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!
... was probably because he would have won. Can't have that big of a threat to the Establishment.
Why should they break with tradition?
I have yet to hear any candidate with a convincing tale that they should be President...have you?
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.
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."
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
... 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 hope for America's sake (and that of the world) that American voters wake up and stop voting Republican or Democrat.
Two sides of the same coin...
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
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....
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.
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.
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
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.
I hardly give Colbert credit for making politics into a joke. It was that long before he made the scene. The fact that a good portion of the MSM couldn't suss out whether Colbert was actually kidding or not for a while (and Rasmussen actually put a damn poll in the field) should be evidence enough.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
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.
...[I care] whether the politician is honest and will support the positions I care about. I will vote for said person... So, you're saying you're not voting anymore?-G
Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
He's an entertainer. Putting the focus on himself is not only his job, but it's part of his act. I mean, four nights a week, he introduces a guest and then steals the applause that would usually welcome that guest. Stealing the stage from the likes of Hillary, Obama, Mit, Fred, Rudy - that's second nature to him.
When a satirist can steal (or come close to stealing) the political process, it says more about the political process than it does about the satirist. He isn't making politics into a joke. He's simply pointing out that it is.
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
I don't see it that way. Voting for Ron Paul in the primaries would actually be a sharp rebuke of the policies of the current administration.
Bullshit! A vote for a candidate in no way endorses past candidates on the ticket they happen to be running on. It's not as if your theoretical vote for Ron Paul would go back in time and cast a vote for Bush, too.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
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.
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!
In this case I think it is Pringles.
Comes up in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy too. The people who most want power are the least qualified to actually have it, or something similar.
While i agree I also perceive Ron Paul to be unelectable- part of the reason for that is the party controlled media is pushing that view. Meanwhile his contributions and polling keep surprising them.
I listened to him on a local talkshow on KSEV and it consisted of...
The hosts ask him a biased question "when did you stop beating your wife type"...
He starts to give a surprisingly straight-forward and honest answer...
They cut him off and accuse him of hating the troops...
He starts into how we shouldn't be covering the oil companies security costs...
They cut him off and start some other angle in a very abusive tone
repeat this for 25 minutes.
After he signs off they basically call him a loon and accuse him of wanting our troops to die a couple more times.
Then invite him to come back on again anytime he wants to "debate" with them.
---
I disagree with at least 40% of Ron Paul's positions. But for god's sake, at least I know where he stands. Almost every other candidate on both sides of the race lie, evade, and have hidden unknown agendas that they will really push for once they get in office (Are huckabee and guilanni really pro-life or pro-choice?... Just how pro-chinese are the Clintons really? Does Thompson really believe much of anything except a couple religious positions? Does Obama really believe much of anything and have the strength to make hard decisions???"
On the other hand, Ron Paul has a long history of principled voting AND working with the rest of congress.
Try to break free of the liberal and conservative media trying to manipulate you into dismissing Ron Paul out of hand.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
So by voting democrat, you'd be insinuating that you didn't want slaves freed, since, you know, a republican was responsible for that one...
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.
Insightful my ass.
The only thing Republicans today have in common with the party of Lincoln is they use the name Republican for their party.
Republicans have replaced slaves with low wage, third world labor.
Republicans have replaced slave owners with corporate bosses.
Republicans have replaced plantations with corporations.
I see no evidence the republicans give a shit about the rights of anyone that bleeds red blood. They are a party that caters to the corporate citizens of the United States.
The republicans have a domestic policy and we saw it in Katrina.
The republicans have a foreign policy and we see it in Iraq.
The republicans have a fiscal policy, and we see it in our debt.
The republican party IS a foreign government.
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.
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.
The stuff in you listed about African Americans, I can see how people would consider that racist. However, the second statement is the truth, and it drives me crazy when people can't tell the difference between a country, "Israel," a political movement "Zionist," and a race/religion "Judaism."
It is likely that the point of that statement about criticism was that whenever people criticize Israel (constructively or not) there are many who automatically cry "anti-semetism," this is used in order to stop discourse or label legitimate criticism as "racism."
Evil may not have been the best choise of words, but without the context who knows what the speaker meant by that; it is exactly this sort of quid pro quo and worse taking place in washington that has corrupted our system to where it is now - plenty of people are suffering because of surversion of the process..
Have you ever looked at the voting record for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Both of these bills did a lot to advance civil rights in America. For the CRA, 80% of Republicans voted yes, and 60-something percent of Democrats voted yes. VRA: R 84%, D 77%. Oh, and check out the region breakdown for the Civil Rights Act. Maybe you won't be so quick to call yourself a Southern Democrat after seeing that, unless you're proud to identify with racists.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#Vote_count
Disclaimer:
I'm not trying to say the Republicans are champions of Civil Rights. Far from it, just look at the Patriot Act. But the Democrats aren't any better. If you want truly equal treatment for all, vote Libertarian.
-metric