I Admire You for Your Courage, Stephen Colbert

It is not often that any of us get an opportunity to address tyranny full in the face and walk away untouched.

I think that is what Stephen Colbert pulled off at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. For the first time, someone had the guts - and the access - to tell President Bush what they really thought of him. It was harsh, perhaps even rude by some rules. But it was right on.

It is interesting watching the reaction by the White House media. Being lap dogs, most are sucking up as fast as they can. They are shocked, shocked to have been in the presence of such a brow beating. Others snippily say Colbert just wasn't funny.

Neither are most satirists. "Gulliver's Travels" does not bowl you over with laughter. By the very nature of the genre, it is not gut-wrenching funny. It is a harsh form of humor with a very calculated agenda, for crissakes.

But, I found it so funny I had tears in my eyes. Or was it relief that someone finally had the guts to tell that son of a bitch in the White House that not only was he not wearing any clothes, but that his dick doesn't impress us.

Damn, it was a fine moment. I wish I could have been there.

Is George W. Bush angry. Who gives a fuck! I am angry that George W. Bush is on the verge of ruining this great nation. Thank you, Stephen, for saying it for us.

And about that stupid dinner . . . what the hell are the news media doing sucking up and playing palsy walsy with Bush when they all know he hates their guts.

My old profession embarrasses me daily.

Here is a very well thought out - and right on assessment - of that stupid dinners and similar ones the press in Washington throws for itself to show that they hold no hard feelings for fascist regimes. The author is Dan Froomkin, a columnist for the Washington Post.

For all the talk about the Bush and Colbert performances, the White House correspondents dinner is fundamentally not about the headliners, but about the scene.

Once upon a time, I imagine, there was great value in throwing a party where journalists and politicians could mingle and shmooze and celebrate the things they have in common.

And indeed, if the press and this particular White House had an even moderately functional professional relationship, then a chance to build personal relationships would be a nice bonus.

But it's not a functional professional relationship. From the president down to the freshest press office intern, this White House seems to delight in not answering even our most basic questions.

So the last thing in the world we need is a big party where the only appropriate mode of communication is sucking up.

Ideally, every chance we get to talk to these people, we should be pumping them for information. And ideally we would be consistent in expressing our frustration with them -- not for personal reasons, not for partisan reasons, but because they're making it nearly impossible for us to do our job, which is to inform the public on what's going on in the White House and why.

The coziness of the dinner is a perfect example of what's gone wrong with access journalism. What's in it for the readers?