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.'"
Bloomberg/Colbert '08. (Score:5, Funny)
Two-party duopoly? THREAT DOWN!
Re:Bloomberg/Colbert '08. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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:Bloomberg/Colbert '08. (Score:5, Informative)
(A side note: I was a young worker at Warner Qube during a time when Mr. Kaufman was performing semi-regularly there. He was a genuinely interesting man, his talent was significant and worthy of our respect.)
Re:Bloomberg/Colbert '08. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bloomberg/Colbert '08. (Score:5, Insightful)
Settles that... (Score:2, Informative)
I Go Pogo in '08 [igopogo.com]
The real reason they quashed it... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The real reason they quashed it... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, admittedly it had only been a week and a half after he announced his intent to run that his numbers were there. Imagine if he'd had over a year like all the other guys. He'd be at like 120-125% by now.
Re:The real reason they quashed it... (Score:5, Funny)
The best part would be when he got 125% of the popular vote... but still lost in the electoral college.
:-D
Re:The real reason they quashed it... (Score:4, Funny)
If not higher!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I read some
Re:The real reason they quashed it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The real reason they quashed it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its absolutely pathetic when a satirist making a parody of the election process process has more credibility than the average 'legitimate' candidate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The real reason they quashed it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what they mean here is whether his attempt to be added to the ballet was to seriously run for office. That is debatable in Colbert's case, he has more than once made the point that he wasn't seriously trying to get elected although had that been incorrect it is a real pity- I'm sure a lot of people at least would vote for him had he had the chance.
But, but... Can He Dance? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mainstream Media Decide WHAT? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mainstream Media Decide WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bitching that the Democrat Party of South Carolina won't let him run is like bitching that the Moose Lodge won't let him run for Grand Poobah.
Read the article for some rational facts, please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Colbert has said numerous times in the past weeks that he is a serious candidate in South Carolina, and nowhere else. This is probably what doomed him, as the SC Democratic committee bases its decisions in no small part on the National electability of a candidate. You simply cannot win a national election if you only run in one state.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I probably failed 3 times before I started my first company that took off and became successful. If you ask many other business owners, you wil
Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I hope at least they gave him back his $2500.
Re:Democracy? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (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 th
The Democrats do keep people off the ballot. (Score:3, Informative)
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 politi
Re:Interesting level of power they have. (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
We don't necessarily have to abolish political parties. I'm not sure that's even possible in practice. What we do need is a system without the property that only one Democrat and one Republican have any shot at any given political office.
The best suggestion I've heard so far is this: Move to approval voting for the president and senators and to proportional representation for the house of representatives.
Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re:Fear (Score:5, Informative)
well (Score:3, Funny)
If Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan can run... (Score:5, Funny)
Is it because he is just too damn smart and over-qualified?
Todays WØRD: SHAMOCRACY
Man, I suddenly have a hankering for some Doritos.
Re:If Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan can run... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When Colbert Read the Requirements... (Score:4, Insightful)
Please take the hint (Score:5, Interesting)
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!).
How to get on the ballot? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
This was funny... (Score:3, Interesting)
this group will be very unhappy (Score:2)
Pat Paulson (Score:5, Informative)
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....
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? The Democratic (and any other)party is not run by the government. It's not the government's (nor the judicial branch IMHO) job to decide who can and can't run as a candidate for the parties. That's up to them. How do they decide? Check their bylaws. If their bylaws state that candidates must be approved by committee, then they're entitled to do so.
Doesn't mean, however, that he can't run for president on his own.
subject to equal opportunity (Score:3, Informative)
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: (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 ma
Independent (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
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.
In Soviet Russia (Score:3, Informative)
In Canada (sorry, not Soviet Russia), we have the Rhinoceros Party [rhinoparty.com] 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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Colbert bumped (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Colbert bumped (Score:5, Interesting)
I love his show, but I think he has botched this.
I think you are confusing what he was trying to do with what you wish he had been trying to do.
Re: (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
They had no choice but to quash his bid. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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)
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: (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
Why are primaries taxpayer funded? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why are primaries taxpayer funded? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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: (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, b
Welcome back to high school folks. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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?
There's Ron Paul (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There's Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re:There's Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#Vote_count [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are correct on your numbers. I'm a "southern" democrat in terms of my overall political stances (socialist libertarian), not the old hat Southern Democrat (thus the "" in my original post) There was no strong republican party in the South prior to the Civil Rights Act. Afterwards, the 'racist' part of the SDems steadily moved over to the Republican party.
Am I wrong to identify my
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:These quotes appeared in Ron's newsletter (Score:4, Interesting)
-metric
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Re:Now here's where the hope comes in (Score:5, Funny)
-G
A Head in the Polls (Score:3, Funny)
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."
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!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Now here's where the hope comes in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now here's where the hope comes in (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That tells you which party knows anything about financial matters
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nonsense. You're just saying that because no one ever has.