Displaying a staggering lack of sense of humor, the South Carolina Democratic party voted 13-3 to keep Stephen Colbert off the ballot. Their claim was that they were concerned Colbert would make the entire thing come across as a big joke.
Okay…first of all…the Democrats ARE a joke, and I say that as a Democrat. Second, lack of voter turnout in this country is a huge problem. Colbert would have fired up interest in the electoral process. Third, I think their REAL fear was that he would win.
PAD
• 
My thoughts exactly when I first heard about this. Truer words have never been spoken. Or written, in this case. 🙂
I think the slightly more realistic fear is that he could have an effect similar to that of Ralph Nader on the 2000 election, draining away votes that would otherwise go to a deserving candidate.
Peter David: Their claim was that they were concerned Colbert would make the entire thing come across as a big joke.
Luigi Novi: And they figure that’s theyir job, huh?
Peter David: Third, I think their REAL fear was that he would win.
Luigi Novi: LOL! Yeah, they took one look at Man of the Year, thought it would be prescient, and panicked.
The people who would vote for him over a “real” candidate are the people who wouldn’t be voting for those candidates at all. But at least they’d be registered and maybe motivated to vote when the real deal goes down.
“I think the slightly more realistic fear is that he could have an effect similar to that of Ralph Nader on the 2000 election, draining away votes that would otherwise go to a deserving candidate.”
Well, first of all, Nader was a national candidate, wasn’t he? Colbert was just going to be in South Carolina. And second…
…a deserving candidate? You mean the Democrats have one?
PAD
“…a deserving candidate? “
I know I’m younger than some, but this is my 5th presidential election, and I’ve never been more depressed about the choices…
God, when Dan Quail looks good, I’m in trouble.
One the one hand, their opinion is legitimate. He *is* using the political process as a means to advance his own show, not as a serious candidate.
On the other hand, is anyone actually going to watch the 47th Democratic debate? Anyone at all? They would have if Stephen Colbert had been there.
And South Carolina would have gotten tons of extra press. The longer this went on, the more media focus they would have gotten. That *has* to result in tourism, or higher voter turnout for the primaries, or something good.
They’re afraid of looking foolish. Kinda sad when you look at the whole situation.
I miss Pat Paulson.
Dan Quayle looks good???
Dan Quayle doesn’t look better and you know it. That’s just an extremely cheap joke.
The truth is this is the strongest Democratic field in years, these are extremely accomplished men and a woman and we should be so lucky to have any of them sitting in the Oval Office. If our political system was rational and serious, this would be an embarassment of riches. It’s the process that’s screwed up, not the people. But the media process of shallow dissection creates a corrosive cynicism in the electorate, I find it literally depressing.
What I advise you to do is forget the middle man, forget the news and yes, forget the blogs, go straight to the source. Go to Obama’s website, go to Edwards’ website. Look at Dodd’s or Biden’s or even plucky old Kucinich’s. Learn who they are and where they stand.
Then come back and tell me that Dan Quayle looks good.
“…a deserving candidate? “
I know I’m younger than some, but this is my 5th presidential election, and I’ve never been more depressed about the choices…
God, when Dan Quail looks good, I’m in trouble.
It’s South Carolina. What do you expect… common sense? I’m surprised there even is a Democratic wing down there.
I was disappointed he isn’t going to be allowed on the ballot.
Thats a shame. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report have been very friendly towards the democratic party.
“The truth is this is the strongest Democratic field in years, these are extremely accomplished men and a woman”
The 3 Democratic front-runners have a combined total of 16 years in the US Senate (3 for Obama, 7 for Clinton and 6 for Edwards), and for all intents and purposes no major political experience for any of them prior to the Senate. (And no, being First Lady does not count).
A lot of history books talk about JFK as being inexperienced when he ran for President, but his 6 years as a US Representative and 8 years as a US Senator blow away the experience of any of the front-runners this year.
“The Daily Show and the Colbert Report have been very friendly towards the democratic party.”
I suspect it’s more that the Democratic party has been more friendly to those shows than Republicans have. There have been quite a number of DS sequences in the past in which Republicans declined to be interviewed whereas Democrats consented.
As for the fear that he might actually win, well, he is as sincere as most politicians.
Third, I think their REAL fear was that he would win.
PAD
Well, a comedian made it on the ballot eight years ago, and the American people gave him a second term.
Considering how well that worked out, anything that can be done to prevent a reoccurance should be applauded.
–Ed
Oh he’d win.
:::Snacking on a bag of Doritos:::
He’d get a LOT of votes!
I thought it worked out ironically well, considering the imminent WGA strike means that Colbert (among others) will be in reruns for awhile now.
Dan Quayle doesn’t look better and you know it. That’s just an extremely cheap joke.
Actually, I think it says a lot about the country that less than a generation ago, the prospect of Dan Quayle being a heartbeat away from the presidency was unthinkable because he was considered such an intellectual lightweight…and in 2000 we wound up with a president (subsequently reelected) who made Dan Quayle look like Aristotle.
PAD
Third, I think their REAL fear was that he would win.
He’d definitely get plenty of Brewster’s Millions votes. Normally (presuming I were a South Carolina Democrat), I would have voted for Colbert within a heart beat because I haven’t cared for any of the candidates thus far in my Presidential voting career (1996+). However, this year, I think that the Democrats have quite a few good/strong choices.
For those who care, over on the Democratic side I like Barrack Obama, and over on the Republican side I like Ron Paul. Since I’m not registered with either party, I’m really hoping that one of these two candidates makes it in to the main race.
PAD: Second, lack of voter turnout in this country is a huge problem.
Personally, I like Australia’s ploy of voting is MANDATORY, or you face penalties. My inlaws, I’m ashamed to say, have never voted in their lives.
Too bad MANDATORY voting is a waste if people don’t do the research and actually study up on the candidates before they cast their forced votes…
It makes my fellow left-of-center friends cringe when I say it but personally I’m DELIGHTED when people who don’t care stay the hëll home on election day. If I could strike the motor voter stuff from the law I would – if finding ONE afternoon to get to the mall to register to vote is too much of a challenge for you then I’ve got no faith in your making a remotely intelligent choice. Don’t care? That’s fine with me – those of us with some motivation will decide the direction things will go.
Now the length of time the polls are open, on the other hand, strikes me as a fight worth having. The idea that we’re going to cram all that voting into a 14 hour period, most of which is during a working day, is insanity. It makes for crowds, lines, staffing problems and god knows what other issues. All for what? The most compelling reason anyone has ever conveyed to me is so we don’t have to wait a long time for a decision. Oh boo hoo – Grod forbid we have to wait a week to know who won’t be taking office for another two months!
Well, no need to worry. He said he was running as both a Democrat and a Republican. Of course, if the Democrats won’t let him in…
To paraphrase Monty Python, who were speaking about Nixon and a new @$$hole,
“The Democratic Party has had a spine implant!”
“Oh yeah?”
“Yeah, the spine’s rejected them!”
“Well, no need to worry. He said he was running as both a Democrat and a Republican. Of course, if the Democrats won’t let him in…”
The problem, from what I understand, is that if Colbert spends more than $5000 on the campaign, he’s subject to all sorts of campaign finance laws. And to be put on the ballot as a Republican, the fee–as opposed to the $2500 from the Dems–is $35,000. So the fee alone puts him over the limit that he can spend.
PAD
Well, he can always run as an independant in the general election.
>…a deserving candidate? You mean the Democrats have one?
Once again, the similarity between the Dems and our Canadian Liberals is striking. When offered a star candidate, Ken Dryden, they instead picked a lifeless, baggage-laden non-entity (Stephane Dion) who shows no leadership ability whatsoever, and has no hope in hëll of getting elected. I, too would have loved to see Colbert be allowed to run. Maybe the Republicans will have more sense?
P.S. Those who remember Dryden only as the Stanley Cup winning hockey goalie may not be aware he obtained Bachelor of Arts degree in history at Cornell University and a degree in Law at McGill University, not to mention wrote books on hockey (big surprise) but also education. So he’s not just some jock. He’s also the only hockey player ever to win Most Valuable Player in the playoffs … the year before winning Rookie of the Year.
This is extremely disapponting, since, frankly, Colbert was the only candidate I liked. He would LITERALLY have gotten my vote.
I don’t trust in the candidates, nor have faith that they can do any good. There’s nobody worth voting for EXCEPT Colbert.
It won’t make much difference whether he’s on the ballot or not, but the idea that the party can just decide to not accept him if he has abided by all of the rules to get on the ballot is bad.
But then again, this is the Democrat party. They know what’s best for everyone and are going to cram it down your throats whether you like it or not.
Actually, in many ways, both parties do this, just for different reasons. (and this is just a general statement; there are plenty of exceptions in both parties) The Republicans generally try to enforce a certain moral agenda, while the Democrats just think that no one can take care of themselves, only the government can do that.
Although I consider myself a Republican, I don’t really like either approach. And this is coming from someone who from birth has attended church, consider myself a Christian, have been a part of the Baptist and Presbyterian churches, and is currently married to a Presbyterian minister.
And not to make this too much of a campaign ad, but this is the reason I am backing Fred Thompson. He is the candidate that is most likely to keep Washington out of anything that is not their business.
Whatever happens, I just don’t want another 4 (or more) years of a Clinton in the White House. And it has nothing to do with any scandals or personal issues. It simply because the Clintons care about the Clintons, first and foremost. Whatever gives them the most power is what they believe in. They would not go out of their way to hurt anyone, they are not evil, they would not intentionally try to destroy their own party or country–but if a situation arose that would benefit THEM at the expense of anyone else, they would most likely take that path.
In the end, no matter what happens, at least we can all be grateful to live in America. No matter who is in office, it’s still the greatest country in the world.
Don – I concur. There’s occasionally talk here of having mandatory voting and I’m vehemently opposed for two reasons.
First, people say it’s an insult to veterans died or were wounded so we’d have the right to vote if we don’t. Uh, wrong. They fought such that we live in a free democracy, and that includes the right to decide whether we can be bothered to waste time voting once again for the least of the evils (I always do, but it’s because *I* choose to do so, not because the govt *forces* me to).
Second, when one considers the godawful election results we’ve had in the past couple of decades, do we *really* want the ignorant, ill-informed masses being forced to decide who’s going to get us out of the messes we’ve already made for ourselves? I wouldn’t ban them from voting, however tempting it may be, but I’m certainly not going to complain if they decide to stay home rather than putting an “X” at random on the ballot.
StarWolf:
(1) is irrelevant, and can simply be taken care of with a “None of the Above” box.
(2), OTOH…
Had Hillary Clinton been the kind of First Lady who spent her time, in her own phrasing, “baked cookies and had teas”, I might agree, but by all accounts she played a major role as one of her husband’s closest informal policy advisors, to say nothing of the very successful law career she had (she helped prosecute the Watergate hearings when she was in her twenties)
As for Obama, for example, he followed his extraordinary academic career with about ten years as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. I happen to know some people with that job title and they’re amazing. What they do is they help the poorest, most voiceless people in a big city find their voice. Obama spent close to fifteen years (interrupted by his Harvard law school stint) fighting for better conditions in schools and public housing, I happen to think that’s better training for just about any job than decades of power lunches with lobbyists. He also was a major activist in the Illinois Democratic party in 1992, helping Bill Clinton carry the state (Bush I won it four years earlier)
Then he was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, he was there for eight years where he authored major bills on health care and death penalty reform to name just a couple of issues. And he’s been in the U.S. Senate since then.
As Obama himself is fond of saying, Ðìçk Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had decades of experience in the DC establishment and it didn’t work out too well.
Obviously Barack’s my guy but I could tell you similarly impressive things about every candidate in the Democratic field. This is a great group of leaders, any one of whom would be an exponential improvement on our current leadership.
“The truth is this is the strongest Democratic field in years, these are extremely accomplished men and a woman”
The 3 Democratic front-runners have a combined total of 16 years in the US Senate (3 for Obama, 7 for Clinton and 6 for Edwards), and for all intents and purposes no major political experience for any of them prior to the Senate. (And no, being First Lady does not count).
Somebody – I’d agree … IF there was such a thing as a valid “None Of The Above” choice on the ballot. But there isn’t. I’m not aware of ANY place which has that option. Oh, one can always spoil/decline, but it really doesn’t do much because if everybody but one votes that way, the one vote still carries the day.
If anyone thinks Colbert wouldn’t win, remeber that the Terminator got elected the governor of the state with the largest # of electoral votes. (Of course, that was a very strange bunch of candidates they had; I woulda gotten a kick out of pørņ star Mary Carey winning.)
The question with Colbert is: Can someone spend the money and time to run if it is a joke? He’s be the first person (when not in his “Report” personae) to say this is indended as a joke and he has no aim to be the next president. But is a non-serious intent grounds for refusing a candidate? Anyone with legal knowledge on this, post away!
The StarWolf: “IF there was such a thing as a valid “None Of The Above” choice on the ballot. But there isn’t. I’m not aware of ANY place which has that option.”
Not in those words, no. But there are any number of ballots that have a space for a write-in candidate. I know a guy who says that he has voted for Bill the Cat at least three times (wish I had thought of that) and several others who have written “None Of The Above” in that spot several times over the years.
“If anyone thinks Colbert wouldn’t win, remeber that the Terminator got elected the governor of the state with the largest # of electoral votes.”
Arnold did that by spending tons and tons of campaign money. Colbert can only spend $5000, and his best case scenario was to only be on the ballot in one state. Colbert and everyone on his show knew they were going to have to stop at some point, it was just a question of how long they could keep it up.
Personally, I’m wondering what the plan was if he had gotten on the ballot. The show is shut down at the moment because of the writers strike, so they can’t send him all over South Carolina campaigning and say that it’s for segments for the show. Would Colbert have spent the time off the air driving around South Carolina shaking hands?
I had to laugh at the comment that allowing Colbert on the docket would make a mockery of the democratic process. I think the American electoral process as it exists today pretty much makes a mockery of democracy. Heck, if the Dems really valued democracy that much, they’d have not only allowed him on the ballot, they’d have made a Super Big Deal about it. They could have used it to prove that the Dems really are about working for the people, rather than playing patriarch.
What this really amounts to is further proof that the Dems are no better than the GOP. Both are an elitist club that makes the rules such that they can thwart the attempts of any who might broach their little treeclubhouse.
What I’d really like to see is a electorate referrendum to get Colbert placed back on the ballot. Or a heavy write-in campaign. It’s too bad the WGA strike will deprive Colbert of his main platform.
Although I’d not be surprised to find some candidate in the next few years hit upon the idea that having a weekyl or daily talk/news show would be a fantastic way of campaigning.
You know, people talk about how nobody on the Democratic party has much experiance, especially Obama and Hilary, BUT look at Bush and Cheeney. They had/have experiance and look what they have done for this country (aka not much, expect start a War). Its not always about experiance people.
In fact, I think that we need a President who is NEW at the job. Someone with a fresh prespective. Obama, IMO, looks like the best bet so far.
Time will tell.
DF2506
Posted by UmberGryphon at November 2, 2007 01:47 AM
“The 3 Democratic front-runners have a combined total of 16 years in the US Senate (3 for Obama, 7 for Clinton and 6 for Edwards),…”
———-
And Bush had none. He was governor of Texas for 6 years. Before that, he was a failure at everything he had ever done.
Jon ( the Presbyterian) said:
“And not to make this too much of a campaign ad, but this is the reason I am backing Fred Thompson. He is the candidate that is most likely to keep Washington out of anything that is not their business.”
==========
Right. Thompson is just more of the same old, same old Republicanism. “Rob from the country and give to the rich. Corporations are the real God.”
For the last decade or so, corporations have been running this country. All the tax laws are changed to benefit the rich and the corporations. Food safety has gone out the window. Toy safety is gone. Personal freedoms are being limited.
The main purposes of the federal government should be to protect the people and to make sure that all people have the same rights and freedoms. Republicans can’t or won’t do that.
There is a cancer in this country; a Republicancer.
—–
Colbert would be a far better president than any Republican candidate.
“Although I’d not be surprised to find some candidate in the next few years hit upon the idea that having a weekyl or daily talk/news show would be a fantastic way of campaigning.”
That’s actually not legal. Significant candidates (those that are spending more than $5000 on their campaigns) have to deal with equal time laws. A network can’t give them their own show unless they devote an equal amount of time to each of the other candidates.
This has actually been a big deal with Fred Thompson and all his Law and Order reruns.
Does equal time require equal time to each other candidate? Or does it merely require an allowance for the opposing side to have a say?
And are those even requirements any more? I’d heard that they were repealed or allowed to expire, and that Congress was looking at reinstating them.
Equal time means an equal amount of time to any candidate who requests it, down to the minute.
Giving a half hour a night to a candidate that he isn’t paying for is a gigantic campaign contribution. That would be a big, big corporate sponsorship. These laws are definitely still in effect.
Equal time means an equal amount of time to any candidate who requests it, down to the minute.
Giving a half hour a night to a candidate that he isn’t paying for is a gigantic campaign contribution. That would be a big, big corporate sponsorship. These laws are definitely still in effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_time
They’re worried he might turn it into joke? As opposed to what? The certain joke it already is?
On a slight tangent, apparently W found out he’s been a Buhddist all along. The Dala Lama told him
the first steps were to empty his mind and be free of all thought….
Sorry…
Discuss among yourselves.
Manny
the first steps were to empty his mind and be free of all thought….
Sorry…
Discuss among yourselves.>>
Talk about getting stuck in first gear,…
John Edwards. Smart enough to be president, easily; quite possibly the least privelidged of all the candidates growing up; humble enough to admit that voting for the war in Iraq was a big mistake.
Obama wants to chat, not lead. Hillary might as well be a republican. Kucinich sees UFOs. Dodd will make a great VP. Richardson is too conservative. Biden is too… Biden. Gravel is whacko. The Republicans aren’t worth considering.
The StarWolf:
“IF there was such a thing as a valid “None Of The Above” choice on the ballot. But there isn’t. I’m not aware of ANY place which has that option.”
To which Jerry Chandler replied:
“Not in those words, no. But there are any number of ballots that have a space for a write-in candidate. I know a guy who says that he has voted for Bill the Cat at least three times (wish I had thought of that) and several others who have written “None Of The Above” in that spot several times over the years.”
I think what The Starwolf is stating, and this may simply be my own interpretation here, is that there is no option to vote “No Confidence.” And even if there were such an option, would it be considered seriously by the two major parties or the media?
How often do we see poll results from a target group that has no confidence in the electoral process or in those who claim to represent us? I’m not talking about the wingnuts on the far outer fringe. I’m refering to people who have concerns that make sense like what Don posted:
“Now the length of time the polls are open, on the other hand, strikes me as a fight worth having. The idea that we’re going to cram all that voting into a 14 hour period, most of which is during a working day, is insanity. It makes for crowds, lines, staffing problems and god knows what other issues. All for what? The most compelling reason anyone has ever conveyed to me is so we don’t have to wait a long time for a decision. Oh boo hoo – Grod forbid we have to wait a week to know who won’t be taking office for another two months!”
That’s a good summation of a particular problem with the process.
Others have stated that neither group, Republicans or Democrats, have good candidates to offer. It has been called a choice between the lesser of two evils, which I now call a choice between Tweedle-Dip and Tweedle-Shìŧ. I find this to be the case too often, so I cannot vote for either because voting for the sake of voting just seems wrong to me. It’s like rewarding poor behavior. And that is just pre-elction. Then to vote for someone only to find that I have been duped… It gives me concern that there is not much in the way of a grading system in place to measure the fiction of the campaign vs. the fact of the time in office.
I believe that the ‘Fact Vs. Fiction’ research is largely my responsibilty as a voter, but it would make the process much easier for the average person to keep up with if there were a single, easily accessible resource to tap.
Is this the “voter apathy” we keep hearing about? I love how that phrase has been able to marginalize people with real concerns.
I wonder if the lack of voter turn-outis more indicative of people being lazy, or people whose confidence has been diminished by each subsequent election.
I’m disappointed Stephen won’t be there, but I can kind of understand the Dems’ reasoning. He’d make the debate a lot more entertaining, sure, but if he were in character for the entire thing, how would it go? Would he be a distraction to the candidates? Would he throw them off their game?
If he criticized, say, Edwards, but didn’t really mean it and Edwards responded with some kind of joke, would it be taken the wrong way and blown out of proportion, making it seem as though he meant something he didn’t? Honestly, in his “Better Know A District” interviews with Eleanor Holmes Norton, I’ve never been entirely sure when Norton has been genuinely annoyed or angry with him and when she’s just pretending.
Seeing how the candidates responded to whatever Stephen would have said to them would have been a good test of how well they can think on their feet, but it also could’ve made them look bad, and I guess they didn’t want to risk that.
Posted by: Chris Grillo at November 2, 2007 09:08 AM
For those who care, over on the Democratic side I like Barrack Obama, and over on the Republican side I like Ron Paul.
Oh yeah, an Obama vs. Paul election would be great. The only issue on which I disagree with Paul is abortion, and even there I can understand his point of view. But it ain’t happening. 🙁
Posted by: Peter David at November 2, 2007 08:55 AM
Actually, I think it says a lot about the country that less than a generation ago, the prospect of Dan Quayle being a heartbeat away from the presidency was unthinkable because he was considered such an intellectual lightweight…and in 2000 we wound up with a president (subsequently reelected) who made Dan Quayle look like Aristotle.
Some dialogue from one strip of “The Boondocks” bears re-posting at this time (does this count as fair use, legal professionals?)
HUEY: Speaking of stupid, you know who’s got to be really mad about Bush being President?
CAESAR: You mean Gore?
HUEY: No, no. I mean really mad.
CAESAR: Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton?
HUEY: Nope. Madder than that.
CAESAR: Who?
HUEY: Dan Quayle.
CAESAR: Ahh, yes. Intellectually, a man way ahead of his time.
Posted by Susan O. at November 2, 2007 09:36 AM
Personally, I like Australia’s ploy of voting is MANDATORY, or you face penalties. My inlaws, I’m ashamed to say, have never voted in their lives.
Right, but here’s the thing. What if you got them to get off their áššëš and vote…and they decided that Giuliani looked good to them? What if they’d voted for Bush/Cheney in the last couple of elections.
There was one election where I didn’t vote because basically I was unwilling to lift a finger to help either candidate, let alone lift a pen and a ballot.
Posted by Bladestar at November 2, 2007 09:46 AM
Too bad MANDATORY voting is a waste if people don’t do the research and actually study up on the candidates before they cast their forced votes…
Hear hear!
But then again, this is the Democrat party.
I am really sick of hearing that Rovian moniker repeated over and over. It’s those kinds of nasty little jabs (and other, less subtle, tactics) that firmly cemented my support for the Democratic Party. I wasn’t going to vote for a bully, or a guy who sent bullies like Cheney, Zell Miller, and the Swift Boat guys to do his dirty work.
Your boy Thompson isn’t above mocking his opponents either, as you can see here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTQzYWY1MGM5NTkyZTM2YWVlMDMzMDlhMzQwNThhNDU=
He also isn’t above childish namecalling as you can see here (the “loony left” comment):
http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/fred-thompson-on-harry-reid%E2%80%99s-attacks-on-rush-limbaugh/
Or calling the Democrats cowards as you can see here (the “white flag” comment):
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/21/326698.aspx
Or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdAm6UY4xOE
Thanks, but no thanks. A guy who conducts himself that way will not be getting my vote.