Colbert Ballot Bid Shot Down 501
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.'"
Re:Now here's where the hope comes in (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should they break with tradition?
I have yet to hear any candidate with a convincing tale that they should be President...have you?
Mainstream Media Decide WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I hope at least they gave him back his $2500.
Re:The real reason they quashed it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
When Colbert Read the Requirements... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The real reason they quashed it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Now here's where the hope comes in (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
So Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Let Him Run! (Score:3, Insightful)
The Democrats should let Colbert run considering that he does better in polls than many Democrat candidates. From the Washington post:
If they're going to let Richardson be on the ballot, they should let Colbert be on it too!
Re:The real reason they quashed it... (Score:5, Insightful)
More fodder for the master (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:There's Ron Paul (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan can run... (Score:1, Insightful)
Or is it because his campaign is just a thinly disguised advertisement for his show?
HORRIBLE PR move (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:So Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the irony, that's the REASON. The last thing the Democratic party (or any party) wants is someone like Colbert on any podium with their guys. This campaign was a serious threat to the status quo -- not earth shattering stuff, but it would have made people look stupid, shown people to be liars, made people think -- this is not desired by either of our two political parties.
"If I were Colbert, I'd be seeking justice from the courts on this one. Show them just how serious a candidate he is."
We vote for candidates from two parties to run our government, but the parties are NOT the government. He may have far less rights to get those parties to do anything they don't want to than you realize.
Re:Mainstream Media Decide WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are primaries taxpayer funded? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan can run... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now here's where the hope comes in (Score:5, Insightful)
Alternative voting system (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:There's Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:There's Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
And we couldn't have that: the only people allowed to make Democrats look stupid are themselves!
Aborted or not, Colbert's run has been a nice eye opener. Access to a state's Republican ballot costs 14 times more than the Democrats' registration fee? Access to that state's Democratic ballot can be thwarted by less than a dozen people? Colbert has probably done more than anyone to make it clear that the venerated days where all us normal people cast votes are just a small part of the whole election process.
A distortion of the overall results (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
2 things: (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bloomberg/Colbert '08. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it is. Is anything stopping him for running for president? no. Is anyone prevented from voting for him? no. Honestly I don't see how we can blame the democrats for the fact that this country has painted itself into a corner with the "two party system". The fact that the democrats won't let him run is insignificant. The fact that we for some reason think he can't run if he isn't in one of the "two parties" actually is.
Re:The real reason they quashed it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's Ron Paul (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why are primaries taxpayer funded? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they be afraid of that? The worst that happens is that Steven Colbert wins South Carolina, a state that gave its 8 electoral votes to Bush in 2004 with a not-slim margin. Steve's got at least as good a chance as John Kerry, and about ten times the chance Clinton would have in South Carolina. No, the real Democrat presidential candidate wouldn't get the votes, but neither would the Republicans. Let the man play, see what happens.
But then again, he's got huge appeal, and write-in votes nationally might actually dent a national Clinton/Obama run. Maybe that's their worry.
He's the only electable candidate (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
genius (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bloomberg/Colbert '08. (Score:5, Insightful)
He's our generation's Andy Kaufman. If you get him he's a mastermind, and if you don't well, I feel sorry for you.
Re:Colbert bumped (Score:3, Insightful)
In that vein, the bid was always a big stunt for ratings. He has handled this perfectly for that aim. All of the "flubs" about campaign finance just keep his name in the news and keep people watching the show to pick up the latest gossip. Getting bounced from the Democratic ballot just gives him an opportunity to scream mock outrage on TV tonight. Maybe this would be a setback for a politician, but it's perfect for a comedian.
AFAIK, he's still going to be on the Republican ballot, which will give him plenty of opportunities to insert himself into the process going forward. Even if that doesn't work out, he could probably stage a run as an independent.
Re:These quotes appeared in Ron's newsletter (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
Re:Bloomberg/Colbert '08. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HORRIBLE PR move (Score:3, Insightful)
Outside of Paul, the best example of IRV having benefit would be Nader in 2000. A significant portion of people wanted Nader but voted for Gore because they really didn't want Bush to be President.
I do agree that the IRV seems confusing but it has proved successful most notably in Australia. Also, a number of municipalities use it for local elections and a few states are testing out its viability and potential.
Really in the end though IRV is part of a number of reforms and alone won't do a whole lot.
Re:These quotes appeared in Ron's newsletter (Score:2, Insightful)
Read the article for some rational facts, please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real reason they quashed it... (Score:1, Insightful)
Can a person who only has a cellphone for their phone be called for a poll? Not that I know of.
How about someone on the Do Not Call List? I am not sure.
How many people under the age of 40 have a home phone? Is it 70% or has it dropped below 50%?
I only had a landline telephone while using dial-up. Since I switched to broadband back in '02, I have not had a home phone. I have been cellphone only since '03. How many other people out there are cellphone only?
People talk about trying to get young people to vote. However, how many of these young people (under age 30) have a home phone? If they do not have a home phone, and, therefore, cannot be polled, would that not throw the numbers off?
How many of Colbert's audience was polled? I would believe it was very few.
And this also transfers into other candidates viewpoints. They are listed as unelectable due to low polling numbers, but their backers are never polled.
Re:Why are primaries taxpayer funded? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The real reason they quashed it... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't place much stock in polls. I usually answer them as stupidly as possible if I even bother and on exist polls, I give something different as an answer then what I actually voted for. Polls are really a way of telling undecided people what they should do by letting them know what others are going to do. If a poll said that colbert was bigger then Mrs Clinton then the masses would probably just flat out support him unless he does something stupid. But right now the people behind the scenes want you to pay attention to a black guy with little to no experience and a white girl with even less experience.
Re:Colbert or Character? (Score:1, Insightful)
Democrats missed a great opportunity... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:False and misinformed (Score:3, Insightful)
While this is technically true: "No party has the power to keep anyone off the general election ballot for any position." - the obvious reality in the US is that the parties have so much power and are so ingrained in the financial support, the media coverage, and the voting decision process - that they do have the power to control who is elected. Without the support of one of these two parties, being elected is almost impossible for high visibility political positions.
Same applies for this statement: "You don't have to affiliate with a party to run for an office at any level." Technically true, but in practice, on the ground, the way the system works today - actually getting elected absolutely requires playing the game with these two powerful organizations. And this "No party has the power to keep anyone off the general election ballot for any position. " - also technically true, but in practice this is a blatantly misleading assertion. That's like saying "You can get any job you want" or "Anyone can be president"; both technically true, but in practice they are not functional assertions.
This word election: I do not think it means what you think it means. When I use the word "elected" I mean in a government election. There is an INTERNAL selection within these two organizations to select their leadership. This is not an election. This is not democratic as would befit the level of power and influence these people have over the state.
Asserting I'm not informed and ignorant is childish, and a person attack. Not helpful. I'm quite familiar with the system in place, and stand behind my views.
The internal organizational dynamics of these private clubs is not the same as an open, everyone-must-participate system of the state, a government based on laws.
I would go much much farther on characterizing the real nature of these organizations - beyond lack of above-board transparency or abuses of power. Those problems are the obvious ones; everyone who looks can see those. These organizations hold an effective lock on political fundraising in the US. They are, without question the two most powerful private organizations in the country. Their mandates dictate the way that Senators and Representatives vote in the congress. Trying to play this off as a need of the running candidate for "supportive followership" is offensive to me. What exactly does that mean? Funding support, votes? Politician are party of these groups only because they would not get elected any other way.
I don't beget these two organizations their right to exist, raise money, and peddle influence. It is their right. However, that the US has devolved to (effectively) only 2 organizations, and their power combined is so great that they warp the decision process of elected representatives is an unavoidable wrong, and in opinion, a serious problem.