In order to establish the PAC, Colbert will need a media exemption, and he’s testifying before Congress, again, on the issue of PACs.
Did they decide to have Colbert testify because of the scintillating insight he brought to the discussion last time he was there? Or is he just more important, more entitled to be heard in Congress than other people?
Beneath Colbert’s jokiness, it’s easy to discern, there’s a great deal of rage that upstarts can get away with these kinds of outrageous outrages. Over-the-top political commentary ought to be performed by experty experts, who know what they are doing and have TV shows (particularly on Comedy Central), like him or Jon Stewart. Once you start letting just anybody broadcast outrageous political commentary, you open up an enormous can of worms regarding responsibility–because you know that beneath the humor these people take their responsibilities as supramoral arbiters of mental hygiene very, very seriously. It’s what accounts for their gravitas.
But you know what wasn’t irresponsible? Helping to spring violent gang members from prison so you could give them taxpayer money to go back on the street and pretend to be reformed. No, see . . . that was innovative.
Is there anything more ridiculous than angry men in clown suits?
UPDATE: Da Techguy has an insightful analysis on the impact of the ad to this point.
UPDATEx2: Hans von Spakovsky at PJTatler concurs.
