Slashdot Mirror
Colbert Ballot Bid Shot Down
wizzard2k writes "Some of you may have seen Stephen Colbert's bid for the South Carolina Presidential Primary, however it seems his hopes to appear on the ballot as a candidate for the Democratic Party have been shot down. From the report: 'Stephen Colbert's bid to get on the ballot for the upcoming Democratic primary in his home state was shot down on Thursday (November 1) by the executive committee of the South Carolina Democratic Party. Colbert's bid was voted down 13-3 ... Using criteria such as whether the candidate was recognized in the national news media as a legitimate candidate and whether they'd actively campaigned in the state, the committee put the kibosh on the Colbert bid.'"
Two-party duopoly? THREAT DOWN!
I just hope for the Democrats' sake that they are smart enough to pick someone who can win based on the fact that they should be President, and not just throwing out the candidate who is most effective at saying "I'm not the other guy."
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Democrapublicans./zergrush.jpg
I Go Pogo in '08
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
... was probably because he would have won. Can't have that big of a threat to the Establishment.
Wait a second... not only do the media have massive power to influence how people vote - their approval is also are one of the criteria used to decide if a candidate is allowed to run at all? WTF?
Why does anyone bother to vote at all? It would be faster to just let the media companies nominate our public officials directly.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Yeah that's democracy for you, a bunch of unelected political bosses deciding whether to even give someone a *chance* for people to vote for them. Hell I'm thinking of writing him in anyway (even though he's not even trying to run for president of Mass.).
Well I hope at least they gave him back his $2500.
rattle rattle rattle.
They were just afraid eh might win the whole things. Because dim democrats would vote for him for his recognizable face and dim republicans would vote for him because they can't detect satire. The rest of us would vote for him because it's funny.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Ron Paul has convincing tale... but then, he isn't running as a Democrat.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
And thats The Word...
...why can't Stephen Colbert?
Is it because he is just too damn smart and over-qualified?
Todays WØRD: SHAMOCRACY
Man, I suddenly have a hankering for some Doritos.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
You mean he really did apply? Paid the fee and everything? I thought he was just saying he was running, as a joke.
(Oblig:) You know, like Mike Gravel.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
It's the only choice left.
... on the air, I knew he wouldn't make it on the ballot. For a small group of people to decide who end up on the ballot like that just shows how little we need political parties in this country. Getting on the ballot need to be a little more democratic.
I hope Colbert's candidacy and its high level of support serve a large clue-stick to the entrenched political parties. A large number of people are so sick and tired of politics as usual that they are willing to support anyone who is unusual.
Somehow I doubt the Republicrats and Democans will listen to this warning, though. I remember in college when a local comic-strip character (Hank the Hallucination, no less) won the student government presidential election (beating Paul Begala who went on to serve Clinton). All the budding young politicos were incensed that their resume-padding ambitions were being damaged by the will of the student body. But it didn't really change anything then and a fear Colbert short-lived candidacy won't change much now (but I can hope!).
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I think this is fascinating, and I hope Colbert continues to see how far he can go. It's great that he is testing our democratic process, and bringing in his fans into how the system works.
Perhaps he can get on a third-party primary? As an independent? How hard is it to start your own party? Is running as a write-in the best option?
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
...40 years ago when Pat Paulson did it the first time.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7406420086&ref=nf
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
See this article: number 5
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I'm reminded or comedian Pat Paulson, a regular fixture on the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour back in the late 60's (yes, I'm showing my age). He was a perennial (fake) presidential candidate back then. He managed to get on the ballot a few times, and came in second to George H.W. Bush in the North Dakota Republican primary, and second to Bill Clinton in the 1996 New Hampshire primary.
But what I remember best was his bid to get on the California primary in '96. He had twice the number of required signatures on his petition, paid the fees, filed well in advance of the deadline, but was still denied. March Fong Yu, California Secretary of State, explained the denial as "he's not serious about the campaign."
Paulson's response: "You mean those other guys are?"
310 of us wrote him in anyway....
It's one thing to joke about politics, it's another to make the politics into a joke.
In doing the later, Colbert was going to take the focus off of the race and put it onto himself.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Man, the irony is that so many people would've voted for him. Regardless of the fact that he's a comedian and actor, he has an amazing sense of people and character, exactly what a good politician should have, as well as charisma aplenty. Add in the fact that he's quite brilliant at just about anything he does, and you have yourself a good candidate. They simply voted him off because of the stigma of being a "joke".
I find it amazing that this board has the power to eliminate him from the primaries so arbitrarily.
If I were Colbert, I'd be seeking justice from the courts on this one. Show them just how serious a candidate he is.
Why can't he run as an independent?
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
he filled out the Republican application too. At least, I think he did, right?
He won't go far. A LOT of folks liked Nader, but he was kept out of the debates and marginalized by the Dems and Reps.
What ever happened to his lawsuit regarding that?
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Wonder who their biggest influences are.
Deleted
The Democrats should let Colbert run considering that he does better in polls than many Democrat candidates. From the Washington post:
In the Democratic primary, Colbert takes 2.3 percent of the vote -- good for fifth place behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (40 percent), Sen. Barack Obama (19 percent), former Sen. John Edwards (12 percent) and Sen. Joe Biden (2.7 percent. Colbert finished ahead of Gov. Bill Richardson (2.1 percent), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2.1 percent) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (less than 1 percent).If they're going to let Richardson be on the ballot, they should let Colbert be on it too!
I like my beverages with warning labels!
What kind of requirements are there to be a candidate in USA?? In my country, the only special requirement is that you get a few thousand authenticated signatures from people who support you... Shouldn't that be enough to be on the ballot?
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Although it's pretty unlikely that Colbert will pull a Schwarzenegger, he'd still put some of the democratic candidates to shame. A recent poll from CNBC that was shown on his show showed him at 2.3%, above some of the major democratic candidates. I think that speaks volume about how separated presidential candidates have become from their constituents.
I guess I don't know for *sure*, but I'm fairly convinced Colbert never had any real plans to begin with. He's just using this "presidential bid" to poke fun at the US electoral system, and shine a light on the shady practices that go along with a bid. The whole Doritos business is hilarious, and I can't wait to see what he does with this most recent development.
Not to directly compare Stephen to greats like Pryor or Carlin, but how many comedians have had this much impact on political discourse, this quickly? Most subversive types get the soccer moms up in arms, but there's more mainstream media hand-wringing over Colbert than I ever remember seeing before.
Also his persona is dead-on perfect for this sort of stunt. I mean, come on: "Democrats lead in all the polls by at least ten points, except one... Fox News. That is with a margin of error of plus-or-minus the facts." Beautiful.
why? forty-two.
For all of you arm-chair political pundits out there who think Colbert and "the people" are being ripped off: His candidacy would be illegal (check the FEC rules) due to his corporate sponsorships -doritos and comedy channel. If the shoe was on the other foot, say Tom Delay gets GM to pony up $30 million... Does conflict of interest mean any... never mind.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Colbert has handled this poorly, and while I'm dismayed he won't be on the political stage, I think it's his own fault.
I think he would have taken the place by storm if he'd gone out of character when off his show and dealt with people as a regular person, instead of making any attempt whatsoever to be funny. It would have put people off guard and left him the upper hand to control the political stage.
Nothing would have shown modern politics for what it is better than to have people show up to debate with him, armed with one-liners so they could compete one what they imagined to be the called-for level only to find that he was armed with complete thoughts on issues that he surely knows about but does not normally speak of.
That he has left people unsure about what he's doing is not the fault of the people he's confused. He's the one with the savvy to have overcome it, and his entire point is that people are not good about setting serious agendas. They're waiting for someone else to do it in lemming-like ways, and then instead of him doing it, he's leaving it to others to figure him out.
I love his show, but I think he has botched this. He could still recover, I think, but the only way I see him doing is stepping out of character. And to be honest, I think he's afraid to do that, which bodes ill for him as a candidate.
He wants to orchestrate things, but the US situation is not something that needs orchestration right now. It needs plain honesty. Honesty we know he's capable of. But it needs it straight up, not confusingly presented.
I don't care what he says on his show--I'll still watch the show. I care a lot that off the show, if he's going to do this, he do it as a regular guy, not a persona.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Time to get a new sponsor and bring back traveshamockery.
We willna be fooled again!
Damn- hit the wrong button...
Post in full:
It's one thing to joke about politics, it's another to make the politics into a joke.
In doing the later, Colbert was going to take the focus off of the race and put it onto himself. And as bad as the politics are these days, this really wouldn't have been a good thing at all- for everyone. SC Democrat votes would appear to be buffoons, the media would just play this as a joke- missing even more the issues that no-one talks about, and the legitimate candidates would just be sidelined.
Now, I'm not certain if he would have been a good leader, but if he wants to have an honest run at it, by all means, he can. Just that he'd have to be serious about it.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
You can't take the sky from me...
It's not a real campaign.
Please get out of the house more.
Otherwise no one would take the Democratic Party seriously. They'd be powerless. Impotent. Laughable. They could run a Nobel Peace prize winner against a guy who can't say "nuclear," and still lose. But by quashing Colbert's bid, they retain their power and dignity.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
1) Since when has American _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ not been a joke?
:A
In case you can't figure it out:
scitiloP
Are they that afraid of losing face that they can't have some competition to someone who isn't a career politician? I hope that the entire Colbert Nation, Republican and Democrat, votes for him in the primaries. I'll vote for him in Maryland just to snub the bastards.
Regards, Ian
It's really too bad that a person can't run for office without being a member of one of the two major parties.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
This is very telling of the state of political freedom in the US. To have freedom, you have to accept that occasionally some idiot will use that freedom to do something stupid. To deny that idiot the freedom to pursue his own stupidity is to deny everyone freedom.
Can't have an actual candidate running . . . what would our Corporate Masters think?
Stephen Colbert is God enough to be President.
He should start his own party or run as an independent.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Who is Colbert Ballot Bid, and why was he shot?
I really do hate our current crop of Republicans, but absolutely can't stand just how incompetent the Democrats are as a whole. A trained monkey should have been able to win the 2004 election, and they managed to pitch a candidate so bland and nondescript that they blew it.
Blocking Colbert's nomination has the very serious potential to completely alienate their base. If he's only running for the SC primary, the amount of potential damage is extremely limited, and not likely to make much of a difference even if he wins the nod in that state. On the other hand, if Colbert runs as an independent in the general election, he has a very serious chance of fucking things up completely.
(As a sidenote: I'm a strong proponent doing away with the 2-party system by allowing voters to cast a vote for as many candidates as they want. If you like both Nader and Gore, vote for both of them! If for some unholy reason, you want to vote for both the republican and democratic candidate (ie. you hate independents with a firey passion), there should be nothing stopping you from doing so. This means that there's no longer such thing as a 'wasted vote', and if the independent candidates are truly unviable, we'd be no worse off. This would be a huge boon to candidates like Mike Gravel or Ron Paul)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
As in "in the USA everybody can become the President"
Colbert still has a shot, and maybe even for all the cookies (or at least the vice presidential cookies). Draft him as a Unity08 candidate. Better yet, he's said on Larry King that he and Mike Huckabee have practically agreed to be running mates already, so draft Huckabee for the same ticket (candidates can't be from the same political party, and having Colbert coming from the left and Huckabee coming from the right is the sort of balance that Unity08 is looking for).
Okay, yeah, it'll never actually happen, but wouldn't it be great if they at least tried?
I know the media makes him out to be a joke. And a lot of his ideas are DIFFERENT. Whether or not you agree with a lot of his specific policies, his zealous push for Direct Democracy should make anybody take note. Not to mention he ended Nuclear Testing in the North Pacific, Filibustered singlehandedly the end of the draft and, eventually, the Vietnam war. So, I ask you, who in the race has done more to earn the trust and respect of the American people? Obama? Hillary? Giulaini? Thompson? - They have one thing in common: They've done nothing. Ron Paul has earned it. Gravel has earned it. Hell, even Dodd, Biden, and Richardson to lesser and sometimes more humorous extents have earned it. That's the thing though. Americans want celebrities, not leaders. Yes, I'm a Gravel supporter. A huge one. All of us should support his basic platform: people should govern themselves.
Just because he isn't going to be on the Ballot doesn't mean you can't make a statement by voting for him. As a left-leaner in a hugely Blue state, my vote will mean more to Colbert than Hil/Obama/Gore/whoever -
Seriously. He's trying to do what? Poke fun at the electoral college? How?
Look, if you want to poke fun at the electoral college, only run in the five biggest states. Then, when\if you win and force the election into a three way "tie", and make the senate and house pick the president and VP.. then you'll prove that it's a joke.
But running in 1 state? Just one? It's a media stunt. He has no chance of winning the election, electoral college or not.. by just running in one single state.
Shouldn't political parties have to pay their own way in nominating their candidates? Why should my tax dollars go to help them count the votes? In other countries, political parties hold their own conventions at their own expense.
Anyone should shake up the major parties' crusty hold on power.
expandfairuse.org
Jack Johnson: It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates".
John Jackson: Now I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!
Jack Johnson: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.
John Jackson: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!
Colbert has shown a great lack of heroism here. He uses terms like that on his show for effect, but I'm being serious here.
As I think of heroism, the one thing that stands out to me more than any other is that it is unscheduled. It's not just the act. It's not the effect. It's that in almost all cases, it cannot be planned or scheduled. It must be done in the moment, sacrificing not just the obvious things like one's health or life, but the non-obvious things like one's dreams and aspirations, one's day job, etc.
What's frustrating here is that you and I cannot run successfully for president. As a practical matter, no matter what is said, it now requires too much money and energy for most people to just decide their fed up and to run. At least seriously. Some of the people that are called joke candidates are trying, and no matter what is said about it, they are taking the slings and arrows of trying and the potential consequences of not donig othe things. That, in a sense, is heroism, and more than Colbert is showing.
It's not just an irony, it's a tragedy. Look at Bush. Forget that you don't like him. I don't either. But he is enough good that the image makers and the people behind him are able to craft a presidency around him, and as a total collective, they get what they want. Colbert is capable of that. He has the opportunity. He is squandering it because he doesn't want it. But heroism is not about what we want ourselves. It is about what we know must be done at the time it can be done by the person who can do it. Colbert has that opportunity and is squandering it.
Colbert is, alas, no hero.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.
Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism. A publication endorsed by Ron Paul put forth those opinions. Those are the facts. Spin it any way you like, in my book he's a racist.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
In Canada (sorry, not Soviet Russia), we have the Rhinoceros Party for political humour. They have had some fun policies, like bulldozing the Rocky Mountains as a makework project to reduce unemployment, and paying off Canada's national debt by putting it on Visa.
In one election some years back I was so disgusted with the mainstream candidates (I had 4 to choose from) that I voted Rhinoceros. Lots of other people did too, and they came very close to electing an MP.
...laura
I would rather see the election run where, the most votes wins the presidency, the second most wins the vice presidency.
This would allow for independants to have a more realistic chance of getting into office and demonstrating their abilities.
I would much prefer this approach to the all or nothing election system we have now.
...88 years ago when Buck Rogers did it for the real first time. Even Paulson's slogan (If elected, I will win) was a takeoff of Rogers's (If elected, I will resign.)
If you wanna play the game boy, you better learn to play it right.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Guess I don't dare speak out against Ron Paul.
But SOMEONE sure sent me that spam about Ron Paul "eliminating the IRS" and someone put up the little white sign saying exactly the same thing. And it was in the Slashdot Firehose, too...
I guess it could be a smear campaign, but...
Of course they shot him down - he would probably get a ridiculously high joke vote from the disenfranchised; which sure wouldn't make Hillary the star she wants to appear - and show the 20% approval rated Democratic senate have just as much weakness in the public poles as the 25% approval rated Republican president.
The primary season is unusually front loaded this time around, and the candidates that intend to contest all of the early states could be dealt a serious blow by a Colbert candidacy. The comments here speak volumes. Lots of people would vote for him either as a protest or because they think it's funny. Given Colbert's media exposure he'd likely do well. But what will that do to the other candidates?
If you were another candidate, would you risk your limited funds in a primary you're likely to lose or have a poor showing in because of a "joke" candidate? If you're hoping to gain momentum from a South Carolina/southern victory, and the future of your campaign depends on it, is it worth taking the risk? I think the answer would be no for a few of the less recognizable candidates. This would have the potential to reduce the importance of South Carolina's primary as well as distort the succeeding primaries. A week after South Carolina there are primaries in 21 states. Colbert won't be competing in any of them. If the party allowed him onto the ballot they would effectively be saying their primary didn't matter in the big scheme of determining who the overall nominee will be.
BTW, I don't live in South Carolina and I'm not a Democrat (or a Republican). But I think they've done the country a favor this time. I enjoy Colbert's routine on television but that's where he should stay. We should resist the urge to turn the process of selecting our leaders into entertainment.
Anybody can run. He ran. I guess I don't see how this changes things. Anybody can run, but there can be only one President of the United States of America. It is the responsibility of the SC Democratic Party leadership to make sure their state has the greatest possible chance of helping their candidate be elected President. To do otherwise would turn the Democratic Party into a less viable party than the Republicans. Perhaps it would let some other party sneak in there and usurp their place as the other major party in that state.
If you think Colbert had a good enough chance that he should have been put on the ballot, you should register as a Democrat in South Carolina as soon as possible, and work your butt off so you can be on that committee some day.
That's part of the reason I finally registered with a party. I wanted more of a say.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
All you people saying you would vote for him - you do realize he would just insult some foreign leader, who would then nuke us, right?
Whether or not he's a "legitimate" candidate (everyone will interpret legitimacy differently), all it really takes for someone like Colbert to lose a presidential election at this point is for a news story to say that he's ineligible. It doesn't matter so much whether the news story is truthful or based on well-founded points. If people read or watch or hear about a news story that Colbert's campaign was "shot down", the idea that he has no chance to win the election is reinforced in their minds, support for him will wane, and everyone will be even less encouraged to vote for him when the time comes. All it really takes is a news headline. Bummer.
I'd sooner vote for Jon Stewart anyhow.
I caught the Mountain Wumpus! He gave me his treasure chest ($100) to let him go free again.
Hillary - Clinton legacy, woman, a bit of an extremist nutcase, too much into Bush bashing
Obama - too young, black (South won't vote for a black dude), has a name that sounds vaguely like "Osama".
Everyone else on D side of things is too unpopular to gain any traction. R side is also lousy this election. The choice there is between rabid neocon nutcases and slightly less rabid Ron Paul (who's not at all popular).
Colbert could just win this whole thing as the only non-rabid, popular white male in the race. And imagine the debates - he'd just destroy his opponents without even trying hard.
I think they are. When I registered with my party, and when I attended the caucus meeting and county meeting, no one ever asked me anything about race or anything else like that. I think the closest they came was reading the official party policy and informing me that I should not plan on getting any support if I didn't support the party platform.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Colbert, in his own way is an absolute genius. (personally I believe everyone has a genius, but Colbert has both found his, and developed a way to profitably express it).
The denial of his candidacy is a stark reminder of what is really going on with political parties in the USA. It is an old-boys power network, and frankly, Colbert was not playing by their rules. Those rules are (im my opinion) pretty close to these: be rich, be a career politician, suck up to companies, trade favors with those more powerful, be a political insider, lie cheat and steal your way into power -- and, depending on the party, when one meets most of these rules, the current party system will accept you as one of their own, and "allow" you to run.
Why are there 2 private organizations that run how governement works in the USA? That's crap and very few people see it. No one elected the leaders in these groups to decide "the party line", to pressure senators to vote a certain way, to hide emails, and whatever else they do. Why on earth should 13 people in SC get to tell the people of that state if a legal citizen can or can't run for president? Show me where the Constitutional process for how the Rebuplic runs discusses that kind of political power. It is an abomination of the system the US had.
While I don't think Colbert is a serious candidate, his running was deeply meaningful. His rejection highlights the absurdity of the process, and the entrenched position of political parties that control the US and governements.
Or, and much more likely, a large number of people are easily swayed by the media/entertainment sector - which Colbert is a highly visible member of. Equally likely, large number of people are semi-lemmings who will jump on whatever the latest 'net meme is.
Especially considering the 'high level of support' wasn't people actually doing anything except joining Facebook groups etc... (Which leads me to believe the 'net meme' theory is the more likely explanation.)
This is a new low in "journalism".
It's not a bug, it's a feature
He wasn't rejected by any kind of election commission -- he was rejected by the South Carolina Democratic Party, on whose ticket he was trying to run. I happen to love Stephen Colbert and watch almost every night, but if there's a tight race in South Carolina (which there might be given Clinton's general popularity and Edwards' southern appeal), they can't afford to water down the votes in South Carolina by allowing a TV personality to make a statement. If I understand what Colbert is going for, it's a valid statement. But I think the general idea is that too much is at stake this time around, and we need to have definitive votes for real candidates so the Democratic Party can circle the wagons and put a well-supported candidate out there. Again, I happen to really enjoy Stephen Colbert. But what if he skims significant votes from Clinton, Obama, or Edwards in the primary? He will have a fun win in South Carolina, but it will weaken the position of the Democrats nationally. It won't be on the scale of Ralph Nader, but it will give the Republicans a talking point that the Democrats don't want to give them. Colbert made his point, I think, and was not likely to pursue this to the end anyway. I think he meant to make a statement and was not seriously pursuing actually being President. And our current bozo of a president is an example of that very phenomenon.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Although it didn't come up in this story with Stephen Colbert, I believe I can address why the Democrats and Republicans are part of the problem when it comes to American electoral politics: Ralph Nader is currently suing the Democrats for the stunts they pulled to keep him off the ballot when he ran in 2004 as an independent. It's worth your while to learn why Nader is suing and ask yourself if you are better served by having a few corporate candidates to choose from or more candidates spanning the political spectrum of ideas on the ballot. Voters aren't sufficiently outraged to support non-Democrat/non-Republican candidates, choosing to not vote at all most times. But their anger at the process is rising while the two major parties put up what Lawrence O'Donnell calls "virtually indistinguishable candidates" (and, let me assure you, after canvassing for signatures to get someone on the ballot in a local Congressional race, I know there's plenty of anger out there on this issue).
If you want to have a more informed view of the power which the Democrats and Republicans hold and how they use that power to keep candidates off the ballot, I suggest looking into
The real rub in Colbert's rejection is that he was polling higher than some Democrats (according to one brief clip Colbert played on his show last night). Perhaps the Democratic Party wanted to be the group that shut those Democratic Party candidates out, not let some citizen show them up and point out how managed American elections really are.
Digital Citizen
This notion was discussed as recently as Plato and Aristotle. Democracy was thought to be something like a "least worst" form of government, and the best form of government was considered to be an unstable condition, precisely because the Philosopher King didn't want the job.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Vote for Pedro!!!
If you were another candidate, would you risk your limited funds in a primary you're likely to lose or have a poor showing in because of a "joke" candidate?
So, they might lose to a joke candidate. People would pass them over for someone that isn't even serious. What does that imply about the viability of the current candidates?
I think Colbert's run would've been the best possible thing for American politics. The sooner our flawed process becomes obvious to the most thick-headed voter, the sooner we can wrest control back into the hands of the people. Then we can be oppressed by mass stupidity, rather than self-interested greed.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
So does this mean that he will now try to run on the republican ballot?
Or maybe independant.
-David
Do you want to completely abandon the 2-party system?
Yes. It's broken by design. Get rid of party-based systems, and institute some a little more... democratic.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
If edwards or mrs clinton or even obama isn't listening to his statement then how else is he supposed to influence them?
You see, they can either incorporate whatever his statement is or hold a position regarding it. But what you have here isn't a party standing for americans. You have a bunch of good ol boys who don't want to lose out if he is allowed to make that statement.
Here is the thing though, If SC ends up electing the wrong candidate, the rest of the country will work it out. Colbert isn't running in other states. SC's primary isn't the end all deciding factor in the race to see who is going to be the next candidate for president. If the support is there, then it will still be there. It is as simple as that. This isn't about beating a republican or anything of the sorts.
IF it is just about beating a republican, then it is a sign of how fucked the country is. The idea of electing a president or even choosing a presidential candidate is to pick whats best for the country. Not how to beet the republicans. One party over the other isn't best for anything.
There are 55 million people who consider themselves Republicans. I doubt that all of them agree to your colorful characterization of them. I doubt that, were you to provide a voting record of all Republicans, you would see a significant trend that indicates the level of statist Nazism you accuse them of. In short, I'll reiterate your opening salvo, "Insightful my ass." Across the board condemnations and wanton disregard of nuances... well, I guess I AM on an internet message board... still, I had hoped for better.
A thing can be serious and important and still be satirized. It's not mutually exclusive--just because something is satirized doesn't mean that it is itself a joke. There are plenty of very funny satires out there about things like Nazis, racism, sexual assault, prison rape, etc--all very terrible and serious things.
Colbert is a professional entertainer and comedian. Watch his serious interviews (where he is being interviewed, I mean), and he is very upfront about what he's trying to do. He doesn't particularly care about his effect on politics; that's not why he does what he does. He cares about being funny and being entertaining, and has just picked politics as his fodder. So don't get the idea that he is a crusader--he's not and never claimed to be. If the satire is good, he wants it to reflect more on his skill than on the subject matter.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Can anyone tell me why Colbert is not running for the Republican ballot? Seeing as he is apparently running and supporting a far right platform - hell, he even said he's O'Reilly's greatest fan! ;)
Unfortunately that's been the argument each and every election. EVERY election there's just.. too much at stake this time around. There always has been and always will be 'too much at stake' to make the right choice and vote for the candidate you like the most. And that's why things don't change.
Kucinich represents a significant chunk of the Democratic Party's core values base, as opposed to its pragmatic base or its "who's most likely to beat the Republicans" base, and one reason Bush won is that none of the Democrats have been successful at framing themselves as the candidates with principle. Even Al Sharpton managed to do a credible job last time compared to Kerry (in spite of everybody including him understanding that he was totally unelectable.)
Colbert's big threat to the Democrats was that he's more honest than the major players - even Obama has trouble getting to anything better than truthiness - and the difference between Colbert and his TV character emphasizes the problems the real politicians have with that. On the other hand, there are also people who don't get the joke and think Colber's really the right-winger he plays on his show
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Doesn't it mean that the Republican Party of South Carolina makes $35000x(# of people on ballot for primary)-$20000 for filing fee of the candidate selected in the primary?
;)
And the Democratic Party makes $2500x(# of people on ballot for primary)-$20000, which is a loss if there are less than 8 candidates. (There aren't.)
So that means the Democrats are concerned with balancing their budget, and the Republicans are money-grubbing swindlers?
Whether or not he "skims" votes from any of the other Democrats is not an issue. It is a Democratic primary between Democrats, not the general election against Republicans.
All that is at stake is delegates to the Democratic national convention.
A big part of the problem is that there is this perception that there has to be a clear winner -before- the convention. It's winner take all, and no room for any minority voice or consensus building. That defeats the supposed purpose of having a convention. Sort of like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
That was Colbert's stated goal, he wanted to win a delegate to the convention so that he would have a voice at the convention; that the candidate would not just be acclaimed, but would have to negotiate to win the nomination.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Many members of that group have actually said that although they support his campaign they wouldn't actually vote for him. I'm a member of that group and most likely wouldn't have voted for him even if he were on the Virginia ballot. (And you're absolutely right about "college kids" being less likely to vote in general. I was really disappointed by this in the 2004 election. For the record, this 37-year-old "college kid" did vote in that election, as well as every election since then.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Run Colbert, run!
668: Neighbour of the Beast
This is just over-the-top misinformed.
Parties exist because leadership requires supportive followership, and a political party is a solution to that problem. You don't have to affiliate with a party to run for an office at any level. Having an organization behind you multiplies your chances of winning. Are you proposing to abolish organization? That would leave politics the exclusive domain of superrich individuals. If you think it's bad now, you have no idea how bad it could get.
Party leadership is elected. Parties have meetings and caucuses down to the precinct level, and just because you're not informed or involved doesn't mean there is no process behind them, or that the process is closed. In fact, parties tend to welcome anyone who will show up and pitch in to do the grunt work of organizing, soliciting contributions, canvassing, driving people to the polls on election day, et cetera.
No party has the power to keep anyone off the general election ballot for any position. The South Carolina party decision was a party decision, having to do with the party's primary, which will decide the candidate to receive the support of that state's delegates to the national party convention. It's not a vote in the presidential election.
Parties are not required to hold primaries; in fact, in states such as Iowa they do not. Iowa's process involves caucuses at which convention delegates are selected.
I don't think anyone would suggest that processes in either party are consistently above-board or deny that abuses of power happen. But to say, as you do, that "no one elected" party leaders displays a profound ignorance.
And one other thing. The Constitution does not provide for the existence of parties. The Constitution provides for the freedom of assembly, of petition, of expression and other building blocks of personal freedom that allow people to voluntarily organize political movements. It was one such movement that led to the eviction of the British and the establishment of the Constitution in the first place.
Once again we have evidence that the two big political parties are nothing short of the same cliques that most of us hated and detested in high school.
The Democrats (not to be confused with the democrats, small d) are thrilled to have someone like Steve on their side as long as he's not rocking the boat within their party. The second that he tries to cross the line from being the king's jester to trying to be a king he gets smacked down by the same people he supported for years and years. He's good enough to be their goof because he makes them laugh and be brings them free PR but he's not truely one of them. He's simply not a Democrat. He doesn't have the money nor does he do the same goosestep. He's the class clown that all the preps and jocks laughed at yet wasn't good enough to sit at their table during lunch. He has no chance within their exclusive socio-political structure to make any real headway. His role is defined and his attempt to leave that role is what really got him beat down. If he makes further attempts on this he'll find that those who use to laugh at him and praise him for being a stooge are going to be more than willing to feed him to the wolves. They're hoping that they've made their point and that Steve will go back to his old role. Otherwise he'll be doomed.
You see, both of the big political parties have this going on. Either you're a Republican or Democrat or a republican or a democrat. If you're not among their power elite they'll humor you into thinking that you're part of their structure but if you try to advance in their structure without being the power elite you're going to get flogged for being a bad dog and getting out of line. Their affluence and exclusivity are not to be questioned or approached. Especially within the ranks. As outsiders we can scoff but if you're inside there is a consequence for this. Stevie is finding that out. I'd like to think he's smart enough to have already known it. It'll be a dark day for him if he decides to rock the boat more.
The really sad thing is that the lemmings of the Republicans and Democrats are the ones who let this structure exist and regardless of how discontent these people are in their role they refuse to start supporting people who'd be willing to support them. This isn't to say that third parties could not fall into the same ruts but only having two choices makes it easy to stay in power when you're in the rut.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
How much of his material is HIM versus his writing staff? i'm not questioning Colbert's chops. But pointing out that he is part of a team, he has people writing for him. Even stand up comedians have staff that write jokes for them. So how much of what we see is him, vs. the staff?
Would he run as himself or as his character?
If he is elected, i hope he mandates that all game mechanics become open source like d20.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
I guess you all don't like it when I point out inconvenient facts about your fuck the poor, screw the minorities candidate. Too bad he's never going to be elected, eh?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
He still has a chance of getting on the ballot under one of the other, second-tier parties. It doesn't matter if he gets on the ballot anyway. Everyone who wants to express their disgust with the system can write-in Colbert's name when they vote in the general election.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
The benefit would have gone to the democratic party. I really think that the SC democrats made a big mistake by turning him down. Think of how many additional viewers would have tuned in to watch the democratic debates in South Carolina just to see what happens. Think of how many more people would have heard the opinions and values of the democratic party. What would it have cost the democrats? The time that Colbert would have been allotted to speak is all I can think of. I doubt he would have been over the top or disrespectful. He would have been funny during his time to speak and that's it. I really think the democrats missed a good opportunity to get their message heard by more Americans.
I'm an avid Daily Show viewer, but I only watch the Colbert Report occasionally. I agree with one of my ancestor posts that he sometimes talks over his guests and that pisses me off. However, I think his other material is very funny and very valuable. Most people that "hate" Colbert don't understand his humor is all. They tune in expecting to see liberal clarity like what Jon Stewart provides and instead they get well hidden sarcasm preaching crazy conservativism. His show is a satire of Bill O'Reilly, plain and simple.
I saw an interview _of_ Colbert a few weeks after his show started (may have been Larry King) in which King out right asked, "Is this for real? Do you really believe this stuff?" Colbert didn't come right out and say it, but he basically said no. He even said that he doesn't allow his kids to watch his show because some of the things he says and the way he says them are things that he doesn't want his kids to mistakenly believe that their father really believes. Colbert does an excellent job of sharing views that are similar to most conservatives, but a little more warped, which should clue people in that he being satirical.
Take for instance his latest war on Halloween. He says that Halloween should be abolished because it is just a training ground for beggars. He calls Halloween the equivalent of a hobo Christmas. Very funny, in my opinion. But, he is making a bigger statement about the stupidity of some people who read too deeply into childish holiday traditions. Many conservatives despise Halloween because they equate it with the practices of pagan rituals, which must be evil since they don't believe in Christ.
What made Colbert really great in the beginning was that conservatives didn't understand that he was really satirical. They thought that he was just a conservative version of Jon Stewart, so they embraced him. They invited him to dinners and speaking engagements, only to have him do his bit of spouting off their beliefs, but in a twisted enough way that it made it difficult for anyone with a conscience to hold on to. The conservatives eventually wised up...
I think Colbert can be very funny at times. At times, he does go over the top and I want to tell him to STFU. But, for the most part he is very good for the American dialog.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
I hear you, and do agree to some extent. I think Bush 43 is a somewhat unique example, though -- the other 42 presidents, with few exceptions, didn't do as much to change the country. Personally I think it's changed for the worse, and I think it's important to a) start changing things back (as it's going to take a while), and b) present a very united front in this next election. The numbers will pan out okay if Colbert gets a delegate, but I think the image of a serious and united focus is important, too. Not only to take back the country from Bush and his ilk, but to show BOTH sides of Congress once again what the people want. They didn't get it when we elected them, so a little extra firmness in our resolve this time around is all the more important.
I guess what I'm saying in part is that I don't feel this is the election to start experimenting with comedians (by profession, not by nature) running for president. This one needs to feel like a crusade to people, with all the gravity that goes along with that. And once we get the country back and start fixing what's broken, we can start thinking again about better ways of electing people that allow for greater choice (I'm personally a fan of approval voting, but there are plenty of better alternatives to our current electoral system). But we have to take it back first, and a country under Giuliani or Romney (or any Republican, save for perhaps Ron Paul) won't allow for much change.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Preferential voting system: one vote one person and its always counted even if you vote for a third party candidate
"And that solves the mystery of the missing ring" - Bender
It could have generated some good fun for a change.
This has happened on several occasions in other countries - in UK the 'Monster Raving Loony Party' run for election every time, I think, and in Denmark there's somebody that tries it on from time to time. Once, about ten years ago, a Danish comedian got elected to parliament on promising that he would ensure that cyclists would always have the wind in the back and similar. He was not a bad politician either, when it came to that.
I agree in principle with most of Kucinich's major campaign planks-- universal single-payer healthcare, sustainable environmentalism, government transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, the protectionist, isolationist stance that the supposedly 'progressive' wing of the democratic party insists on waving around like a flaming sword is a complete dealbreaker.
I will not support any candidate who is blind to the fact that international trade and our trade policies offer by far the most effective means for promoting social and political change and the welfare of humanity as a whole... and I can't stand candidates who pander to the isolationists and corrupt labor union leadership with simplistic, protectionist demagoguery about 'saving American jobs'.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
Could he run in a third party?
Or heck -- how about a "fourth" party: the Colbert party?
If he can't get on the ballot, could he get a a "mention" via "write-in" candidates?
Sigh. Democans be just as moronic as Republicrats.