海角大神

Stephen Colbert hosted House minority leader Nancy Pelosi on 鈥淭he Colbert Report鈥� Wednesday evening. Does that mean that Stephen Colbert the person might be a Democrat? That would be the opposite of 鈥淪tephen Colbert鈥� the character, who on television is a committed conservative talk-show host.

We鈥檒l get to that in a second. First, let鈥檚 recap Wednesday night's events.

The point of the Pelosi appearance was for her and Mr. Colbert (in character) to have a faux faceoff. Colbert has a "super political action committee" called Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. Ms.聽聽the DISCLOSE Act, a bill intended to regulate certain activities of these campaign funding organizations. She鈥檚 even filmed an ad that purports to attack Colbert, saying she鈥檚 heard 鈥渉e doesn鈥檛 even like kittens.鈥�

Is the ad funny? Let鈥檚 just say Pelosi is not nearly as good a comedian as Colbert is a politician.

鈥淵ou have attacked me,鈥� said Colbert to Pelosi Wednesday with all the false umbrage his fictional self could muster. 鈥淵ou have attacked me and the person of my super PAC by saying that super PACs and I are hurting democracy. What do you mean?鈥�

Pelosi went on to explain that she believes the unlimited donations pouring into super PACs create a situation in which democracy might be purchased, and that all she and the DISCLOSE Act want to do is create more transparency so citizens know where that money is coming from.

(The 鈥淒ISCLOSE鈥� in DISCLOSE Act stands for , by the way. In case you hadn鈥檛 figured it out for yourself.)

The minority leader concluded by saying that in the end Democrats need to win the election so they can overturn the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, which makes super PACs possible, 鈥渂y amending the Constitution and giving the voice and the vote and the power to the people.鈥�

The studio audience then gave her a round of applause.

So does this mean Colbert the person is a Democrat? We ask this in particular because Stephen Colbert the character served up nothing but softballs in the way of questions for Pelosi. In the end, he agreed to endorse the DISCLOSE Act in return for her urging House Democrats to participate in his 鈥淏etter Know a District鈥� series.

Colbert did not point out that donors to super PACs already must disclose their identities 鈥� albeit too late to really do transparency any good. Pelosi鈥檚 legislation would tighten that disclosure and speed it up, making big donors report their cash offerings within a day.

Colbert did not ask how she plans to get DISCLOSE passed, given that it was introduced in Congress almost two years ago, has received no Republican support, and is stuck in committee.

Nor did Colbert ask about the viability of the amend-the-Constitution-to-overturn-Citizens-United process. We鈥檙e safe in saying that that procedure is so lengthy and difficult that it will happen at about the same time Republicans succeed in passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, which is to say, not for many years to come.

Colbert does have Republican politicians on his show, so the mere fact that he鈥檚 giving Pelosi air time means little, partisanship-wise. But others 鈥� not us, we don鈥檛 want our Twitter feed to explode 鈥� have suggested that Colbert鈥檚 super PAC expos茅聽is going too far and that he made a mockery of the political system when he testified before Congress in character on immigration reform.

In January, NBC political analyst Chuck Todd said the media should be 鈥渃areful鈥� about how it treats Colbert.

鈥淲hat is his real agenda here?鈥� said Mr. Todd at a forum at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, S.C., just prior to the South Carolina primary. 鈥淚s it to educate the public about the dangers of money and politics, and what鈥檚 going on? Or is it simply to marginalize the Republican Party? I think if I were a Republican candidate I would be concerned about that.鈥�