-security experience than Giuliani. McCain is a conservative whose heterodox views on campaign-finance reform and immigration are shared by the more liberal Giuliani. With the defeat of the 'comprehensive' immigration bill he championed, McCain recognizes that the public demands concrete enforcement measures -- and he now pledges to secure the border before pressing for the legalization of illegal aliens. (He will, of course, have to convince conservatives that he is a genuinely reformed reformer committed to an 'enforcement first' agenda.)

"Finally, McCain is in a long-term, stable second marriage and talks to all his children, although not as frequently as he would like. One son is a midshipman at the Naval Academy and another is an enlisted Marine serving in Iraq."

Gee, I wonder who that could have been aimed at?

Are the media gatekeepers about to lift the gate and admit someone else to the top tier?

"Are we perhaps witnessing the political ascendance of Mike Huckabee?" asks Dick Polman. "Is it possible that restive religious conservatives, widely dissatisfied with their choices in the GOP presidential field, are poised to flock en masse to an ordained Baptist preacher who plays the electric guitar? To an ex-governor from Bill Clinton's state whose chief claim to fame -- until recently -- was that he lost 100 pounds? To a guy who, with that kind of name, sounds like he should be cracking cornpone jokes on The Andy Griffith Show?

"The answer is yes. Huckabee, notwithstanding his ostensible second-tier status as an '08 candidate, finished in a virtual tie for first place this weekend in a straw poll of religious conservatives at the Values Voter Summit in Washington (if we include the online voters who chose not to attend), and Huckabee slaughtered the entire GOP field (polling 50 percent, with Mitt Romney a distant second at 10 percent) if we count only the votes that were cast in person, by those who were in the room. It actually makes perfect sense that grassroots Christian conservatives might be warming to a candidate who has long been right under their noses. Huckabee -- in part because he is actually one of them, having been a past leader of Arkansas' Southern Baptist Convention; in part because he is a gifted communicator; in part because he questions all this stuff about evolution -- might be well poised to fill the vacuum that persists on the Republican side."

Rudy is getting over a very important hump, says Fred Barnes:

"Rudy Giuliani's position on abortion is evolving in a pro-life direction. Addressing an audience of social and religious conservatives, Giuliani made two new points: as president, he would veto any bill increasing the number of abortions, and he would support any 'reasonable suggestion' to reduce the number of abortions. This may not sound like much. But for Giuliani's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, it was important."

This would be the same Fred Barnes who urged Giuliani to take such a course of action.

Hillary's latest fundraising draws the ire of Red State:

"Governor Schwarzenegger has announced a state of emergency. Thousands of Americans are losing their homes. They are certainly in my thoughts and prayers.

"What about Hillary? Hollywood is throwing her a birthday party, just miles away:

"Rob Reiner sang a rousing rendition of 'Happy Birthday, Mrs. President' in honor of Senator Hillary Clinton at his Brentwood, California, home on Sunday evening.

"Celebrities came to see to see Clinton, D-N.Y., and to celebrate in advance of the former first lady's 60th birthday. Although they didn't bring gifts, celebrities from Jamie Lee Curtis, Magic Johnson, Ted Danson, Bridget Moynihan and Chelsea Handler raised a half a million dollars for the Clinton campaign and enjoyed cocktails and hors deouvres in return."

This strikes me as unfair. All the candidates raise money from rich people. And what was Hillary supposed to do, commandeer a fire truck and go fight the blaze?

How's this for libelous: a charge that James Lipton, the erudite host of "Inside the Actors' Studio," was once a pimp in France. And the source is . . . James Lipton.