Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Colbert Ballot Bid Shot Down

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the can't-make-a-dishonest-living-no-more dept.

Television 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.'"

cancel ×

501 comments

Bloomberg/Colbert '08. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21202687)

Bloomberg's money. Colbert's debating skills.

Two-party duopoly? THREAT DOWN!

Re:Bloomberg/Colbert '08. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21203327)

You know what's funny? No, you don't. Colbert, like Jon Stewert, is just repeating the same old shit night after night. Then again, "Microsoft Sucks" has garnered your attention for 10 years so what the hey?

Now here's where the hope comes in (0, Offtopic)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202693)

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."

Re:Now here's where the hope comes in (3, Insightful)

Epi-man (59145) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202747)

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."


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 (2, Interesting)

paladinwannabe2 (889776) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202807)

Ron Paul has convincing tale... but then, he isn't running as a Democrat.

Re:There's Ron Paul (1, Informative)

Tofystedeth (1076755) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203205)

He's also quite the racist, but let's not let that get in the way.

Re:There's Ron Paul (0, Flamebait)

Tsiangkun (746511) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203229)

And no matter how anti-war, and libertarian he may be, he is running on the republican ticket. A vote for a republican is an endorsement of the policies of this administration.

Fuck That !

Ron Paul suffers from his alignment more than from his voting record.
I want nothing to do with another republican in the whitehouse.

Re:There's Ron Paul (2, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203279)

I like Ron Paul too, but lets face it, he is unelectable. It is an unfortunate truth that the politician with the best or even good ideas is rarely elected solely or even mostly on the merits of those ideas, but rather what the public thinks of his podium speaking skills, packaged sound bites (carefully packaged so that the "average" voter draws the "correct" conclusions from them), and physical appearance (i.e. nice suit + seven (7) fold silk tie, sharp facial features, and $400.00 plus hair cut...preferably done while idling the jet on the tarmac). The debates are more like political Kabuki [wikipedia.org] theater organized for the party faithful then genuine debates. The questions are sometimes alright, but for the most part the candidates retreat to their sound bites or dodge the questions, or else the questions are soft peddled or pre-screened from a pool submitted by the public (so there are no surprises) by the "moderators" making the "debates" a fairly meaningless exercise.

Re:Now here's where the hope comes in (3, Insightful)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202911)

I just hope for the Democrats' sake...

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 (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203019)

I don't care about Republican or Democrat, just whether the politician is honest and will support the positions I care about. I will vote for said person, regardless of what party he or she is.

And by support, I don't mean saying that they will support it. I mean by actions. Talk is cheap.

Re:Now here's where the hope comes in (5, Funny)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203197)

...[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

Re:Now here's where the hope comes in (1)

The Iso (1088207) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203269)

The problem with this is that no one is qualified to be president.

Pfft. He should start own party. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21202699)

Democrapublicans./zergrush.jpg

Soup to Nuts (1)

AssCork (769414) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202715)

I like soup on my nuts is basically what I am getting at.

Re:Soup to Nuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21202771)

rattle rattle rattle.

Settles that... (2, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202721)

I Go Pogo in '08 [igopogo.com]

The real reason they quashed it... (4, Interesting)

sexybomber (740588) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202723)

... was probably because he would have won. Can't have that big of a threat to the Establishment.

Re:The real reason they quashed it... (3, Insightful)

Toandeaf (1014715) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202769)

How the flipping hell was he a threat? Its not like Comedy Central isn't a part of "the Evil Corporations".

Re:The real reason they quashed it... (1, Redundant)

kalirion (728907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203063)

You do know Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, right?

Re:The real reason they quashed it... (1)

dnormant (806535) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203143)

I would have re-registered and voted for him in the primaries!

Re:The real reason they quashed it... (1)

Deadbolt (102078) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202813)

Be serious. He was polling 2.3%, which put him ahead of jokes like Kucinich and Gravel (and serious candidates like Dodd) but far behind Obama and Edwards.

Re:The real reason they quashed it... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203027)

Two words. Maybe one, depends on how you look at it...

Write-in.

Re:The real reason they quashed it... (5, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203089)

He was polling 2.3%, which put him ahead of jokes like Kucinich and Gravel (and serious candidates like Dodd) but far behind Obama and Edwards.

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... (4, Insightful)

tilandal (1004811) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202897)

No, the reason they rejected him is because he was not trying to be a legitimate candidate.

real reason they quashed it: he was #5 (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202933)

See this article: number 5 [nypost.com]

Re:The real reason they quashed it... (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203003)

I love how everyone who supports candidates who are massively backed by corporations and special interests (which is the only kind of viable candidate) are attacking him for being "backed" by a corporation. I mean . . . seriously. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Re:The real reason they quashed it... (1)

badasscat (563442) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203325)

So in your world, two wrongs make a right?

We should be throwing all of these bums out, not legitimizing their corporate ties. A vote for Colbert is a vote in favor of corporate sponsorship of our government. What sort of example does that set?

Mainstream Media Decide WHAT? (5, Insightful)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202755)

Using criteria such as whether the candidate was recognized in the national news media

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:Mainstream Media Decide WHAT? (1)

HumanSockPuppet (1120535) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202803)

They already do. This is the function that polls serve.

I'll still vote for him... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21202917)

My vote isn't going to count for anything, anyhow. Especially in this state.

So I'm going to put him down as a write-in if I have to. I don't care if he's not on the ballot, I don't have anyone better to vote for.

Even Ron Paul is apparently reduced to spamming, so...

Re:Mainstream Media Decide WHAT? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202921)

Using criteria such as whether the candidate was recognized in the national news media as a legitimate candidate
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.

Re:Mainstream Media Decide WHAT? (1)

physicsboy500 (645835) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203285)

I'm going to have to agree, His legitimacy wasn't determined on whether the news outlets "like him or not" as some are touting, but instead if he intends to make a legitimate bid for president. So far he has (in a nutshell) made fun of election laws and promoted his book (which is also his satirical "platform").

While he may have done some good by bringing humor into the picture and raised voting levels a bit if he had been given allowance to run, It won't change the fact that he's doing the whole thing as a joke.

Re:Mainstream Media Decide WHAT? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202935)

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?
It's the simplest way to determine if a candidate has national recognition... how else do you expect someone to get known across the country?

You think they can hit up thousands of regional tv stations or newspapers? Why does anyone bother to vote at all? It would be faster to just let the media companies nominate our public officials directly. If Colbert can pull together 10,000 signatures, he can get on the ballot... which somewhat negates your point about the national media.

Long story short for South Carolina:
3,000 signatures/$2,500 + National Recognition
OR
10,000 signatures

Re:Mainstream Media Decide WHAT? (1)

DrunkBastard (652218) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202987)

Politicians elect politicians....just how it is, and so very sad. If you are not perceived to be a valid politician by your "peers" then that's that.

Too many people get elected because they know to grease the right palms, not because of valid skills or true elections.

Re:Mainstream Media Decide WHAT? (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203225)

That's any sort of elite, not just politicians. For example, it's a lot easier to get into a good grad. school if your professors know someone there. Likewise for corporate "networking" and jobs.

Democracy? (5, Insightful)

KC1P (907742) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202761)

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.

Re:Democracy? (4, Informative)

bouchecl (1001775) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202811)

Well I hope at least they gave him back his $2500.
They will, according to this story [google.com]

Re:Democracy? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202929)

Exactly! This is exactly what I mean when I tell people that the parties already narrow down who we can vote for.

The next time some knothead tells me that anybody can run, I'll point him to this story.

Sure, you can still run as a third-party candidate, but those don't get media attention and hence, few votes and no chance to win.

Interesting level of power they have. (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202979)

Wonder who their biggest influences are.
 

Re:Democracy? (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203041)

I am pretty sure that the state executive committee members are elected to hold those positions.

Fear (4, Insightful)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202785)

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.

Re:Fear (1)

Borealis (84417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202845)

You took the words out of my mouth... or you were just faster to post. He so would have kicked their asses.

well (3, Funny)

SheepLauncher (1025544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202841)

And thats The Word...

If Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan can run... (5, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202843)

...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.

Re:If Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan can run... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21202965)

>Todays WØRD: SHAMOCRACY

I prefer DEMOCKRACY

Get Over Yourself. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21203119)

It's not a real campaign.

Please get out of the house more.

Re:If Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan can run... (4, Informative)

jtroutman (121577) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203189)

It's fairly simple, digitaldc. The Democrats have requirements for candidates. One of those requirements is that the candidate's campaign be "viable". Since Colbert was only running in one state, his campaign was deemed to not be viable.

Re:If Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan can run... (1, Insightful)

s20451 (410424) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203301)

Is it because he is just too damn smart and over-qualified?

Or is it because his campaign is just a thinly disguised advertisement for his show?

Shot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21203331)

Who is Colbert Ballot Bid, and why was he shot?

What? (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202851)

You mean he really did apply? Paid the fee and everything? I thought he was just saying he was running, as a joke.

(Oblig:) You know, like Mike Gravel.

- RG>

Re:What? (1)

cblack (4342) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203035)

Yes, he filled out the forms and paid the fee. He even stated one reason he was running as a democrat was because the republican fee was more costly.

Write in! Draft Colbert! (1)

n9891q (863780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202871)

It's the only choice left.

When Colbert Read the Requirements... (4, Insightful)

AdmNaismith (937672) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202881)

... 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.

Re:When Colbert Read the Requirements... (1)

s20451 (410424) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203247)

So you're saying that the Democratic party executive should not be allowed to set the requirements to get on the ballot in the Democratic party primary?

Re:When Colbert Read the Requirements... (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203315)

Fortunately, not all states have such a silly requirement. In Wisconsin, all you have to do is write a party on your application to run for office. It doesn't have to be a legitimate party and you don't have to be a member of that party.

Don't try to extrapolate a Southern state's arcane requirements to every part of the country.

Please take the hint (4, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202883)

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!).

Re:Please take the hint (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202961)

How broad was his support? I haven't seen any evidence that he had support from anyone but Colbert Report viewers. Now that may seem like a lot of people, but I don't think that amount compromises a significant percentage of the voting public.

On an off note, my college also had a student government won by a cartoon character. The artist ran his comic character as a protest against what was seen as a worthless student government body. The common opinion was that it existed only to give a small group a chance to "play politics" and pad their resumes. Well, the character won, but was disqualified later, because they went back and counted all the comic strips the character appeared in as "advertising," then claimed that the character went over his budget.

Re:Please take the hint (1)

Kynmore (861364) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203261)

Wasnt't there a link further up that said he had 2% in the national polls and that had in him in a tie for 5th place for the Dems? 2% of American Democrats. If that's just is viewership, a whole lot of people watch his show.

Kodos laughed (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203091)

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.
So? Only the two parties can get on the ballot. What, exactly, should they have to worry about?

How to get on the ballot? (2, Interesting)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202887)

I think this is fascinating, and I hope Colbert continues to see how far he can go. It's great that he is testing our democratic process, and bringing in his fans into how the system works.

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?

A la Ralph Nader? (1)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202975)

I think this is fascinating, and I hope Colbert continues to see how far he can go.

He won't go far. A LOT of folks liked Nader, but he was kept out of the debates and marginalized by the Dems and Reps.

What ever happened to his lawsuit regarding that?

Re:How to get on the ballot? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203009)

He still wouldn't be elected, but he might get a lot of votes as Perot did, since he's a Big Name, at least to some people.

To start your own party and get it on the ballot, IIRC you need tens of thousands of signatures in the state, and then someone has to vet it, which means you could be denied even if you got the signatures legitimately.

The Democans in SC (and the national parties,too) would probably crap all over his attempt to start up a new party & get on the ballot anyway.

This was funny... (2, Interesting)

Rombuu (22914) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202893)

...40 years ago when Pat Paulson did it the first time.

Re:This was funny... (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203103)

The point of satire is not the satire itself, but rather the environment in which the satire occurs. While many of the same issues and corruptions exist as did 40 years ago, we as a nation are very definitely in a different state than we were then. That is to say, the context has changed significantly enough.

Additionally, while satire may cause laughter, when done properly that laughter is uncomfortable. Satire is not meant to amuse, but rather to disturb. You're supposed to say to yourself, "Ha ha! That's so funny, because it's so true. Oh my god, it's so true."

-G

Re:This was funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21203147)

don't be a douche. Or maybe you're just so old that you remember the last time it was done... whatever the case it is not only funny but educational. If it will open the eyes of just a few people to how our democratic system is not perfect, then it is probably more profound than what the moron that gets elected will do.

this group will be very unhappy (2)

davebarnes (158106) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202895)

Re:this group will be very unhappy (1)

Cervantes (612861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202989)

Yeah.... 1.3 million people sign up in less than a month... but he's not a notable candidate?

I thought you Americans decided against that whole Aristocracy thing? Remember, democracy and all that jazz? How'd that go for you?

I think they were just afraid that he would he would make all the candidates look really dumb at the next debate. And also that he'd siphon votes from whoever it is that they've decided they want to win.

Re:this group will be very unhappy (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203115)

How many of those 1.3 million are individual United States citizens that are eligible to vote?

Regardless, here, the media and the powers to be decides who runs. If you don't play the political games that have been laid down, then you don't get a shot. Sad but true, because those games, in my eyes, seem to be a fast track to corruption.

Pat Paulson (5, Informative)

bobdehnhardt (18286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202939)

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....

Good... (0)

hrieke (126185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202947)

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.

Re:Good... (4, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203085)

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.

Obligatory fill in the blank (1)

Ssbe (614884) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203177)

1) Since when has American _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ not been a joke?

In case you can't figure it out:

scitiloP :A

Re:Good... (5, Insightful)

bobdehnhardt (18286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203209)

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.

So Sad (5, Insightful)

DrunkBastard (652218) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202951)

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.

Independent (2, Interesting)

The Fanta Menace (607612) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202967)

Why can't he run as an independent?

Re:Independent (1)

aquaepulse (990849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203289)

He can.

All the false hyperbole on here, "PARTY BOSSES ARE STEALING RIGHTS!!!!1!!!", is just that, hyperbole. No one has the right to run as a democrat. Don't be ridiculous.

Good thing.. (1)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202973)

he filled out the Republican application too. At least, I think he did, right?

Re:Good thing.. (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203043)

He ran out of time to file as a Republican.

Interesting fact: in South Carolina the Dems needed $2,500 for you to run as one of them. The GOP wanted $35,000.

Shows what demographic each party aims at.

Re:Good thing.. (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203245)

The dems want their politicians to pretend to be poor, while the republicans don't have to bother? I mean, sure, I get the point you're trying to make, and the numbers are damning, but I don't know many people in my income bracket who could scrape together two-and-a-half gees to throw at a long shot election bid. For the vast majority, both parties are closed at the front door.

Re:Good thing.. (1)

KiltedKnight (171132) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203161)

Yes... and if you read the article, the filing fee was $35,000... well above the $5,000 limit he was allowed to spend, so he never bothered.

It's a shame, too. Finally, you have someone who may be making fun of the system, but is also showing the average person just what's wrong with the good ol' boy system that is alive and well in our national politics.

Let Him Run! (2, Insightful)

rrkap (634128) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202993)

The Democrats should let Colbert run considering that he does better in polls than many Democrat candidates. From the Washington post:

In the Democratic primary, Colbert takes 2.3 percent of the vote -- good for fifth place behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (40 percent), Sen. Barack Obama (19 percent), former Sen. John Edwards (12 percent) and Sen. Joe Biden (2.7 percent. Colbert finished ahead of Gov. Bill Richardson (2.1 percent), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2.1 percent) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (less than 1 percent).

If they're going to let Richardson be on the ballot, they should let Colbert be on it too!

What?? (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202997)

What kind of requirements are there to be a candidate in USA?? In my country, the only special requirement is that you get a few thousand authenticated signatures from people who support you... Shouldn't that be enough to be on the ballot?

Re:What?? (2)

GiMP (10923) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203199)

The reality is that this is not preventing him from being in the presidential race necessarily, just from running as a Democrat. Unfortunately, in the modern-day USA, you can only realistically run as a Republican or Democrat.

Scared? (1)

ocirs (1180669) | more than 6 years ago | (#21202999)

Although it's pretty unlikely that Colbert will pull a Schwarzenegger, he'd still put some of the democratic candidates to shame. A recent poll from CNBC that was shown on his show showed him at 2.3%, above some of the major democratic candidates. I think that speaks volume about how separated presidential candidates have become from their constituents.

More fodder for the master (4, Insightful)

GoodbyeBlueSky1 (176887) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203011)

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.

Colbert would be illegal (0, Troll)

splatterboy (815820) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203031)

For all of you arm-chair political pundits out there who think Colbert and "the people" are being ripped off: His candidacy would be illegal (check the FEC rules) due to his corporate sponsorships -doritos and comedy channel. If the shoe was on the other foot, say Tom Delay gets GM to pony up $30 million... Does conflict of interest mean any... never mind.

Re:Colbert would be illegal (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203167)

For all of you arm-chair political pundits out there who think Colbert and "the people" are being ripped off: His candidacy would be illegal (check the FEC rules) due to his corporate sponsorships -doritos and comedy channel.
It would be illegal if he spent more than 5 thousand dollars on the campaign.
Which is why he didn't spend the 35k to try to get on the Republican ballot.

Colbert bumped (3, Interesting)

NetSettler (460623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203045)

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 (1)

juuri (7678) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203283)

Wow this post is amazingly insightful, in a technological way and makes me think you must spend a lot of time on the philosophies of writing!

Better than SHAMOCRACY (1)

tyrantking31 (1115607) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203055)

Time to get a new sponsor and bring back traveshamockery.

Good... (1)

hrieke (126185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203057)

Damn- hit the wrong button...

Post in full:

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. And as bad as the politics are these days, this really wouldn't have been a good thing at all- for everyone. SC Democrat votes would appear to be buffoons, the media would just play this as a joke- missing even more the issues that no-one talks about, and the legitimate candidates would just be sidelined.

Now, I'm not certain if he would have been a good leader, but if he wants to have an honest run at it, by all means, he can. Just that he'd have to be serious about it.

They had no choice but to quash his bid. (5, Funny)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203169)

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.

Cowards (1)

Steeltalon (734391) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203213)

Are they that afraid of losing face that they can't have some competition to someone who isn't a career politician? I hope that the entire Colbert Nation, Republican and Democrat, votes for him in the primaries. I'll vote for him in Maryland just to snub the bastards.

Aww (1)

Jethro (14165) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203239)

It's really too bad that a person can't run for office without being a member of one of the two major parties.

Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21203253)

This is very telling of the state of political freedom in the US. To have freedom, you have to accept that occasionally some idiot will use that freedom to do something stupid. To deny that idiot the freedom to pursue his own stupidity is to deny everyone freedom.

Of course they did (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21203273)

Can't have an actual candidate running . . . what would our Corporate Masters think?

Stephen Colbert's qualifications (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21203299)

Stephen Colbert is God enough to be President.

Independent Bid (1)

Ranger (1783) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203307)

He should start his own party or run as an independent.

HORRIBLE PR move (3, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203349)

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)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...