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.'"
... was probably because he would have won. Can't have that big of a threat to the Establishment.
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.
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
Stewart at least serves a valid reality based purpose, that is to make political idiots look ridiculous in public.
The Daily Show gets people interested and in fact cynical of politicians where they otherwise would not have even cared.
I won't however defend colbert, I've seen him bring too many guests on the show with important things to say, only to have him run his mouth and waste time as if its all a joke. It may be mocking political pundits, but his guests are real and were brought on for a reason, and he talks over them like a moron.
Don't be so cynical. I agree what you describe has been the way things have gone in the past, but this 2007, not 2004. RP keeps surprising the main stream media because they don't yet understand that they no longer hold all the keys and control all the gates to news, information and public opinion. Primaries are self selecting. Only 20% of registered voters bother and the ones who do are the ones who actually care about politics. The people who care about politics are exactly the people most likely to do research and find out there's actually a choice this time, that the status quo isn't the only option. RP is very much like a version of Buchanan policy wise with the added bonus that he actually understands economics. Buchanan was polling at 5% when he won the NH primary in '96. RP is at 7.4% with a month or two to go. Once he wins NH in a land slide the rest of the country will realize that he actually *is* electable. He's really got a shot at this.
In "Founding Brothers", the author posits that shortly after the revolution, it was socially expected that leaders should appear not to want/have-wanted the office; Washington and Jefferson both did the [Lucius Quinctius] Cincinnatus "I'm retiring to my beloved farm" thing, and during the Jefferson/Adams presidential race, neither campaigned for themselves, but rather had/let their friends & colleagues do so for them.
-metric