A wave of disappointment swept through late-night television as news broke of the impending end to the government shutdown. Hosts, known for their politically charged monologues, reacted not with relief, but with visible frustration.
Stephen Colbert, on CBS, lamented the outcome, stating the shutdown had ultimately achieved “jack squat.” He punctuated his disappointment with a pointed comparison to a lackluster end to a musical career, drawing a parallel to the band Journey’s final single.
The sentiment echoed across networks. Jimmy Kimmel, on ABC, described the Democrats’ position as drawing a line in the sand, only to “eat all that sand” and receive nothing tangible in return – a promise of future consideration from their political opponents.
Kimmel’s critique extended to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, with a sarcastic observation about the leader’s willingness to compromise, questioning how he could “bend over so far” at his age.
On Comedy Central’s *The Daily Show*, Jon Stewart unleashed a particularly scathing rebuke. He expressed disbelief at the Democrats’ decision, arguing they had squandered a moment of political strength following recent election victories.
Stewart, referencing Sun Tzu’s *The Art of War*, sarcastically suggested the ancient strategist would approve of abandoning a strategic advantage for a mere promise of future negotiation, even suggesting a snack break instead of pressing forward.
The uniformity of these reactions sparked a curious observation: the late-night hosts seemed to be delivering remarkably similar critiques. The consistency raised questions about the source and nature of their shared perspective.
It was as if a single script was being followed, a chorus of voices echoing the same frustrations and interpretations of the political landscape. The near-identical outrage felt less like independent commentary and more like a carefully orchestrated performance.
