Hear hear Dave Raithel. That’s exactly how it works, isn’t it? Colbert was certainly funny but change doesn’t flow from that. In fact, by appearing to go out on such a limb, the limits of what possibly can be said in public are clearly set. Kristol’s a war criminal, right? But could Colbert say that? Even if he backed it up with the reams of evidence that exist? Simply not possible. That is just too-o-o wacky. The jokes are fun, but in the end, they’re just jokes, which is why they get a lot of play. For my money, Galloway at the US Senate was far “braver” and definitely more substantive. Not surprising that there was very little mainstream press reaction compared to the Colbert thing - perhaps the good ‘ol boys in the US press gallery couldn’t understand his Scots accent? The silly bugger should have told a few jokes.

Every time I see or hear Bill Kristol I wish that his ex-Trotskite parents had resorted to abortion.

I would bet anyone $100 that the things Kristol says are going to happen

1. Attacking Iran
2. Military Draft
3. Dems win House, Repubs win Senate in 2006
4. Guliani or McCaine in 2008

He called for 9/11 a year before it happened, called for a few major theater wars, preemption, and vast military spending. 

This guy is a stronger prophet then Jesus =)

In these times, all motives are suspect, so let me say first that I enjoy both the Colbert Report and The Daily Show for their being, unfortunately, the most trenchant and accurate social and political commentary I hear. I do have one concern that I’ll express here. People familiar with the notion of “repressive tolerance” might recognize my observation that to some extent, what Colbert and Stewart, etc., do also serves to innoculate (for lack of a better word)their objects of ridicule from the possibility of significant political change. Kristol is a war criminal, and as befuddled as he appeared, he now gets to add to his resume his being cool enough (or chill enough, or whatever colloquialism now fills the use)to suffer satirical queries. That gets turned into the idea that people who are adequately secure in their positions fear no laughter at their own expense (because afterall, none of us is perfect and we should all be humble enough to laugh at ourselves, even when we are right…)The bourgeoisie are best at appropriating forms of cultural opposition and rendering them useless. Nothing that truly threatens established power relations survives. The Bushes may be offended, but will do nothing different, and their supporters will dismiss the barbs as rude bad taste. Is it possible that the true social effect of the work by Colbert (and I know there are others) is that it allows everyone to reassure themselves that since he doesn’t get jailed or shot for it, everyone knows we are still a “free” country with a “democratic republic” government? The implication then is that things aren’t so bad, afterall…

To paraphrase some dead German philosophers: All contradictions, even the funny ones, are absorbed….

colbert seems to be the bravest man on television these days:
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002425363