NationStates Jolt Archive

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) -- The South Carolina Democratic Party voted Thursday to keep funnyman Stephen Colbert's name off the Democratic Primary ballot, according to the party's executive director.

The party's executive council met Thursday afternoon in Columbia to decide which candidates met the criteria to be placed on the ballot, and Colbert didn't make the cut, executive director Joe Werner said.

Colbert has said he will not file for the Republican party ballot because of the $35,000 fee, so the move likely ends his bid to officially run for president in South Carolina.

The host of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" filed his papers Thursday morning.

To get on the ballot, a candidate must demonstrate two requirements: that he or she is viable nationally and has spent time campaigning in the state.

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the state Democratic Party and a member of the executive council, suggested Wednesday that Colbert did not meet the standard of national viability.

"He does not appear to be campaigning to win if he is only running in one state," she said.

One of Colbert's opponents on the executive council, Charleston Democratic party chairman Waring Howe, defended the decision.

"Stephen Colbert clearly didn't qualify under our rules, and it would have been a mistake and wrong to violate our rules," he said.

Meanwhile, long shots Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel did make the cut.

Colbert, the mock conservative pundit whose show regularly features real politicians and political commentators, announced he was running as a Democrat and Republican on October 16.

He made a "campaign" stop Sunday in Columbia to receive a key to the city from Mayor Bob Coble, attracting about 1,000 people, mostly University of South Carolina students.

Opponents such as Howe argued Colbert would make a mockery of the political process. They also noted that for each candidate on the Democratic ballot, the state party must pay $20,000 to the state election commission.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/01/colbert.sc/index.html)

So I guess we won't be seeing President Colbert anytime soon. I know it was just a fake campaign and he was just doing it for laugh, but I still thought that this could have some momentum and I always wanted to see either Colbert or Stewart poke fun at themselves.

Ah well it was fun while it lasted.

He should run in South Dakota instead. Give the last primary of a delegate-poor state its attention.

Opponents such as Howe argued Colbert would make a mockery of the political process.

Gee, really?

No, it was retarded. It's good he got owned by the law.

Whats with the negativity?

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/01/colbert.sc/index.html)

So I guess we won't be seeing President Colbert anytime soon. I know it was just a fake campaign and he was just doing it for laugh, but I still thought that this could have some momentum and I always wanted to see either Colbert or Stewart poke fun at themselves.

Ah well it was fun while it lasted.

No, it was retarded. It's good he got owned by the law.

Put him in as independent.

Oh in Tennessee you only need 250 signatures to get on the state ballot.

No, it was retarded. It's good he got owned by the law.

Eh face it, the whole process is a joke. Half of the voter just flip for a coin, mainly because they realize that it doesn't matter.

Eh face it, the whole process is a joke. Half of the voter just flip for a coin, mainly because they realize that it doesn't matter.
What does the other half of the voter do? Manipulate chads? Which one, the left side or the right side?

No, it was retarded.
Parodying a flawed political system was retarded because....?

Sad part is he would have had more support than Gravel.

Opponents such as Howe argued Colbert would make a mockery of the political process.

Mockery? HA! Lets see, just in the past few years:

Larry Craig, Idaho, arrested for solicitation of a sexual act in a men's bathroom with another man.

Hillary Clinton, Arkansas (I'm sorry, it's New York now...), involved in money scandals involving Stan Lee and Peter Paul. Not to mention all the scandals involved with Whitewater, the Chinese fiascos (which, might I add, allowed more lead tainted products into the US)... the list goes on

GW Bush, Texas, choked on a pretzel, went from highest approval rating in history to lowest in history with one war

I mean, the list goes on and on. Politics is a joke to begin with. To make it a mockery is no different.

I would actually think that Colbert would do better than anybody on the Democratic ticket, and would give a run for their money against McCain and Guiliani.

I hope that people start taking Colbert more seriously, cause I think he'd do 20 times a better job than any of the monkeys we currently have in DC.

I don't care what those jackasses in the Democratic party say. I'm writing in Stephen Colbert on my ballot, if he's running or not.

No, it was retarded. It's good he got owned by the law.

*bakes you a loaf of some tasty bread*

No, it was retarded. It's good he got owned by the law.

I think you're the retard. All I ever see in your posts is hostility and extreme views. Take your IEP and shoo.

I think you're the retard. All I ever see in your posts is hostility and extreme views. Take your IEP and shoo.

Improvised Explosive Period?

Improvised Explosive Period?

I was thinking internal extraditing plashy.

And yes, today I just found out that plashy is a real word.

Improvised Explosive Period?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualized_Education_Program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualized_Education_Program

I just think he needs more grains to stay regular.
But who knows.

I think you're the retard. All I ever see in your posts is hostility and extreme views. Take your IEP and shoo.

There's a joke in here. I can't quite seem to find it ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualized_Education_Program

Oh. Not a joke. Ruffy flames Neo for not finding Colbert funny.

Please someone tell me I'm reading that wrong ... and Neo, your comment has attracted lots of attention already. Care to explain how putting comedy into a Democratic convention is "retarded"? It would boost ratings I bet.

Republican party ballot because of the $35,000 fee
Nice way to prove the GOP is the party of the rich elites.

Colbert has said he will not file for the Republican party ballot because of the !!!!$35,000 fee!!!!!



that's messed up.


the dumbs are just lame

Put him in as independent.

Oh in Tennessee you only need 250 signatures to get on the state ballot.

Yeah he should've ran as that anyway.. not that any independent stands a chance or anything.. but neither did he.

Actually he should've made up his own party name.. something related to Truthiness or something..

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/01/colbert.sc/index.html)

So I guess we won't be seeing President Colbert anytime soon. I know it was just a fake campaign and he was just doing it for laugh, but I still thought that this could have some momentum and I always wanted to see either Colbert or Stewart poke fun at themselves.

Ah well it was fun while it lasted.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!! Ruined before I saw the show tonight!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!! Ruined before I saw the show tonight!since its already ruined here is another spoiler:

Seinfeld said his kid wanted -and got- to pass Halloween disguised as Colbert. :D

Democratic Party executive councilWoW the executive council has as much power as the Guardian Council. :mp5::sniper::mp5::mp5:

Tis a sad, sad day for Colbert Nation.

And blue staters in general.

I doubt he had an honest intent to get on the ballot, since he was only running for President in one state.

You know people, I'm surprised at all of you saying he only did it for laughs. Have you been watching his show recently? He's using it to educate people so much more about how Presidential candidates run for office! The way funding works, the way they have to get on the ballot, and so on and so forth...he's teaching us through humour as he tends to do. Sure, it's also pretty funny, but he was trying to make a point. It wasn't just for laughs.

What does the other half of the voter do? Manipulate chads? Which one, the left side or the right side?

Silly. One half flips the coin, the other half casts the ballot.

Silly. One half flips the coin, the other half casts the ballot.
AHA!! That's why America has a two-party system!

I want a three-sided coin!

I can't put my finger on exactly why this is, but it bothers me that you have to pay such a huge fee just to have a shot at trying to run for President. Something about that doesn't feel right.

No, it was retarded. It's good he got owned by the law.
Do you actually believe that Colbert and his staff didn't know exactly what all the laws were before they started this stunt?

If so, I've got a piece of the True Cross I'd like to sell you.

No, it was retarded. It's good he got owned by the law.
The law has nothing to do with this. Colbert was precluded from running as Democrat because of their own internal policies, not because it's illegal for him to run for president. Really, learn2read.

I can't put my finger on exactly why this is, but it bothers me that you have to pay such a huge fee just to have a shot at trying to run for President. Something about that doesn't feel right.

I have to agree. It's inflated to keep most people from being able to run, which I think is wholly against the Constitution. We should have public funding laws for all candidates so that this isn't a problem!
Do you actually believe that Colbert and his staff didn't know exactly what all the laws were before they started this stunt?

If so, I've got a piece of the True Cross I'd like to sell you.

Exactly. The whole point was to try to educate people about the process as well as perhaps cast a bit of a light on how silly the candidates can act...though I think it also demonstrated something rather disturbing...Colbert has far more power over people than I think he had fully realized till he did this, and it frightens me.

Guys don't tease Sel Appa, your ruining his perfect view of American 'democracy' and showing it to be the superficial rubbish it really is!!

I have to agree. It's inflated to keep most people from being able to run, which I think is wholly against the Constitution. We should have public funding laws for all candidates so that this isn't a problem!


Exactly. The whole point was to try to educate people about the process as well as perhaps cast a bit of a light on how silly the candidates can act...though I think it also demonstrated something rather disturbing...Colbert has far more power over people than I think he had fully realized till he did this, and it frightens me.
Personally, I am 100% certain that Colbert knew about the little entrance fee before he started this game. I'm guessing it was a point he specifically wanted to make, and he certainly has done that very well.

There is also no doubt in my mind that a Colbert/Stewart ticket would be better for the United States than any of the other tickets out there. Hands down, no contest. I don't think there's a single candidate on the field who could make half the president that either of the comedians would make.

But then, you can tell that right away, because they're both smart enough to know that they don't want to be president. :D

I have to agree. It's inflated to keep most people from being able to run, which I think is wholly against the Constitution. We should have public funding laws for all candidates so that this isn't a problem!


Exactly. The whole point was to try to educate people about the process as well as perhaps cast a bit of a light on how silly the candidates can act...though I think it also demonstrated something rather disturbing...Colbert has far more power over people than I think he had fully realized till he did this, and it frightens me.

Is it actually a part of the election itself, that no matter what party you want to run as candidate for, if any, you have to pay a fee? Or is it just something the Democrat party does?

Is it actually a part of the election itself, that no matter what party you want to run as candidate for, if any, you have to pay a fee? Or is it just something the Democrat party does?

Firstly, it's Democratic Party. Members of the party are Democrats.

Secondly, the Republican Party is the one with the enormous fee. The Democrats were just being a bunch of stingy losers with no sense of humor who didn't want to pay to put Colbert on the ballot. They also have a fee, which they shouldn't, but it is quite a bit smaller than the one for the Republicans.

It's really a shame, I think he'd probably get more votes than Gravel or Kucinich (possibly spelled incorrectly). The little council that decides this bullcrap is out of touch with probably most of the regular folks in their party (I think if it were up to Democratic voters, Colbert would have been on the ballot). Dicks.

Personally, I am 100% certain that Colbert knew about the little entrance fee before he started this game. I'm guessing it was a point he specifically wanted to make, and he certainly has done that very well.
Indeed.

There is also no doubt in my mind that a Colbert/Stewart ticket would be better for the United States than any of the other tickets out there. Hands down, no contest. I don't think there's a single candidate on the field who could make half the president that either of the comedians would make.

Now on that I have to disagree. I don't doubt they could be somewhat good at, say, being diplomatic, or being charismatic LEADERS, but they don't know the first thing about ANYTHING that goes on in the office of the President nor have they any political experience whatsoever. Admittedly not many of the candidates up qualify under that either, but the point is that, in my mind, if you're going to run, you should have at least some familiarity with how a political office works. It would help if you've also served in something similar, a leadership position of some importance, like, say, an admiral in the Navy.

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are comedians. They are entertainers. They're fantastic at that and I would never say any less, because they sure entertain me. But they're not going to be able to be President of the United States unless they actually get some sort of political familiarity under their belt. Being the POTUS is one of the single most important jobs in this world, and you HAVE to have the qualifications. They don't have them.

But then, you can tell that right away, because they're both smart enough to know that they don't want to be president. :D
I don't understand why that is somehow a qualification in some people's eyes. Sure, there are leaders who have had their power foisted upon them and then did very well, but there are plenty of good leaders and good people who were leaders BECAUSE THEY SOUGHT IT. Seeking such a position does not automatically make you a power hungry demagogue.

Is it actually a part of the election itself, that no matter what party you want to run as candidate for, if any, you have to pay a fee? Or is it just something the Democrat party does?
Oh, there's a fee to get on the ballot in every state. The Republican party has a much greater fee: $35,000. Frankly, I think it was implemented by the two parties so they could keep their hold on the country. They know they have the richest families under their thumb so they just keep going at it. It's a bit of a sham in my mind and why we should go for pure public funding with absolutely no private funding allowed period.

Now on that I have to disagree. I don't doubt they could be somewhat good at, say, being diplomatic, or being charismatic LEADERS, but they don't know the first thing about ANYTHING that goes on in the office of the President nor have they any political experience whatsoever.

I haven't really seen any evidence that political experience helps any of the existing candidates. If anything, it seems to just make them more likely to engage in stupid posturing at the expense of actual progress.


Admittedly not many of the candidates up qualify under that either, but the point is that, in my mind, if you're going to run, you should have at least some familiarity with how a political office works. It would help if you've also served in something similar, a leadership position of some importance, like, say, an admiral in the Navy.

I think Colbert and Stewart understand how the American system of government works at least as well as most Senators. Probably better, in many cases. I think they understand the big picture of our governmental system better than any candidate on the field right now.

Have you ever watched the Sunday Morning news talk shows? Our elected leaders generally have absolutely no fucking clue about the actual laws of this country. It's crazy.


Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are comedians. They are entertainers. They're fantastic at that and I would never say any less, because they sure entertain me. But they're not going to be able to be President of the United States unless they actually get some sort of political familiarity under their belt.

We've elected actors to the Oval Office before. Personally, I think the only reason neither of them will be elected is because neither will run. I think if they did run, seriously, they'd probably have a good shot at winning, and if they won they'd do better than any of the current alternatives.

You have to remember, they're not just comedians. They're extremely bright POLITICAL comedians. To do what they do, they have to understand their subject material. And they do understand it, better than most of the people they spoof on.

If either of them wanted to apply themselves to holding political office, I'm positive they'd be great at it. I'm likewise positive that they don't want to do so. And good for them!


Being the POTUS is one of the single most important jobs in this world, and you HAVE to have the qualifications. They don't have them.
Sure they do. They're informed, intelligent, and more than capable of fulfilling the duties of that office.

Remember, the entire point of our system of government is that we're not supposed to be subject to some kind of ruling Overclass. The President is the elected leader of the people. The duty of the President is to uphold the laws of this country and to direct the executive functions of the nation. Colbert and Stewart are probably more familiar with our laws and our government functions than 99.999% of humans in this country. The only reason they are considered "unqualified" is because they haven't participated in the formula for How To Be A Major Party Candidate. Since that formula has done precisely fuckall to actually improve the quality and caliber of our leaders thus far, I'm not inclined to view it as a good system.

I don't think Colbert or Stewart would be ideal as veeps or presidents. But I think the current crop of major candidates is so pathetic, so bottom-of-the-barrel, that two late-night news comedy hosts are head and shoulders above the crowd. No contest.


I don't understand why that is somehow a qualification in some people's eyes. Sure, there are leaders who have had their power foisted upon them and then did very well, but there are plenty of good leaders and good people who were leaders BECAUSE THEY SOUGHT IT. Seeking such a position does not automatically make you a power hungry demagogue.

It was a joke.

snip

There are no set qualifications for being the President of the United States of America other than being 35 and having been born here. So technically, both Stewart and Colbert qualify.

I'd agree that they both understand the way our government quite well. They have to, because to be funny you have to understand what your joke is about.

I think either would be more competent than the former Texas governor currently occupying the white house. I mean really, the requirements can't be that high if he passes them.

I haven't really seen any evidence that political experience helps any of the existing candidates. If anything, it seems to just make them more likely to engage in stupid posturing at the expense of actual progress.
I didn't say it was a sure thing, mind. Still, it seems to me that, logically speaking, if one has experience with the process, one will do a better job. Now, that does not mean that everyone will do a good job. It simply means that having such qualifications will give them the chance, and therefore that makes them better choices. Obviously there's still plenty of other things to consider before selecting a candidate to support.


I think Colbert and Stewart understand how the American system of government works at least as well as most Senators. Probably better, in many cases. I think they understand the big picture of our governmental system better than any candidate on the field right now.

Do they really? I'm not saying necessarily that they don't, but I do think there's a difference between knowing how the system works on PAPER, and actually being in the system itself. Last I checked that's true of just about anything.

Have you ever watched the Sunday Morning news talk shows? Our elected leaders generally have absolutely no fucking clue about the actual laws of this country. It's crazy.

I have watched those shows before, and it certainly is a lot of political hackery. I'm not denying that. I'm saying that the experience is useful and, in my mind, necessary, and also that it is ONE FACTOR. To be perfectly honest, even if Stewart and Colbert had that experience I probably still wouldn't vote for them because I doubt they would support the policies I'd want them to support, and so on and so forth.


We've elected actors to the Oval Office before. Personally, I think the only reason neither of them will be elected is because neither will run. I think if they did run, seriously, they'd probably have a good shot at winning, and if they won they'd do better than any of the current alternatives.

Yes, we have, and as a result we've managed to create "Reagonomics" which is probably one of the worst political ideas I have ever heard. We seriously harmed our country by doing so.

That said, you're probably right in that they'd have a good chance of winning if they could fund their campaign. I don't know so much about them being good, but to be honest right now that's true of almost everyone running.

You have to remember, they're not just comedians. They're extremely bright POLITICAL comedians. To do what they do, they have to understand their subject material. And they do understand it, better than most of the people they spoof on.

...now there you have me, Bottle. You're right. They definitely need to understand the subject material, which they certainly do. Perhaps my evaluation was incorrect after all.

If either of them wanted to apply themselves to holding political office, I'm positive they'd be great at it. I'm likewise positive that they don't want to do so. And good for them!

I'd like to say we'll see, but we can't. I'm not as certain as you are, but I'll admit you're beginning to convince me it wouldn't be as bad as I keep suspecting it would be.

Sure they do. They're informed, intelligent, and more than capable of fulfilling the duties of that office.

Capable? I don't deny that. Most of us are. It's their competence I question.

Remember, the entire point of our system of government is that we're not supposed to be subject to some kind of ruling Overclass. The President is the elected leader of the people. The duty of the President is to uphold the laws of this country and to direct the executive functions of the nation.
You're right. I agree with you. That's why I support public funding laws. Hell, it's why I've got this vague notion of running MYSELF if I could ever pull it off.

Still, there's a lot more to it than that. When the office was set up, the most a President had to do was deal with a few issues between the thirteen states and the one or two ties it had to a couple countries. Today, the POTUS practically needs twenty seven hours a day to cope with all of the diplomatic ties, the trade agreements, various military issues--including nuclear weaponry--and so on and so forth. In many ways the POTUS is more of a world leader than just the leader of one nation, and they have a huge responsibility. It's a daunting task for anyone which is why I am so confused by people electing idiots like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Colbert and Stewart are probably more familiar with our laws and our government functions than 99.999% of humans in this country. The only reason they are considered "unqualified" is because they haven't participated in the formula for How To Be A Major Party Candidate. Since that formula has done precisely fuckall to actually improve the quality and caliber of our leaders thus far, I'm not inclined to view it as a good system.

You're right in that respect. I just...well...let's just say I worry that we're letting their popularity and the fact that we like to laugh at what they say influence our judgment in this matter. The government is bad enough as it is treating us all with a bread and circuses policy. I fear that even a political comedian with the understand of Stewart and Colbert would fall prey to that and worse, continue the policy in a horrendous way. Is that a legitimate fear? I have no idea, but it exists nonetheless.


It was a joke.

Oh. Well...I've heard it said seriously by so many people I figured you were serious. Plus it can sometimes be hard to tell when you're joking, Bottle.

(And I tell you, you are FUN to debate with!)

Booooooo!!!!

Stephen Colbert was polling better than a whole bunch of real candidates! Lame!

And, you know what? He'd probably make a better President than all of the candidates in either party.

Firstly, it's Democratic Party. Members of the party are Democrats.
I see.

Secondly, the Republican Party is the one with the enormous fee. The Democrats were just being a bunch of stingy losers with no sense of humor who didn't want to pay to put Colbert on the ballot. They also have a fee, which they shouldn't, but it is quite a bit smaller than the one for the Republicans.

It's really a shame, I think he'd probably get more votes than Gravel or Kucinich (possibly spelled incorrectly). The little council that decides this bullcrap is out of touch with probably most of the regular folks in their party (I think if it were up to Democratic voters, Colbert would have been on the ballot). Dicks.

Ah, I see again

Booooooo!!!!

Stephen Colbert was polling better than a whole bunch of real candidates! Lame!

And, you know what? He'd probably make a better President than all of the candidates in either party.

Now see, that's part of what scared me...that people weren't really thinking about whether he'd actually make a good candidate, but just supporting him because he makes them laugh. Now, his qualifications aside, that is not a good reason to support any candidate and to allow our system of government to work that way is, in my mind, absolutely insulting, degrading, and abhorrant. Sure, THIS guy might be good, but what about some other guy? We've seen bad already in the form of Ronald Reagan.

If we are going to vote, we have to vote based on the merits of the candidate, their qualifications, as well as their positions on issues and policies important to us. We cannot vote for someone because they make us laugh.

If anything, having Colbert run would just help to reveal to the people of this country how much of a mockery of the democratic process our election system already is.

If anything, having Colbert run would just help to reveal to the people of this country how much of a mockery of the democratic process our election system already is.

I think that was his intent but I suspect few people thought about it, which just makes me even sadder.

$35,000 isn't much when you consider how much a candidate will need to raise in campaigning funds to have a realistic chance of becoming president.

No, it shouldn't be that way. But I'd say that horse has already bolted.

If anything, having Colbert run would just help to reveal to the people of this country how much of a mockery of the democratic process our election system already is.

On the other hand, there's issues of free association and choice of representatives at hand, when parties decide who is allowed to be a candidate running for office, under the name of their party.

$35,000 isn't much when you consider how much a candidate will need to raise in campaigning funds to have a realistic chance of becoming president.

No, it shouldn't be that way. But I'd say that horse has already bolted.

That's unfair though. It's only true right now because it has to be private money. If it was all publically funded, with public requirements for equal airtime, publically organized debates, and so on and so forth, that wouldn't be true.

I am sure Colbert does not aim to be president.. but I dont care.. I will still vote for him anyways... I am going to take a marker inside the polling boot and write his name on the ballot.
.
... but they don't know the first thing about ANYTHING that goes on in the office of the President nor have they any political experience whatsoever. Admittedly not many of the candidates up qualify under that either, but the point is that, in my mind, if you're going to run, you should have at least some familiarity with how a political office works. It would help if you've also served in something similar, a leadership position of some importance, like, say, an admiral in the Navy. Bush had years of experience leading the Rangers and then as Governor.. and now look what a wonderful President he is..

Look at all the Politicians in Washington.. are you proud of them?

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are comedians. They are entertainers. Ronald Reagan Jesse Ventura Agnold Shartzenegger

Now see, that's part of what scared me...that people weren't really thinking about whether he'd actually make a good candidate, but just supporting him because he makes them laugh.I vote for Colbert because I want to send a message to the US Political class, the message is "You stink, you are Doing a pathetic Job.. wake up"
.
If we are going to vote, we have to vote based on the merits of the candidate, their qualifications, as well as their positions on issues and policies important to us. We cannot vote for someone because they make us think.see? This is the beauty of Democracy, you vote based on whatever you want.. and So do I.

That's unfair though. It's only true right now because it has to be private money. If it was all publically funded, with public requirements for equal airtime, publically organized debates, and so on and so forth, that wouldn't be true.

I'll try again, without this time going paranoid and negative.

Those things would help, but "all publicly funded" doesn't seem like a realistic goal. You have to take away what individuals and corporations already regard as their right, to fund the campaign of the candidate of their choice. It would be argued that this was a restriction of freedom of speech, exactly where it matters most, the political process.

I guess the positive way to look at it, is that a guaranteed minimum of exposure regardless of pocket money would make a huge difference to really minor candidates. It would promote that rather quaint "you too can be president some day" perception (engaging the electorate) and that would be a positive even if the leading candidates still fought it out with billions in the war-chest.

I'm still voting for the Stewart/Colbert ticket.

Our government is a joke, let's make it a funny one.

.
Bush had years of experience leading the Rangers and then as Governor.. and now look what a wonderful President he is..
Because I clearly said that having experience GUARANTEES you're a good leader. :rolleyes:

I said it helps, not that it was a guarantee. More specifically, it helps the candidate because they have experience working with the system already rather than being completely new to it.

Look at all the Politicians in Washington.. are you proud of them?
Not many of them, no.

Ronald Reagan Jesse Ventura Agnold Shartzenegger
Only one was President. Furthermore, I'm talking about people seeking to be the POTUS WITHOUT any other experience. If Stewart or Colbert wanted to go for a full political career I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I vote for Colbert because I want to send a message to the US Political class, the message is "You stink, you are Doing a pathetic Job.. wake up"
That's a message I'd be happy to send too.

.
see? This is the beauty of Democracy, you vote based on whatever you want.. and So do I.
Okay then. Since I never said anything about stoppoing people from voting, I fail to see your point.
I'll try again, without this time going paranoid and negative.
Kay.

Those things would help, but "all publicly funded" doesn't seem like a realistic goal. You have to take away what individuals and corporations already regard as their right, to fund the campaign of the candidate of their choice. It would be argued that this was a restriction of freedom of speech, exactly where it matters most, the political process.

You're right. It would be argued that way. Perhaps all publically funded is going to far...instead...limit contributions? Or at the very least make the system fairer with required equal air time, debates FOR ALL PARTIES NOT JUST REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, and so on?

I guess the positive way to look at it, is that a guaranteed minimum of exposure regardless of pocket money would make a huge difference to really minor candidates. It would promote that rather quaint "you too can be president some day" perception (engaging the electorate) and that would be a positive even if the leading candidates still fought it out with billions in the war-chest.

You're right.

It's really a shame, I think he'd probably get more votes than Gravel or Kucinich (possibly spelled incorrectly). The little council that decides this bullcrap is out of touch with probably most of the regular folks in their party (I think if it were up to Democratic voters, Colbert would have been on the ballot). Dicks.
Or they are in touch enough to realize that, if they let Colbert on the ballot, there is a chance he'd end up carrying the primaries (no telling how many fuck-headed college students might turn out to support him), and something tells me that's not exactly the sort of thing that the SCDP wants to become famous for.

Or they are in touch enough to realize that, if they let Colbert on the ballot, there is a chance he'd end up carrying the primaries (no telling how many fuck-headed college students might turn out to support him), and something tells me that's not exactly the sort of thing that the SCDP wants to become famous for.

I tend to agree with this since I've talked to so many people who are of the belief that it would be absolutely hilarious and worthwhile if Colbert won the presidency. Now, don't get me wrong, if you honestly think Colbert would make a good president, that's one thing....but to decide the leader of your country based on how good of a laugh you'd get out of it? That's the stupidest god damned idea I've ever heard. If Colbert were to run as president I could honestly see him winning or coming very close in conjunction with the largest 18-30 year old voter turn out in American history. *sigh*

People need to pay more attention to his audiences when they're shown. They're hardly all college students.

People need to pay more attention to his audiences when they're shown. They're hardly all college students.

Oh no, Bill O'Reilly said that his audience is a bunch of college stoners. You don't know what you are talking about clearly.

Oh no, Bill O'Reilly said that his audience is a bunch of college stoners. You don't know what you are talking about clearly.

Of course not. The great o'Reilly has spoken. I am a mere mortal and not worthy of his presence.

I said it helps, not that it was a guarantee. More specifically, it helps the candidate because they have experience working with the system already rather than being completely new to it.

I think you're overstating it. Even if there is some trade secret kept hidden that we mere citizens could never understand, aren't there literally dozens of aides surrounding the President that would know how it works?

I think you're overstating it. Even if there is some trade secret kept hidden that we mere citizens could never understand, aren't there literally dozens of aides surrounding the President that would know how it works?
Yes, but...

Look at it this way. Imagine you are a soldier trained to fight in combat. Now imagine you're placed in actual combat for the first time with another soldier who has been a soldier for years. Who do you think will do better?

That's my point. Experience with the system is valuable. Does it necessarily makes that person a better candidate? No. Does it somehow make them good at the job? No. But it's something that should be considered, and that's all I'm saying.

Though I should say that I keep talking about it because I'm perceiving this belief being espoused that it's not important at all, which is incorrect.

People need to pay more attention to his audiences when they're shown. They're hardly all college students.

No, but assuming he shares The Daily Show's audience, a huge portion of it is comprised the 18-24 crowd. But I've not seen any studies specifically for The Colbert Report and I'm speaking mainly from personal experience. Also note that gauging the demographic of his audience by those who have the resources to actually attend a recording of the show is kind of silly.

Yes, but...

Look at it this way. Imagine you are a soldier trained to fight in combat. Now imagine you're placed in actual combat for the first time with another soldier who has been a soldier for years. Who do you think will do better?

That's my point. Experience with the system is valuable. Does it necessarily makes that person a better candidate? No. Does it somehow make them good at the job? No. But it's something that should be considered, and that's all I'm saying.

Though I should say that I keep talking about it because I'm perceiving this belief being espoused that it's not important at all, which is incorrect.

You make it out as though he wouldn't be able to find his way into the oval office, Mattress. Like his lack of experience will make him press the 'America go boom' button. I think, personally, the country is closer to spontaneously combusting under Bush than it would be under Colbert. Of course there's some factor to experience, but not enough to discount him the way you do.

No, but assuming he shares The Daily Show's audience, a huge portion of it is comprised the 18-24 crowd. But I've not seen any studies specifically for The Colbert Report and I'm speaking mainly from personal experience. Also note that gauging the demographic of his audience by those who have the resources to actually attend a recording of the show is kind of silly.

Well, yes, you're right. I'm not denying that.

I'm just saying that it's not the exclusive club people are making it out to be.


You make it out as though he wouldn't be able to find his way into the oval office, Mattress. Like his lack of experience will make him press the 'America go boom' button. I think, personally, the country is closer to spontaneously combusting under Bush than it would be under Colbert. Of course there's some factor to experience, but not enough to discount him the way you do.
No, I'm not, damn it, and I'll thank you not to accuse me of that when I have made specifically clear I am talking ONLY about it being a useful QUALIFICATION that ought to be taken INTO CONSIDERATION when choosing a candidate to support! Does NOT HAVING IT mean he would be a worse President? Not necessarily. It is, however, still valuable in its own way. Am I clear now, or will I have to be insulted yet again?

And my discounting him is not based on the lack of experience so much as the fact, again, that he would be elected due to his simple popularity through a bloody comedy television show. Yes, yes, it's political and I understand he might make a good President. My point is that if we choose to elect him because he makes us laugh, it is a spit in the face in the ideals of democracy, and whether or not he would be a good President is ultimately irrelevant.

No, I'm not, damn it, and I'll thank you not to accuse me of that when I have made specifically clear I am talking ONLY about it being a useful QUALIFICATION that ought to be taken INTO CONSIDERATION when choosing a candidate to support! Does NOT HAVING IT mean he would be a worse President? Not necessarily. It is, however, still valuable in its own way. Am I clear now, or will I have to be insulted yet again?

And my discounting him is not based on the lack of experience so much as the fact, again, that he would be elected due to his simple popularity through a bloody comedy television show. Yes, yes, it's political and I understand he might make a good President. My point is that if we choose to elect him because he makes us laugh, it is a spit in the face in the ideals of democracy, and whether or not he would be a good President is ultimately irrelevant.

Err, being a good president is irrelevant? Isn't that, like, the whole point of democracy, y'know, getting good leaders? And how could we even know that if he doesn't get to campaign a bit?

While we're at it, there's suddenly disallowed reasons for supporting a candidate?

Err, being a good president is irrelevant? Isn't that, like, the whole point of democracy, y'know, getting good leaders? And how could we even know that if he doesn't get to campaign a bit?

You know, Dina, it would be nice if you would try following what I'm saying rather than acting so dense all the time. It's very frustrating.

I shifted points. I was talking about the reason one would use to elect him, and stating further that electing him for the reason that he makes us laugh is stupid, wrong, and a spit in the face of democracy. His abilities as a President were irrelevant in that specific frame of conversation because my point was about the reason and ONLY the reason.

Also, there are not disallowed reasons in terms of legality. I am stating an opinion of mine that such a reason as I outlined above is pretty damned stupid.

Once again, have I made myself wholly clear and understandable?

Err, being a good president is irrelevant? Isn't that, like, the whole point of democracy, y'know, getting good leaders? And how could we even know that if he doesn't get to campaign a bit?

are you being deliberatly obtuse or are you just having issues?

Also, there are not disallowed reasons in terms of legality. I am stating an opinion of mine that such a reason as I outlined above is pretty damned stupid.

Once again, have I made myself wholly clear and understandable?

It seems that, while you're at it, you've got a lot of other things to wipe of the face of democracy. If 'voting for Colbert cuz he's funny' gets this sort of attention, I can only imagine how you were around that time when fewer people voted for Bush but he got elected. Or when you look at the voter turnout, and realize the ultimate insult to democracy would probably be failing to exercise your power. Honestly, I'm sure I've insulted people in general a number of times for the stupid things they do about voting, but when the outcome of a stupid vote is a good president...I'm not that pissed about it. Surely there's a better way to defend Lady Liberty's honor?

i.e. Yeah, it's stupid, but hardly the key issue.

are you being deliberatly obtuse or are you just having issues?

Depends, about what?

I can't put my finger on exactly why this is, but it bothers me that you have to pay such a huge fee just to have a shot at trying to run for President. Something about that doesn't feel right.those fees are only so your name can be on the list, and only for the state of Carolina..

Colbert did ask a guest "How much $$$$ do I need to have a shot?" .. and the amount given was outrageous..

It seems that, while you're at it, you've got a lot of other things to wipe of the face of democracy.

Fortunately I have a big towel.
If 'voting for Colbert cuz he's funny' gets this sort of attention, I can only imagine how you were around that time when fewer people voted for Bush but he got elected.

That pissed me off. The electoral college is an outdated system that ought to be dismantled.
Or when you look at the voter turnout, and realize the ultimate insult to democracy would probably be failing to exercise your power.
I'll admit some constant frustration along that line but i don't let it get to me.
Honestly, I'm sure I've insulted people in general a number of times for the stupid things they do about voting, but when the outcome of a stupid vote is a good president...I'm not that pissed about it. Surely there's a better way to defend Lady Liberty's honor?
You're right in one respect: a good outcome is a good outcome. But that doesn't somehow render the method it came from legitimate nor should it mean we should allow ourselves such a method in the future, because that same method has elected a poor leader in the past and could easily do so again in the future.

i.e. Yeah, it's stupid, but hardly the key issue.
Depends on your focus. When it comes to the Colbert candidacy, it IS the key issue in my mind. The reason(s) one has for voting for a candidate are extremely important. You might not understand that yet, having never voted, but trust me...you will.

Depends on your focus. When it comes to the Colbert candidacy, it IS the key issue in my mind. The reason(s) one has for voting for a candidate are extremely important. You might not understand that yet, having never voted, but trust me...you will.

Err...Is this one of those *pat on the head* "You'll get it when you start paying taxes" things?

And, what precisely do you mean by "allow ourselves such a method"? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do it, he has a lot more time for jokes when he isn't running the country. If you mean like, "go around, telling people not to be idiots" that's...different. >_>

Err...Is this one of those *pat on the head* "You'll get it when you start paying taxes" things?
Sort of. I don't mean to be condescending, really...but it's just another one of those things that experience is very valuable for.

And, what precisely do you mean by "allow ourselves such a method"? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do it, he has a lot more time for jokes when he isn't running the country. If you mean like, "go around, telling people not to be idiots" that's...different. >_>

Exactly what I said. We need to think critically about our choices and wisely consider what we should do rather than voting blindly. If people still choose to vote for Colbert after that, I'd be perfectly fine with it.

Exactly what I said. We need to think critically about our choices and wisely consider what we should do rather than voting blindly. If people still choose to vote for Colbert after that, I'd be perfectly fine with it.

Hehe. Did you see how many people put a "Critical thinking" class in their education programs on that thread? You could really snip that down to, oooh...

We need to think critically

...post it in any and every thread, and no one here would disagree with you. (you'd get at least warned for spamming, but you know what I mean). I guess it's good general life advice, so...uh, go ahead and post it, I dunno. :confused:

Hehe. Did you see how many people put a "Critical thinking" class in their education programs on that thread? You could really snip that down to, oooh...



...post it in any and every thread, and no one here would disagree with you. (you'd get at least warned for spamming, but you know what I mean). I guess it's good general life advice, so...uh, go ahead and post it, I dunno. :confused:

Yes. You're right.

People need to pay more attention to his audiences when they're shown. They're hardly all college students.
I never said they were. What I said was that the college students within his audience would have been likely to go out and vote for him, thinking it so dreadfully clever and ironic (it's happened before, there was that bridge in Europe among other things). The SCDP was wise not to take that kind of risk with their reputation.
Keeping novelty campaigns like this out of their hair is probably the cause behind the rather large financial requirement enter the Republican primary. If someone is a serious candidate, ponying up $35,000 will be nothing compared to the millions they're already putting out each day to compete with the other big names, but if they're a goofball from Comedy Central, they'll only be able to whine about the entry fee.

I never said they were. What I said was that the college students within his audience would have been likely to go out and vote for him, thinking it so dreadfully clever and ironic (it's happened before, there was that bridge in Europe among other things). The SCDP was wise not to take that kind of risk with their reputation.
Keeping novelty campaigns like this out of their hair is probably the cause behind the rather large financial requirement enter the Republican primary. If someone is a serious candidate, ponying up $35,000 will be nothing compared to the millions they're already putting out each day to compete with the other big names, but if they're a goofball from Comedy Central, they'll only be able to whine about the entry fee.
Oh, okay. I stand corrected.

I never said they were. What I said was that the college students within his audience would have been likely to go out and vote for him, thinking it so dreadfully clever and ironic (it's happened before, there was that bridge in Europe among other things). The SCDP was wise not to take that kind of risk with their reputation.
Keeping novelty campaigns like this out of their hair is probably the cause behind the rather large financial requirement enter the Republican primary. If someone is a serious candidate, ponying up $35,000 will be nothing compared to the millions they're already putting out each day to compete with the other big names, but if they're a goofball from Comedy Central, they'll only be able to whine about the entry fee.

that "goofball" (no not you LG) from Comeday Central, between his show and his best selling book probably makes more in a year than either one of us sees in a lifetime..

that "goofball" (no not you LG) from Comeday Central, between his show and his best selling book probably makes more in a year than either one of us sees in a lifetime..

I doubt that. Sure, he probably makes more money than the average person, but he's the television host of a basic cable network show, not something like HBO.

I never said they were. What I said was that the college students within his audience would have been likely to go out and vote for him, thinking it so dreadfully clever and ironic (it's happened before, there was that bridge in Europe among other things).

Eh? What bridge? I do like a prank ...

I doubt that. Sure, he probably makes more money than the average person, but he's the television host of a basic cable network show, not something like HBO.

"Probably" makes more than the average person :D

So, hang on, in South Carolina he has to be nominated by one of the two big parties, and can't just run as an independent?

That's what I got from that article, but I may be wrong

So, hang on, in South Carolina he has to be nominated by one of the two big parties, and can't just run as an independent?

That's what I got from that article, but I may be wrong

Yes, you could in the general election. But this is the time for the primaries. The elections which influence who gets the party nomination.

I doubt that. Sure, he probably makes more money than the average person, but he's the television host of a basic cable network show, not something like HBO.I dont know what is the Salary paid to the president, but I am sure Colbert makes more than that.

Yes, you could in the general election. But this is the time for the primaries. The elections which influence who gets the party nomination.

Yeah...primaries always struck me as a bit odd as well. Can a party not just have an actual leader who runs without all the nonsense?

For example...can Pelosi not just be the Democratic leader and run? Why all the hassle?

Bah...I'm just used to the Westminster system. Much better.

So, hang on, in South Carolina he has to be nominated by one of the two big parties, and can't just run as an independent?

That's what I got from that article, but I may be wronghe can always run as independent.. the point is "the democrat party members should decide in the primaries if he is a worthy candidate.. a groups of unkown people should not be able to block his bid before he gets to see his day at the primary polls"

since its already ruined here is another spoiler:

Seinfeld said his kid wanted -and got- to pass Halloween disguised as Colbert. :D

Fortunately for me, I didn't read that until after I saw the Daily Show. :D

Actually him getting denied a spot on the poll was probably a blessing in disguise. This whole thing is being done as a form of political satire for his show, which as of tonight is canceled and will be off the air for an unknown and possibly long period of time.

=========================

"He could have been on the ballot in New Hampshire, where it's a lot easier and there are 80 people on the ballot." If nothing else, Simon said Colbert would have "sucked up a lot of the oxygen," luring dozens of camera crews and reporters to his events, which likely would have been very well-attended. "In a heated campaign where events are held simultaneously, there are reporters who would not have attended some of the other candidates' events to cover Colbert. Hell, I would have gone because there should be one candidate who is intentionally funny given how many are unintentionally funny."

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1573404/20071102/index

"Daily Show" and "Colbert" vulnerable to strike http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071102/tv_nm/viacom_strike_dc_1;_ylt=AtkBSKp.qAcf_y5pPSpUiVAE1vAI

I dont know what is the Salary paid to the president, but I am sure Colbert makes more than that.

The President of the United States earns $400,000 a year.

The President of the United States earns $400,000 a year.

*flexible*

*snip*
Bah...I'm just used to the Westminster system. Much better.

Yeah, I like it too. We have proportional representation in the Upper House (Senate) (by states, but it approximates national representation because so few states and number per state is by population) ... I'd recommend that too.

Actually him getting denied a spot on the poll was probably a blessing in disguise. This whole thing is being done as a form of political satire for his show, which as of tonight is canceled and will be off the air for an unknown and possibly long period of time.

:eek:

=========================

"He could have been on the ballot in New Hampshire, where it's a lot easier and there are 80 people on the ballot." If nothing else, Simon said Colbert would have "sucked up a lot of the oxygen," luring dozens of camera crews and reporters to his events, which likely would have been very well-attended. "In a heated campaign where events are held simultaneously, there are reporters who would not have attended some of the other candidates' events to cover Colbert. Hell, I would have gone because there should be one candidate who is intentionally funny given how many are unintentionally funny."

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1573404/20071102/index

M'mm. OK.

"Daily Show" and "Colbert" vulnerable to strike http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071102/tv_nm/viacom_strike_dc_1;_ylt=AtkBSKp.qAcf_y5pPSpUiVAE1vAI

*goes looking for new thread*

The President of the United States earns $400,000 a year.

Huh. I thought it was only half that. They must've upped it since I first read about it.