LSSC: Season One All Episodes Talk

[bluepiano]

I was a huge fan of TCR, and have been very impressed by what Stephen's done to date with The Late Show. However, I'm disturbed by the difference in his attitude toward Cruz and Trump during their appearances. Stephen was much more aggressive towards Trump, and took any number of digs at him. Whereas he was deferential towards Cruz, bordering on kissing his ass. I get that he can't be confrontational with a guest, but Cruz got to spout his usual brand of horseshit lies with hardly a peep from Stephen.

 

Maybe the difference is that Stephen was treating Trump more like one of his show biz guests than a Presidential candidate, and, in a back-handed compliment sort of way, he knows that Trump has some self-awareness and sense of humor about himself, while Cruz has none. But does that mean that he should get a free pass on his hypocrisy about the Supreme Court (5 lawyers shouldn't make law, but it was okay for them to throw out the votes of Florida citizens), his rabble rousing on gay marriage and immigration, the despicable things he's said about Obama etc.

 

After the even more innocuous interview of Jeb, and now this, it's clear that Stephen is going to be the kind of TV "liberal" who only goes after safe targets. I'm no fan of Trump, but why is he getting all the heat from the commentators on Huffington Post, MSNBC etc, when Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorino, and Marco Rubio get hardly any attention for saying things that are equally if not more despicable and dangerous. And unlike Trump, they probably really believe in what they're saying).

Edited September 23, 2015 by bluepiano

[Kromm]

I was a huge fan of TCR, and have been very impressed by what he's done to date with The Late Show. However, I'm a disturbed by the difference in his attitude toward Cruz and Trump during their appearances. Stephen was much more aggressive towards Trump, and took any number of digs at him. Whereas he was deferential towards Cruz, bordering on kissing his ass. I get that he can't be confrontational with a guest, because Cruz got to spout his usual brand of horseshit lies with hardly a peep from Stephen.

 

Maybe the difference is that Stephen was treating Trump more like one of his show biz guests than a Presidential candidate, and, in a back-handed compliment sort of way, he knows that Trump has some self-awareness and sense of humor about himself, while Cruz has none.

I am fascinated by the different opinions showing up here re: Cruz and Trump and how Trump approached them. Now I'm not even talking about the politics of these men (or guessing anything about that of posters), I'm just talking about the impressions of who (if anyone) Stephen went hard against.

 

To my eyes and ears he went much harder against Trump than Cruz (although he wasn't as "easy" on Cruz as it might seem on the surface). I mean he made Trump look like the absolute idiot he is over the Wall issue. That was a big move--a really sharp pointed one. As I said before, it DID give Trump an (unintended by Colbert) opportunity to play the Paranoia-about-the-drug-cartels angle, which undid some of the damage, but Colbert milked such absurd bozoish statements out of Trump, that I can't see how that can be played off as him tossing softballs. Maybe Trump IS more self-aware than Cruz about the humor of his positions, nevertheless, Trump jumped right through those hoops Stephen laid out to toss out ridiculous stuff like talking about how in the hole we are debtwise in one sentence and talking about building a gigantic state-long wall in the next (and then laughably inferring we could somehow get the Mexicans to pay for it). 

[nowandlater]

Variety has a great take on Colbert's interview(s).

 

http://variety.com/2015/tv/columns/stephen-colbert-donald-trump-late-show-interview-1201600409/

[Kromm]

I particularly like the contrast made with Fallon and his fawning incompetence.

 

 

While it’s unfair and perhaps unnecessary to keep comparing them, Colbert’s visit from Trump stood in stark contrast to the mogul’s appearance on “The Tonight Show” less than two weeks ago, where Jimmy Fallon featured him in a canned segment and then largely giggled his way through their time together at the desk.

No it's not unfair, Variety. Fallon is incapable of substance. Even those who feel let down by Colbert not going aggressive after Trump realize, I think, that at least he wasn't fawning/gushing/being an idiot, like Fallon.

[teddysmom]

Ok, I admit it, I just watched the Late Show on my computer while eating lunch at my desk.

Fortunately Stephen had your back on this.  Are the head hunters calling you because of your incredible performance?

 

You're just the kind of multi-tasker we're looking for!  Please forward your resume to mybossisanidiot.com.  

[sadiegirl]

 

 

Stephan Curry plays for the current NBA champs, the Golden State Warriors (who play in the San Francisco Bay area). As the other poster said, you should Google/You Tube him from this year's NBA playoffs. He brought his (now oldest) daughter, Riley, with him to the postgame team press conferences & she stole the show every time (you can probably find the cute stuff by Googling/You Tube-ing "Riley Curry" as well as him). His wife was pregnant with their 2nd child during the playoffs & gave birth to their 2nd daughter, Ryan, over the summer.

Thank you for the information - I saw State and assumed it was college basketball.  Took your advice and went to youtube.  His daughter is adorable and I love how patient he was with her.  I think that says a lot about a person.

 

Just watched the Trump interview.  Looked like he came prepared to present himself as sane and I think he mostly succeeded.  And I don't know what his ultimate goal is, but there is no way he really wants to be president.  I just don't see it.

 

I was surprised by how much I liked the musical guest.  Not usually my cup of tea, but I liked him.

[bluepiano]

To my eyes and ears he went much harder against Trump than Cruz (although he wasn't as "easy" on Cruz as it might seem on the surface).

 

Yes, and the point I was trying to make is that Trump is an easy target. He is almost a self parody. For many years that's been the status of "political humor" on late night TV. Only go after the safe targets. Stephen ridiculed Trump about the wall and confronted him on the Obama birth issue. But he didn't call Cruz on his ridiculous hypocrisy on the Supreme Court. I mean, here's this Harvard lawyer who's acting like he never heard of the Supreme Court, or that it's not in the Constitution. Republicans never talked about Supreme Court overstepping its authority when they gave the 2000 election to Bush, or completely rewrote campaign finance law in the Citizens United ruling. (And it's not 5 lawyers, like Cruz keeps saying, it's 9)

 

I don't think that Ben Carson has been announced as a guest, but it would be interesting to see what Stephen would do with him. My guess is that it would be that it would be another polite, feel good interview, like with Jeb, and that Stephen would not question him on equating Obamacare to slavery, his numerous references to Obama being like Hitler, or his saying that the theory of evolution was the work of the devil. (Yes, he really said that. And this is the guy who thinks that Muslims are not suited to be president because of their religious beliefs.)

Edited September 23, 2015 by bluepiano

[peeayebee]

Trump really is the next best thing the GOP has to Reagan. It actually didn't matter what he said (I just watched the whole thing... still disappointed). He has charm and that Reagan-esque ability to say or believe whatever he wants and still come across as pretty likable if he wants. He has charm and he comes across as sincere.

 

I wish Stephen had gone after him anyway (although I did enjoy the "Trump or Stephen?" segment). He came prepared to charm and not be goaded into saying something offensive and it worked. As Reagan's people said, the image, the likability was the main thing and, like Reagan, Trump has a nice smile. :(

I admit I'm prejudiced against him, but I don't see any charm or any nice smile. Actually, every time he smiled, I cringed. It seemed so phony and forced, like he knew Stephen has been laughing at him and the audience was not going to be friendly, so he'd just pretend to be enjoying himself.

 

 

I loved when Stephen lobbed him a big ol' softball/meatball, and Trump completely muffed it. Saying he wasn't talking about that was ridiculous and transparent. All he had to say was, "Yes, Obama was born in the US," or "No, I don't believe he was," or even, "I don't have enough information." Obviously I think the first response is what anyone should say, but the way he handled the question was laughable.

 

Enough about him. I'm really enjoying the Hungry Games. Great segment.

 

Also, I saw a reference to 'pizza rat' on Twitter, but I didn't investigate to find out what it was. That video was great.

[Ruby25]

The Cruz interview and the Trump interview combined to show me that he's not going to be someone who tries to speak truth to power in any way. I thought he might, but just having those guys on so you can let them air their repulsive views with no pushback is something I can see on any other talk show. It wouldn't have happened on TCR though- but I guess the character is the thing that gave him the courage/excuse to go after people.

 

So, I'm done. I'll watch bits online if I hear he did something funny, but this isn't everyday viewing for me. I gave it a shot. It's not enough.

 

I feel kinda depressed though, because having Colbert and Stewart off the air leaves such a void and there's really nothing to fill it.

[BW Manilowe]

I admit I'm prejudiced against him, but I don't see any charm or any nice smile. Actually, every time he smiled, I cringed. It seemed so phony and forced, like he knew Stephen has been laughing at him and the audience was not going to be friendly, so he'd just pretend to be enjoying himself.

I loved when Stephen lobbed him a big ol' softball/meatball, and Trump completely muffed it. Saying he wasn't talking about that was ridiculous and transparent. All he had to say was, "Yes, Obama was born in the US," or "No, I don't believe he was," or even, "I don't have enough information." Obviously I think the first response is what anyone should say, but the way he handled the question was laughable.

Enough about him. I'm really enjoying the Hungry Games. Great segment.

Also, I saw a reference to 'pizza rat' on Twitter, but I didn't investigate to find out what it was. That video was great.

Someone started an account on Twitter for the Pizza Rat (there are now at least a couple of them). That's probably what the Twitter reference was.

[Kromm]

The Cruz interview and the Trump interview combined to show me that he's not going to be someone who tries to speak truth to power in any way. I thought he might, but just having those guys on so you can let them air their repulsive views with no pushback is something I can see on any other talk show.

I won't say he couldn't have gone harder, but "not speak truth to power in any way" and "no pushback" are pretty strong statements. Perhaps he let them simply speak a lot of the interview, and tossed a few initial softballs. And covered a lot of what he did in very broad comedy. But he did clearly ask at least a few questions with both men that revealed them as foolish. Perhaps a bit more with Trump than Cruz, and Trump is an easy target, but even with Cruz he let out some bait that Cruz picked up. I mean it didn't work as well as Colbert wanted, but the Reagan stuff was clearly meant to make Cruz reveal himself as either a liar or just plain wrong.

[lookeyloo]

And sometimes even if they don't answer the question, the question was asked and is put out there and the non answer is out there too.

[Gemma Violet]

The Cruz interview and the Trump interview combined to show me that he's not going to be someone who tries to speak truth to power in any way. I thought he might, but just having those guys on so you can let them air their repulsive views with no pushback is something I can see on any other talk show. It wouldn't have happened on TCR though- but I guess the character is the thing that gave him the courage/excuse to go after people.

 

 

This is not Meet the Press.  Late night viewers want something lighter before going to bed.  Plus, if Stephen pushes too far, he runs the risk of losing future guests who will be afraid to come on his show.  Not pouncing on everything someone says doesn't mean you agree with them.  I think he's doing a great job.  It's "can't miss" TV for me.  

[Padma]

I think Stephen got in a little aside that he doesn't agree with him when he apologized for saying some "not nice things about you through the years" and Trump, determined to show his nice guy side, turned to the audience and said, "And some nice ones, too." SC looked surprised and said sincerely, "No" or "not really" which I thought was kind of funny, but was kind of lost in the shuffle.

 

Having Cruz and Trump as guests really did highlight what a delicate balancing act he has to perform now, unlike at TCR. And his abilities are so beyond Fallon that for those of us who are familiar with him prior to this show, there's no point in comparing them at all.  If I heard Colbert was guest hosting a political forum on Face the Nation it would be intriguing and not completely shocking.  Jimmy Fallon guest hosting it? That would make zero sense.

 

I think he did what he had to do for CBS, but not for those of us who wanted difficult questions, particularly exposing the hatefulness of these two men's campaigns. SC doesn't see that as his role here, apparently, and I'm positive CBS doesn't either. It's too bad, but I'll still watch, just with greatly reduced expectations.

[kib]

Colbert did fine with Trump.

Remember, we're still over a year away from the election and Trump is still only a step removed from being a "Stupid Human Trick".

There's plenty of time left for a barbeque if it's needed. No sense frightening the pig away.

Edited September 23, 2015 by kib

[Deanie87]

Colbert did fine with Trump.

Remember, we're still over a year away from the election and Trump is still only a step removed from being a "Stupid Human Trick".

There's plenty of time left for a barbeque if it's needed. No sense frightening the pig away.

 

To be fair to Colbert, it is also only his first month in the job.  He is still somewhat on probation with CBS, viewers of all political leanings and with future guests.  If he comes firing right out of the gate, he isn't going to get the guests in the first place right, and the closer we get to the election, the more careful of image each candidate will be.  I don't ever expect him to be as confrontational as Colbert Report Stephen, but I wouldn't be surprised if, say, 6 months from now when he has a better comfort level with the show and the guests have a better comfort level with him, that he will be less likely to swallow any bs sent his way.  Hopefully, that will be the case with all of the politicians that come on his show.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Deanie87

[Clanstarling]

Maybe the difference is that Stephen was treating Trump more like one of his show biz guests than a Presidential candidate, and, in a back-handed compliment sort of way, he knows that Trump has some self-awareness and sense of humor about himself, while Cruz has none.

If I understand the pattern of guests, it's celebrity, serious, and musical. Which puts Trump in the celebrity category, and Moniz as the serious guest.

 

I personally thought Colbert was easier on Trump than Cruz - which fits my theory of Trump being the "celebrity." YMMV. I try to keep in mind that this is not the Colbert Report or Meet the Press. Its focus is different, and lighter.

 

Being post-AARP, I've never heard of Raury before.  I very much liked Devil's Whisper.

[Milburn Stone]

I think Colbert did great with Cruz and Trump. He got across plenty of criticism of them in a form that was easy to swallow and easy to watch.

 

I'm not sure what the naysayers had in mind. To make Cruz cry like a little girl? To get Trump to blurt out, "I'm sorry, I'm a fraud!"? Short of accomplishing those fantasies (which I may share, but which I'm realistic enough to realize are fantasies), I think Colbert deserves kudos.

 

If Cruz and Trump came across as likable or charming despite Colbert's satire, that's something they have to be given credit for, as grudging as I or anyone else might be about giving it.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[Cyranetta]

I suspect it's unlikely that any late-night entertainment host will every do completely confrontational interview of Trump or any of the other candidates, but I really did enjoy Colbert's ability to keep an amiable flow while slipping in the knife edge so deftly and quickly that he was already on another question before Trump really had time to react. I have a feeling that's a talent unique to Colbert in the late-night world.

[Ruby25]

This is not Meet the Press.  Late night viewers want something lighter before going to bed.  Plus, if Stephen pushes too far, he runs the risk of losing future guests who will be afraid to come on his show.  Not pouncing on everything someone says doesn't mean you agree with them.  I think he's doing a great job.  It's "can't miss" TV for me.  

 

Okay, THAT I am not interested in at all. That is an attitude aimed at elderly people who've lost brain function or something. I had my fingers crossed that maybe he would try to switch up the format and challenge the status quo in some ways. Now I know for sure that he won't and it bums me out.

 

And I gotta be honest, I don't even think David Letterman himself would have felt the need to be that polite to Trump. He had a crankiness that would shine through ocassionally, even in his old age in ways that he didn't try to hide. I can't even imagine Stephen giving us a moment with a guest near let's say, the way Dave humiliated Paris Hilton after she was in jail or something. I don't think Dave would have ever chided the audience like that either. Some people deserve the boos. Just because someone's your guest doesn't mean they're a good person, and Dave knew that. He couldn't hide disdain.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Ruby25

[Victor the Crab]

If I heard Colbert was guest hosting a political forum on Face the Nation it would be intriguing and not completely shocking.  Jimmy Fallon guest hosting it? That would make zero sense.

 

Jimmy Fallon would be just a tad worse than Chuck Todd and David Gregory.

[MrWhyt]

And I gotta be honest, I don't even think David Letterman himself would have felt the need to be that polite to Trump. He had a crankiness that would shine through ocassionally, even in his old age in ways that he didn't try to hide. I can't even imagine Stephen giving us a moment with a guest near let's say, the way Dave humiliated Paris Hilton after she was in jail or something. I don't think Dave would have ever chided the audience like that either.

Given that Stephen Colbert and David Letterman are in fact 2 different people, there is a good chance that Stephen is a more polite person than Dave. If you want Stephen to act like Dave, then you have the wrong show, if you want this show to be an hour long version of the Colbert Report then you have the wrong show. We're in the third week of Stephen's hosting a big network late night show, it will take time for him and the show to find themselves.

Edited September 23, 2015 by MrWhyt

[Clanstarling]

Okay, THAT I am not interested in at all. That is an attitude aimed at elderly people who've lost brain function or something. I had my fingers crossed that maybe he would try to switch up the format and challenge the status quo in some ways. Now I know for sure that he won't and it bums me out.

 

And I gotta be honest, I don't even think David Letterman himself would have felt the need to be that polite to Trump. He had a crankiness that would shine through ocassionally, even in his old age in ways that he didn't try to hide. I can't even imagine Stephen giving us a moment with a guest near let's say, the way Dave humiliated Paris Hilton after she was in jail or something. I don't think Dave would have ever chided the audience like that either. Some people deserve the boos. Just because someone's your guest doesn't mean they're a good person, and Dave knew that. He couldn't hide disdain.

Well, as an "elderly" viewer who watched Letterman during his early days, the Dave you saw was the mellow version. He was always a bit mean spirited - if funny as hell.

 

I can't see Stephen, in whatever version, actively humiliating anyone - no matter how deserving. I wouldn't have wanted to see that even when I was a young whippersnapper.

 

Joking aside, I think we all come to this with different expectations, many of which will not be met. So we either embrace the show or not, remembering that this show caters to a wider audience than the Colbert report, an audience which is not necessarily Letterman's audience. At least, that's the way I'm going into it. I don't like everything about the show, but I do love Stephen. For me, that's enough.

[lookeyloo]

Well, as an "elderly" viewer who watched Letterman during his early days, the Dave you saw was the mellow version. He was always a bit mean spirited - if funny as hell.

 

I can't see Stephen, in whatever version, actively humiliating anyone - no matter how deserving. I wouldn't have wanted to see that even when I was a young whippersnapper.

 

Joking aside, I think we all come to this with different expectations, many of which will not be met. So we either embrace the show or not, remembering that this show caters to a wider audience than the Colbert report, an audience which is not necessarily Letterman's audience. At least, that's the way I'm going into it. I don't like everything about the show, but I do love Stephen. For me, that's enough.

As another "elderly" viewer, I am with you on this.

[Gemma Violet]

That is an attitude aimed at elderly people who've lost brain function or something. 

 

 

I had no idea that liking lighter interviews before bed after a hard stressful day at work shows a lack of brain function. I am on the edge of being elderly, though, so there's that. :-)

[Thumper]

I will not watch Trump. I do not find him charming.

I live in Minnesota -- we went through this "tell it like it is" thing with Jessie Ventura. No thank you.

[EyewatchTV211]

I haven't watched yet, but the diverse opinions on how Colbert handled Cruz and Trump here seemed to be matched in the media. I'm seeing articles saying he was soft on both, that he was harder on Cruz, or the one posted here saying that he was actually hard on Trump (possibly more). Trump apparently left the show having a good opinion of Colbert. All very interesting...

[alias1]

I thought Stephen did a great job with both Cruz and Trump.  I enjoyed the Trump interview more and I think Stephen had more fun with it.  Trump was going to be the gracious guest and he took Stephen's digs in good humor.  And Stephen did make some digs.  He is so brilliant with his subtle humor.  I absolutely cannot stand rat faced Cruz.  He is totally humorless and I think Stephen realized that and some of his digs didn't work the way he thought they would.  

 

I hated his interview with Jeb, but that was his first night.  He has vastly improved since then and I think he does a much better job than Meet The Press.  Hell, have you watched those Sunday morning shows with the softball questions and the no follow up to any lies they are spouting?  I'll take Colbert's interviews any day.

[Padma]

With Trump on, the best ratings since the opening:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/23/media/donald-trump-stephen-colbert-ratings/index.html?section=money_topstories

[StatMom]

I hope this isn't straying too far off-topic, but for those who weren't aware of Carol Burnett's deep admiration of Jimmy Stewart, this clip shows it nicely:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hdWFOVXiHjk

[Kromm]

I haven't watched yet, but the diverse opinions on how Colbert handled Cruz and Trump here seemed to be matched in the media. I'm seeing articles saying he was soft on both, that he was harder on Cruz, or the one posted here saying that he was actually hard on Trump (possibly more). Trump apparently left the show having a good opinion of Colbert. All very interesting...

Exactly my point. It seems all over the board with people thinking Stephen was anywhere from too nice to too harsh with either (and a middle "just right" position), for both or only one of them. There's something weird going on here in terms of how differently this is all coming off to different people. It's not just about the politics of the people viewing, because I'm pretty sure I've seen the "too harsh", "just right" and "too nice" comments coming from people who share the same opinions of Trump and Cruz--just with different combinations of who he supposedly had which result with.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Kromm

[Padma]

Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC just had a good piece about Trump telling Colbert re: birth certificate, "I don't talk about that any more"...intercut with a clip from him today...talking about it some more.

 

Also pointed out that he lies when he says Hillary "was the first birther". 

 

That's the problem I have with the interviews of Trump, Cruz, etc. That in the name of courtesy or comedy, their lies go unchallenged and so do a lot of statements that border on hate speech.   I'm still glad when late night television isn't just entertainment guests (and I appreciate Stephen in that respect particularly), but I don't see why they should be allowed to spout any nonsense they feel like and get away with it when they want to be (or already are) the President of the United States.

[kib]

Okay, THAT I am not interested in at all. That is an attitude aimed at elderly people who've lost brain function or something. I had my fingers crossed that maybe he would try to switch up the format and challenge the status quo in some ways. Now I know for sure that he won't and it bums me out.

 

And I gotta be honest, I don't even think David Letterman himself would have felt the need to be that polite to Trump. He had a crankiness that would shine through ocassionally, even in his old age in ways that he didn't try to hide. I can't even imagine Stephen giving us a moment with a guest near let's say, the way Dave humiliated Paris Hilton after she was in jail or something. I don't think Dave would have ever chided the audience like that either. Some people deserve the boos. Just because someone's your guest doesn't mean they're a good person, and Dave knew that. He couldn't hide disdain.

If we check the tape, Dave called out Trump as being a racist (although he rolled it back a few days later). Operative points being, Dave was 25 years into his career and Trump was just another schmuck. Dave owned his show. Colbert's biggest battle right now is stealing eyeballs from NBC and ABC, and most obviously, they are two different people.

I'm willing to cut Colbert some slack for the time being. At some point we'll know if Stephen is willing and/or able to bear his fangs. At the very least he doesn't appear to be in the business of offering unapologetic tongue baths as witnessed elsewhere. Thank goodness for small blessings.

[Delwyn]

After reading the CNN article over in the media thread, I was finally able to put my finger on what has been bugging me so much about people complaining that Colbert didn’t go after Trump hard enough. I personally came away thinking that it had been a very intelligent demonstration of the phrase hoist with one's own petard. Stephen gives Trump a chance to take back his comments on Obama’s birthplace - he declines to commit to an answer despite being loud mouthed about it previously and I don’t think the NY subway rat reference is a coincidence. Stephen does an offensive racial stereotype and the Donald doesn’t really seem to mind. Stephen lets Trump run his mouth about the Iran deal and follows it with a rational segment featuring the nuclear physicist who might actually know a thing or two about it. He never has to be confrontational because like a Boss, Stephen made Trump carry his own shovel out to the desert next to the Mexican border and dig that grave himself, happily thinking he was starting construction on a wall.

 

Maybe I watch Colbert through rose-tinted glasses, but I feel that in the way that he let Trump show off his ridiculousness, he also let Cruz show off his insincerity and lack of humanity. All he needs to do is be a gentleman and it seems like his guest's character ends up being fairly accurately represented.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Delwyn

[teddysmom]

After reading the CNN article over in the media thread, I was finally able to put my finger on what has been bugging me so much about people complaining that Colbert didn’t go after Trump hard enough. I personally came away thinking that it had been a very intelligent demonstration of the phrase hoist with one's own petard. Stephen gives Trump a chance to take back his comments on Obama’s birthplace - he declines to commit to an answer despite being loud mouthed about it previously and I don’t think the NY subway rat reference is a coincidence. Stephen does an offensive racial stereotype and the Donald doesn’t really seem to mind. Stephen lets Trump run his mouth about the Iran deal and follows it with a rational segment featuring the nuclear physicist who might actually know a thing or two about it. He never has to be confrontational because like a Boss, Stephen made Trump carry his own shovel out to the desert next to the Mexican border and dig that grave himself, happily thinking he was starting construction on a wall.

Maybe I watch Colbert through rose-tinted glasses, but I feel that in the way that he let Trump show off his ridiculousness, he also let Cruz show off his insincerity and lack of humanity. All he needs to do is be a gentleman and it seems like his guest's character ends up being fairly accurately represented.

 

THIS!!!!!  

 

Why argue with crazy people?    Stephen's method lets him have it both ways. 

 

He was polite to someone on his show with whom he disagrees, so their supporters have nothing to bitch about,  and let them say a bunch of stupid shit so voters know how crazy they are.

 

Cruz' statement on the Supreme Court is easily fact checked by typing in "role of Supreme Court under US Constitution" on Google.  And it's real easy to call out these clowns on Twitter.  I've done it recently with Fiorina, Bush, Walker, etc.  And they know they're full of shit. They're just hoping the rest of us don't. 

Edited September 24, 2015 by teddysmom

[Clanstarling]

Exactly my point. It seems all over the board with people thinking Stephen was anywhere from too nice to too harsh with either (and a middle "just right" position), for both or only one of them. There's something weird going on here in terms of how differently this is all coming off to different people. It's not just about the politics of the people viewing, because I'm pretty sure I've seen the "too harsh", "just right" and "too nice" comments coming from people who share the same opinions of Trump and Cruz--just with different combinations of who he supposedly had which result with.

So we're all Goldilocks, stepping into Stephen's house and finding fault or a perfect fit.  LOL  I agree that it's not just about politics, but a reflection of our emotional cores and personalities. Some of us appreciate confrontation, some like sly deviousness, some of us just want to chill.

[nowandlater]

Colbert's biggest battle right now is stealing eyeballs from NBC and ABC, and most obviously, they are two different people.

 

I don't know if he's that much into stealing eyeballs from other networks. After all, Jimmy Kimmel will be on Colbert's show next month promoting "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in Brooklyn (Fallon and Colbert will be off the week Kimmel does a week of shows from Brooklyn. Colbert was Kimmel's guest the last time he did his show from Brooklyn, in 2012.)

 

(For those who don't know, Kimmel and Colbert -- as well as Jon Stewart and Adam Carolla and Carson Daly -- all share the same agent, a guy who goes by the name "Baby Doll.")

Edited September 24, 2015 by nowandlater

[peeayebee]

Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC just had a good piece about Trump telling Colbert re: birth certificate, "I don't talk about that any more"...intercut with a clip from him today...talking about it some more.

He talked about it more? What did he say?

 

Re last night's show, I was kind of disappointed there wasn't Stephen's usual comedy bit. I guess there wasn't time for it. I didn't care too much for the Jon Batiste book bit. I don't think Jon is very good at being funny or telling jokes. Maybe he'll get better.

[alias1]

He talked about it more? What did he say?

 

 

Trump deflected the question by saying Hillary was the original birther (which Lawrence debunked).  Since Colbert asked him and now other people are asking him, he realizes he will be asked this question over and over so he apparently has decided on this as a stock reply since his "I don't talk about it anymore" isn't working.

[Padma]

Trump deflected the question by saying Hillary was the original birther (which Lawrence debunked).  Since Colbert asked him and now other people are asking him, he realizes he will be asked this question over and over so he apparently has decided on this as a stock reply since his "I don't talk about it anymore" isn't working.

That was even more annoying than the clips Lawrence showed (from previous years) of Trump saying, "I have my people in Hawaii looking into this and its unbelievable what they've found."  Someone, somewhere in the media, has to ask him and get an answer to the question, "Exactly when and where did Hillary Clinton ever say Barack Obama wasn't born in America. You can't just keep saying it. Unless you have a sourced quote, you're just lying."  

 

If Stephen couldn't confront him on any of that, I wish he'd at least pleasantly asked him about citizenship requirements. I mean, does Trump think Obama's mother was NOT an American citizen?  The CNN debate was an utter fail content-wise (over 3 hours!) so I think that's partly why expectations are high for a politically savvy very skillful host of late night comedy.

[rujasu]

Okay, THAT I am not interested in at all. That is an attitude aimed at elderly people who've lost brain function or something. I had my fingers crossed that maybe he would try to switch up the format and challenge the status quo in some ways. Now I know for sure that he won't and it bums me out.

 

I'm in my 20's and I just don't agree with you at all here.  And the thing that "bums me out" is the implication that Colbert is somehow being too "safe" or "status quo" by not being a complete dick to his guests.

[Cyranetta]

 

And the thing that "bums me out" is the implication that Colbert is somehow being too "safe" or "status quo" by not being a complete dick to his guests.

The only way for me that a truly confrontational interview would make for worthwhile viewing is if Trump or Cruz or whoever declared that, as result of the hard-hitting questioning, the interviewee had seen the error of his ways (or her, in the case of someone like Ann Coulter). Seeing as the odds of something like that happening is probably <1%, the interview would likely just turn into an unpleasant grind. At least Colbert's way is more like a joyous fencer, who moves on quickly.

[FoundTime]

Really interesting comments here about Colbert's interviews with Repug presidential candidates -- too many too quote! I still feel a pang of regret that Letterman retired before seeing out this political cycle; he was actually probably the sharpest political interviewer out there in his day. He would not let any BS past him. That said, I agree that Colbert is in early days with The Late Show, and we can't expect this Colbert to be the Colbert character of TCR.

 

For those feeling a void with TCR and Jon Stewart's departure from TDS, may I recommend Rachel Maddow on MSNBC? Her show is more "news with the funny" rather than "the funny about the news" but she can be just as biting and pointed in her own way. She's also a persistent and respectful interviewer.

 

Gah, my DVR cut out in the midst of "Rockin' in the Free World" last night. But it was awesome while it lasted ;-) Especially since The Donald got into trouble for using it as a campaign song. Heh.

[nicolin]

I noticed last night in his monologue as Stephen referenced a report, he said "report" as pronounced in The Colbert Report. I love his little nods to TCR like that. I'm hoping he throws another "Nation..." in somewhere soon.

[EyewatchTV211]

I noticed last night in his monologue as Stephen referenced a report, he said "report" as pronounced in The Colbert Report. I love his little nods to TCR like that. I'm hoping he throws another "Nation..." in somewhere soon.

Sorry to be off topic, but this reminds me. When the news came out recently that JK Rowling indicated we have been pronouncing Voldemort wrong, I thought of Colbert's pronunciation of his name, report, etc. as a coincidentally helpful demonstration of how it's supposed to be pronounced.

[Gemma Violet]

I didn't care too much for the Jon Batiste book bit. I don't think Jon is very good at being funny or telling jokes. 

 

That was painful to watch.  Jon needs to take acting lessons or something.  

[SignGuy]

Interestingly, my recording skipped right to commercial right as Stephen was about to lace into the Arizona senator over climate change. Watching from Canada on Global. Anyone else have the same experience?

[nicolin]

That was painful to watch. Jon needs to take acting lessons or something.

...or, you know, just stick to what he does best - music. I haven't been thrilled with any of Stephen's interaction with Jon that didn't involve music. Granted, there hasn't been that much yet but that's just how awkward I think it is. I always thought Paul Schaffer needed to stick only to the music for the same reason, but I may be in the minority on that one.

[bluepiano]

Re last night's show, I was kind of disappointed there wasn't Stephen's usual comedy bit. I guess there wasn't time for it. I didn't care too much for the Jon Batiste book bit. I don't think Jon is very good at being funny or telling jokes. Maybe he'll get better.

 

I think it was Johnny Carson with Doc Severinson who started the thing about using his band leader as a comic foil. They were so good together that it became something many other late night talk show hosts copied. Probably the most successful was David Letterman with Paul Schaeffer. Their banter was a huge part of the show.

 

But that shouldn't mean that Stephen is required to do the same thing with Jon. Not every musician has the natural comic timing of a Doc Severinson or Paul Schaefer. If Stephen really wanted a band leader he could do comic routines with, you'd think that would've been part of the selection process. Apparently it wasn't, because Jon was so uncomfortable it was painful to watch. Hopefully Stephen will let Jon just do what he's good at, playing music.

Edited September 25, 2015 by bluepiano

[Athena]

Stephen and Jon had a nice dynamic on the podcast, but I have to agree, the scripted skit with Jon did not work. I think they have chemistry, but it has to be natural and focused on music unless they both have other passions they share.