Stephen Colbert – 2016 player?

Stephen Colbert's 'Late Show' debut signals that he aims to be a voice in the 2016 campaign – and that serious questions about politics will be in the mix, along with the laughs. 

Jeffrey R. Staab/CBS/AP
Stephen Colbert (r.) talks with Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush during the premiere episode of 'The Late Show,' on Tuesday in New York. Mr. Bush and actor George Clooney were the guests for Colbert's debut.

Yes, he’s had nine months to prepare. But Stephen Colbert did a pretty good job with his political stuff in his initial “Late Show” episode Tuesday night. It’s clear that he envisions his new gig as something semi-serious – comedy with flecks of Sunday morning news show mixed in.

And that means he could be a strong journalistic player as the presidential campaign progresses.

“Something tells us Colbert’s interviews will be fodder in the 2016 campaign,” noted Amber Philips of The Washington Post’s Fix political blog this morning.

Donald Trump provided much of the comedy. Colbert did an extended bit which began with Mr. Trump’s refusal to eat Oreos, since they’re made in Mexico now, and continued as Colbert tempted himself with Oreos, which became a sort of metaphor for the media's obsession with replaying Trump video clips, since it’s so tempting but not good for you. It ended with Colbert stuffed and covered with crumbs.

Extra points to Colbert for use of baked goods as media symbolism. We await a flood of Twitter-borne hot takes on this performance.

The serious came with Colbert’s chat with Jeb Bush, particularly the long-form version posted on YouTube. The former Florida governor was clearly a bit nervous about the whole thing, which was understandable given that he had no idea what to expect from a brand-new show. Appearing as Colbert’s political kickoff was a risk for Bush. But given his current standing in the race, he needs to take risks.

What did we learn? That Bush’s strategy is still to run as if he were a general election candidate, for one thing. Colbert asked a strong, general question about the nature of politics itself, whether opponents must always be demonized. Tellingly, Bush talked about President Obama in his answer, not his primary opponents. And he said something GOP primary voters might not like.

“I don’t think Barack Obama has bad motives,” said Bush. “I just think he’s wrong on a lot of issues.”

On a particular issue – gun control – Colbert pressed Bush in a manner more journalists should duplicate. The first question came from a viewer raffle, and it asked, in general, what new measures Bush might take to control US firearms. Bush brought up possible mental health checks for gun purchasers. And Colbert took it up a notch – what would Bush do if the NRA opposed such checks?

Bush side-stepped, saying gun control should be a state-by-state issue. Colbert kept at it, saying that gun ownership is protected by a national document – the Constitution – so perhaps it needs to be controlled on a similarly national level.

Bush said states rights are in the Constitution too, in the 10th Amendment. Is that a circular argument? Maybe – but in any case viewers got a decent sense of Bush’s views.

Then, for fun, Colbert did a little “debate prep” with Bush, and had Bush read answers that had been “Trumpified."

“I promise to put Meatloaf on the $10 bill,” said Bush.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.