Displaying a staggering lack of sense of humor, the South Carolina Democratic party voted 13-3 to keep Stephen Colbert off the ballot. Their claim was that they were concerned Colbert would make the entire thing come across as a big joke.
Okay...first of all...the Democrats ARE a joke, and I say that as a Democrat. Second, lack of voter turnout in this country is a huge problem. Colbert would have fired up interest in the electoral process. Third, I think their REAL fear was that he would win.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at November 1, 2007 10:56 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingMy thoughts exactly when I first heard about this. Truer words have never been spoken. Or written, in this case. :)
I think the slightly more realistic fear is that he could have an effect similar to that of Ralph Nader on the 2000 election, draining away votes that would otherwise go to a deserving candidate.
Peter David: Their claim was that they were concerned Colbert would make the entire thing come across as a big joke.
Luigi Novi: And they figure that's theyir job, huh?
Peter David: Third, I think their REAL fear was that he would win.
Luigi Novi: LOL! Yeah, they took one look at Man of the Year, thought it would be prescient, and panicked.
The people who would vote for him over a "real" candidate are the people who wouldn't be voting for those candidates at all. But at least they'd be registered and maybe motivated to vote when the real deal goes down.
"I think the slightly more realistic fear is that he could have an effect similar to that of Ralph Nader on the 2000 election, draining away votes that would otherwise go to a deserving candidate."
Well, first of all, Nader was a national candidate, wasn't he? Colbert was just going to be in South Carolina. And second...
...a deserving candidate? You mean the Democrats have one?
PAD
"...a deserving candidate? "
I know I'm younger than some, but this is my 5th presidential election, and I've never been more depressed about the choices...
God, when Dan Quail looks good, I'm in trouble.
One the one hand, their opinion is legitimate. He *is* using the political process as a means to advance his own show, not as a serious candidate.
On the other hand, is anyone actually going to watch the 47th Democratic debate? Anyone at all? They would have if Stephen Colbert had been there.
And South Carolina would have gotten tons of extra press. The longer this went on, the more media focus they would have gotten. That *has* to result in tourism, or higher voter turnout for the primaries, or something good.
They're afraid of looking foolish. Kinda sad when you look at the whole situation.
I miss Pat Paulson.
Dan Quayle doesn't look better and you know it. That's just an extremely cheap joke.
The truth is this is the strongest Democratic field in years, these are extremely accomplished men and a woman and we should be so lucky to have any of them sitting in the Oval Office. If our political system was rational and serious, this would be an embarassment of riches. It's the process that's screwed up, not the people. But the media process of shallow dissection creates a corrosive cynicism in the electorate, I find it literally depressing.
What I advise you to do is forget the middle man, forget the news and yes, forget the blogs, go straight to the source. Go to Obama's website, go to Edwards' website. Look at Dodd's or Biden's or even plucky old Kucinich's. Learn who they are and where they stand.
Then come back and tell me that Dan Quayle looks good.
"...a deserving candidate? "
I know I'm younger than some, but this is my 5th presidential election, and I've never been more depressed about the choices...
God, when Dan Quail looks good, I'm in trouble.
It's South Carolina. What do you expect... common sense? I'm surprised there even is a Democratic wing down there.
I was disappointed he isn't going to be allowed on the ballot.
Thats a shame. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report have been very friendly towards the democratic party.
"The truth is this is the strongest Democratic field in years, these are extremely accomplished men and a woman"
The 3 Democratic front-runners have a combined total of 16 years in the US Senate (3 for Obama, 7 for Clinton and 6 for Edwards), and for all intents and purposes no major political experience for any of them prior to the Senate. (And no, being First Lady does not count).
A lot of history books talk about JFK as being inexperienced when he ran for President, but his 6 years as a US Representative and 8 years as a US Senator blow away the experience of any of the front-runners this year.
"The Daily Show and the Colbert Report have been very friendly towards the democratic party."
I suspect it's more that the Democratic party has been more friendly to those shows than Republicans have. There have been quite a number of DS sequences in the past in which Republicans declined to be interviewed whereas Democrats consented.
As for the fear that he might actually win, well, he is as sincere as most politicians.
Third, I think their REAL fear was that he would win.
PAD
Well, a comedian made it on the ballot eight years ago, and the American people gave him a second term.
Considering how well that worked out, anything that can be done to prevent a reoccurance should be applauded.
--Ed
Oh he'd win.
:::Snacking on a bag of Doritos:::
He'd get a LOT of votes!
I thought it worked out ironically well, considering the imminent WGA strike means that Colbert (among others) will be in reruns for awhile now.
Dan Quayle doesn't look better and you know it. That's just an extremely cheap joke.
Actually, I think it says a lot about the country that less than a generation ago, the prospect of Dan Quayle being a heartbeat away from the presidency was unthinkable because he was considered such an intellectual lightweight...and in 2000 we wound up with a president (subsequently reelected) who made Dan Quayle look like Aristotle.
PAD
Third, I think their REAL fear was that he would win.
He'd definitely get plenty of Brewster's Millions votes. Normally (presuming I were a South Carolina Democrat), I would have voted for Colbert within a heart beat because I haven't cared for any of the candidates thus far in my Presidential voting career (1996+). However, this year, I think that the Democrats have quite a few good/strong choices.
For those who care, over on the Democratic side I like Barrack Obama, and over on the Republican side I like Ron Paul. Since I'm not registered with either party, I'm really hoping that one of these two candidates makes it in to the main race.
PAD: Second, lack of voter turnout in this country is a huge problem.
Personally, I like Australia's ploy of voting is MANDATORY, or you face penalties. My inlaws, I'm ashamed to say, have never voted in their lives.
Too bad MANDATORY voting is a waste if people don't do the research and actually study up on the candidates before they cast their forced votes...
It makes my fellow left-of-center friends cringe when I say it but personally I'm DELIGHTED when people who don't care stay the hell home on election day. If I could strike the motor voter stuff from the law I would - if finding ONE afternoon to get to the mall to register to vote is too much of a challenge for you then I've got no faith in your making a remotely intelligent choice. Don't care? That's fine with me - those of us with some motivation will decide the direction things will go.
Now the length of time the polls are open, on the other hand, strikes me as a fight worth having. The idea that we're going to cram all that voting into a 14 hour period, most of which is during a working day, is insanity. It makes for crowds, lines, staffing problems and god knows what other issues. All for what? The most compelling reason anyone has ever conveyed to me is so we don't have to wait a long time for a decision. Oh boo hoo - Grod forbid we have to wait a week to know who won't be taking office for another two months!
Well, no need to worry. He said he was running as both a Democrat and a Republican. Of course, if the Democrats won't let him in...
To paraphrase Monty Python, who were speaking about Nixon and a new @$$hole,
"The Democratic Party has had a spine implant!"
"Oh yeah?"
"Yeah, the spine's rejected them!"
"Well, no need to worry. He said he was running as both a Democrat and a Republican. Of course, if the Democrats won't let him in..."
The problem, from what I understand, is that if Colbert spends more than $5000 on the campaign, he's subject to all sorts of campaign finance laws. And to be put on the ballot as a Republican, the fee--as opposed to the $2500 from the Dems--is $35,000. So the fee alone puts him over the limit that he can spend.
PAD
Well, he can always run as an independant in the general election.
>...a deserving candidate? You mean the Democrats have one?
Once again, the similarity between the Dems and our Canadian Liberals is striking. When offered a star candidate, Ken Dryden, they instead picked a lifeless, baggage-laden non-entity (Stephane Dion) who shows no leadership ability whatsoever, and has no hope in hell of getting elected. I, too would have loved to see Colbert be allowed to run. Maybe the Republicans will have more sense?
P.S. Those who remember Dryden only as the Stanley Cup winning hockey goalie may not be aware he obtained Bachelor of Arts degree in history at Cornell University and a degree in Law at McGill University, not to mention wrote books on hockey (big surprise) but also education. So he's not just some jock. He's also the only hockey player ever to win Most Valuable Player in the playoffs ... the year before winning Rookie of the Year.
This is extremely disapponting, since, frankly, Colbert was the only candidate I liked. He would LITERALLY have gotten my vote.
I don't trust in the candidates, nor have faith that they can do any good. There's nobody worth voting for EXCEPT Colbert.
It won't make much difference whether he's on the ballot or not, but the idea that the party can just decide to not accept him if he has abided by all of the rules to get on the ballot is bad.
But then again, this is the Democrat party. They know what's best for everyone and are going to cram it down your throats whether you like it or not.
Actually, in many ways, both parties do this, just for different reasons. (and this is just a general statement; there are plenty of exceptions in both parties) The Republicans generally try to enforce a certain moral agenda, while the Democrats just think that no one can take care of themselves, only the government can do that.
Although I consider myself a Republican, I don't really like either approach. And this is coming from someone who from birth has attended church, consider myself a Christian, have been a part of the Baptist and Presbyterian churches, and is currently married to a Presbyterian minister.
And not to make this too much of a campaign ad, but this is the reason I am backing Fred Thompson. He is the candidate that is most likely to keep Washington out of anything that is not their business.
Whatever happens, I just don't want another 4 (or more) years of a Clinton in the White House. And it has nothing to do with any scandals or personal issues. It simply because the Clintons care about the Clintons, first and foremost. Whatever gives them the most power is what they believe in. They would not go out of their way to hurt anyone, they are not evil, they would not intentionally try to destroy their own party or country--but if a situation arose that would benefit THEM at the expense of anyone else, they would most likely take that path.
In the end, no matter what happens, at least we can all be grateful to live in America. No matter who is in office, it's still the greatest country in the world.
Don - I concur. There's occasionally talk here of having mandatory voting and I'm vehemently opposed for two reasons.
First, people say it's an insult to veterans died or were wounded so we'd have the right to vote if we don't. Uh, wrong. They fought such that we live in a free democracy, and that includes the right to decide whether we can be bothered to waste time voting once again for the least of the evils (I always do, but it's because *I* choose to do so, not because the govt *forces* me to).
Second, when one considers the godawful election results we've had in the past couple of decades, do we *really* want the ignorant, ill-informed masses being forced to decide who's going to get us out of the messes we've already made for ourselves? I wouldn't ban them from voting, however tempting it may be, but I'm certainly not going to complain if they decide to stay home rather than putting an "X" at random on the ballot.
StarWolf:
(1) is irrelevant, and can simply be taken care of with a "None of the Above" box.
(2), OTOH...
Had Hillary Clinton been the kind of First Lady who spent her time, in her own phrasing, "baked cookies and had teas", I might agree, but by all accounts she played a major role as one of her husband's closest informal policy advisors, to say nothing of the very successful law career she had (she helped prosecute the Watergate hearings when she was in her twenties)
As for Obama, for example, he followed his extraordinary academic career with about ten years as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. I happen to know some people with that job title and they're amazing. What they do is they help the poorest, most voiceless people in a big city find their voice. Obama spent close to fifteen years (interrupted by his Harvard law school stint) fighting for better conditions in schools and public housing, I happen to think that's better training for just about any job than decades of power lunches with lobbyists. He also was a major activist in the Illinois Democratic party in 1992, helping Bill Clinton carry the state (Bush I won it four years earlier)
Then he was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, he was there for eight years where he authored major bills on health care and death penalty reform to name just a couple of issues. And he's been in the U.S. Senate since then.
As Obama himself is fond of saying, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had decades of experience in the DC establishment and it didn't work out too well.
Obviously Barack's my guy but I could tell you similarly impressive things about every candidate in the Democratic field. This is a great group of leaders, any one of whom would be an exponential improvement on our current leadership.
"The truth is this is the strongest Democratic field in years, these are extremely accomplished men and a woman"
The 3 Democratic front-runners have a combined total of 16 years in the US Senate (3 for Obama, 7 for Clinton and 6 for Edwards), and for all intents and purposes no major political experience for any of them prior to the Senate. (And no, being First Lady does not count).
Somebody - I'd agree ... IF there was such a thing as a valid "None Of The Above" choice on the ballot. But there isn't. I'm not aware of ANY place which has that option. Oh, one can always spoil/decline, but it really doesn't do much because if everybody but one votes that way, the one vote still carries the day.
If anyone thinks Colbert wouldn't win, remeber that the Terminator got elected the governor of the state with the largest # of electoral votes. (Of course, that was a very strange bunch of candidates they had; I woulda gotten a kick out of porn star Mary Carey winning.)
The question with Colbert is: Can someone spend the money and time to run if it is a joke? He's be the first person (when not in his "Report" personae) to say this is indended as a joke and he has no aim to be the next president. But is a non-serious intent grounds for refusing a candidate? Anyone with legal knowledge on this, post away!
The StarWolf: "IF there was such a thing as a valid "None Of The Above" choice on the ballot. But there isn't. I'm not aware of ANY place which has that option."
Not in those words, no. But there are any number of ballots that have a space for a write-in candidate. I know a guy who says that he has voted for Bill the Cat at least three times (wish I had thought of that) and several others who have written "None Of The Above" in that spot several times over the years.
"If anyone thinks Colbert wouldn't win, remeber that the Terminator got elected the governor of the state with the largest # of electoral votes."
Arnold did that by spending tons and tons of campaign money. Colbert can only spend $5000, and his best case scenario was to only be on the ballot in one state. Colbert and everyone on his show knew they were going to have to stop at some point, it was just a question of how long they could keep it up.
Personally, I'm wondering what the plan was if he had gotten on the ballot. The show is shut down at the moment because of the writers strike, so they can't send him all over South Carolina campaigning and say that it's for segments for the show. Would Colbert have spent the time off the air driving around South Carolina shaking hands?
I had to laugh at the comment that allowing Colbert on the docket would make a mockery of the democratic process. I think the American electoral process as it exists today pretty much makes a mockery of democracy. Heck, if the Dems really valued democracy that much, they'd have not only allowed him on the ballot, they'd have made a Super Big Deal about it. They could have used it to prove that the Dems really are about working for the people, rather than playing patriarch.
What this really amounts to is further proof that the Dems are no better than the GOP. Both are an elitist club that makes the rules such that they can thwart the attempts of any who might broach their little treeclubhouse.
What I'd really like to see is a electorate referrendum to get Colbert placed back on the ballot. Or a heavy write-in campaign. It's too bad the WGA strike will deprive Colbert of his main platform.
Although I'd not be surprised to find some candidate in the next few years hit upon the idea that having a weekyl or daily talk/news show would be a fantastic way of campaigning.
You know, people talk about how nobody on the Democratic party has much experiance, especially Obama and Hilary, BUT look at Bush and Cheeney. They had/have experiance and look what they have done for this country (aka not much, expect start a War). Its not always about experiance people.
In fact, I think that we need a President who is NEW at the job. Someone with a fresh prespective. Obama, IMO, looks like the best bet so far.
Time will tell.
DF2506
Posted by UmberGryphon at November 2, 2007 01:47 AM
"The 3 Democratic front-runners have a combined total of 16 years in the US Senate (3 for Obama, 7 for Clinton and 6 for Edwards),..."
----------
And Bush had none. He was governor of Texas for 6 years. Before that, he was a failure at everything he had ever done.
Jon ( the Presbyterian) said:
"And not to make this too much of a campaign ad, but this is the reason I am backing Fred Thompson. He is the candidate that is most likely to keep Washington out of anything that is not their business."
==========
Right. Thompson is just more of the same old, same old Republicanism. "Rob from the country and give to the rich. Corporations are the real God."
For the last decade or so, corporations have been running this country. All the tax laws are changed to benefit the rich and the corporations. Food safety has gone out the window. Toy safety is gone. Personal freedoms are being limited.
The main purposes of the federal government should be to protect the people and to make sure that all people have the same rights and freedoms. Republicans can't or won't do that.
There is a cancer in this country; a Republicancer.
-----
Colbert would be a far better president than any Republican candidate.
"Although I'd not be surprised to find some candidate in the next few years hit upon the idea that having a weekyl or daily talk/news show would be a fantastic way of campaigning."
That's actually not legal. Significant candidates (those that are spending more than $5000 on their campaigns) have to deal with equal time laws. A network can't give them their own show unless they devote an equal amount of time to each of the other candidates.
This has actually been a big deal with Fred Thompson and all his Law and Order reruns.
Does equal time require equal time to each other candidate? Or does it merely require an allowance for the opposing side to have a say?
And are those even requirements any more? I'd heard that they were repealed or allowed to expire, and that Congress was looking at reinstating them.
Equal time means an equal amount of time to any candidate who requests it, down to the minute.
Giving a half hour a night to a candidate that he isn't paying for is a gigantic campaign contribution. That would be a big, big corporate sponsorship. These laws are definitely still in effect.
Equal time means an equal amount of time to any candidate who requests it, down to the minute.
Giving a half hour a night to a candidate that he isn't paying for is a gigantic campaign contribution. That would be a big, big corporate sponsorship. These laws are definitely still in effect.
They're worried he might turn it into joke? As opposed to what? The certain joke it already is?
On a slight tangent, apparently W found out he's been a Buhddist all along. The Dala Lama told him
the first steps were to empty his mind and be free of all thought....
Sorry...
Discuss among yourselves.
Manny
the first steps were to empty his mind and be free of all thought....
Sorry...
Discuss among yourselves.>>
Talk about getting stuck in first gear,...
John Edwards. Smart enough to be president, easily; quite possibly the least privelidged of all the candidates growing up; humble enough to admit that voting for the war in Iraq was a big mistake.
Obama wants to chat, not lead. Hillary might as well be a republican. Kucinich sees UFOs. Dodd will make a great VP. Richardson is too conservative. Biden is too... Biden. Gravel is whacko. The Republicans aren't worth considering.
The StarWolf:
"IF there was such a thing as a valid "None Of The Above" choice on the ballot. But there isn't. I'm not aware of ANY place which has that option."
To which Jerry Chandler replied:
"Not in those words, no. But there are any number of ballots that have a space for a write-in candidate. I know a guy who says that he has voted for Bill the Cat at least three times (wish I had thought of that) and several others who have written "None Of The Above" in that spot several times over the years."
I think what The Starwolf is stating, and this may simply be my own interpretation here, is that there is no option to vote "No Confidence." And even if there were such an option, would it be considered seriously by the two major parties or the media?
How often do we see poll results from a target group that has no confidence in the electoral process or in those who claim to represent us? I'm not talking about the wingnuts on the far outer fringe. I'm refering to people who have concerns that make sense like what Don posted:
"Now the length of time the polls are open, on the other hand, strikes me as a fight worth having. The idea that we're going to cram all that voting into a 14 hour period, most of which is during a working day, is insanity. It makes for crowds, lines, staffing problems and god knows what other issues. All for what? The most compelling reason anyone has ever conveyed to me is so we don't have to wait a long time for a decision. Oh boo hoo - Grod forbid we have to wait a week to know who won't be taking office for another two months!"
That's a good summation of a particular problem with the process.
Others have stated that neither group, Republicans or Democrats, have good candidates to offer. It has been called a choice between the lesser of two evils, which I now call a choice between Tweedle-Dip and Tweedle-Shit. I find this to be the case too often, so I cannot vote for either because voting for the sake of voting just seems wrong to me. It's like rewarding poor behavior. And that is just pre-elction. Then to vote for someone only to find that I have been duped... It gives me concern that there is not much in the way of a grading system in place to measure the fiction of the campaign vs. the fact of the time in office.
I believe that the 'Fact Vs. Fiction' research is largely my responsibilty as a voter, but it would make the process much easier for the average person to keep up with if there were a single, easily accessible resource to tap.
Is this the "voter apathy" we keep hearing about? I love how that phrase has been able to marginalize people with real concerns.
I wonder if the lack of voter turn-outis more indicative of people being lazy, or people whose confidence has been diminished by each subsequent election.
I'm disappointed Stephen won't be there, but I can kind of understand the Dems' reasoning. He'd make the debate a lot more entertaining, sure, but if he were in character for the entire thing, how would it go? Would he be a distraction to the candidates? Would he throw them off their game?
If he criticized, say, Edwards, but didn't really mean it and Edwards responded with some kind of joke, would it be taken the wrong way and blown out of proportion, making it seem as though he meant something he didn't? Honestly, in his "Better Know A District" interviews with Eleanor Holmes Norton, I've never been entirely sure when Norton has been genuinely annoyed or angry with him and when she's just pretending.
Seeing how the candidates responded to whatever Stephen would have said to them would have been a good test of how well they can think on their feet, but it also could've made them look bad, and I guess they didn't want to risk that.
Posted by: Chris Grillo at November 2, 2007 09:08 AM
For those who care, over on the Democratic side I like Barrack Obama, and over on the Republican side I like Ron Paul.
Oh yeah, an Obama vs. Paul election would be great. The only issue on which I disagree with Paul is abortion, and even there I can understand his point of view. But it ain't happening. :(
Posted by: Peter David at November 2, 2007 08:55 AM
Actually, I think it says a lot about the country that less than a generation ago, the prospect of Dan Quayle being a heartbeat away from the presidency was unthinkable because he was considered such an intellectual lightweight...and in 2000 we wound up with a president (subsequently reelected) who made Dan Quayle look like Aristotle.
Some dialogue from one strip of "The Boondocks" bears re-posting at this time (does this count as fair use, legal professionals?)
HUEY: Speaking of stupid, you know who's got to be really mad about Bush being President?
CAESAR: You mean Gore?
HUEY: No, no. I mean really mad.
CAESAR: Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton?
HUEY: Nope. Madder than that.
CAESAR: Who?
HUEY: Dan Quayle.
CAESAR: Ahh, yes. Intellectually, a man way ahead of his time.
Posted by Susan O. at November 2, 2007 09:36 AM
Personally, I like Australia's ploy of voting is MANDATORY, or you face penalties. My inlaws, I'm ashamed to say, have never voted in their lives.
Right, but here's the thing. What if you got them to get off their asses and vote...and they decided that Giuliani looked good to them? What if they'd voted for Bush/Cheney in the last couple of elections.
There was one election where I didn't vote because basically I was unwilling to lift a finger to help either candidate, let alone lift a pen and a ballot.
Posted by Bladestar at November 2, 2007 09:46 AM
Too bad MANDATORY voting is a waste if people don't do the research and actually study up on the candidates before they cast their forced votes...
Hear hear!
But then again, this is the Democrat party.
I am really sick of hearing that Rovian moniker repeated over and over. It's those kinds of nasty little jabs (and other, less subtle, tactics) that firmly cemented my support for the Democratic Party. I wasn't going to vote for a bully, or a guy who sent bullies like Cheney, Zell Miller, and the Swift Boat guys to do his dirty work.
Your boy Thompson isn't above mocking his opponents either, as you can see here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTQzYWY1MGM5NTkyZTM2YWVlMDMzMDlhMzQwNThhNDU=
He also isn't above childish namecalling as you can see here (the "loony left" comment):
http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/fred-thompson-on-harry-reid%E2%80%99s-attacks-on-rush-limbaugh/
Or calling the Democrats cowards as you can see here (the "white flag" comment):
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/21/326698.aspx
Or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdAm6UY4xOE
Thanks, but no thanks. A guy who conducts himself that way will not be getting my vote.
I'm disappointed Stephen won't be there, but I can kind of understand the Dems' reasoning. He'd make the debate a lot more entertaining, sure, but if he were in character for the entire thing, how would it go? Would he be a distraction to the candidates? Would he throw them off their game?
If he criticized, say, Edwards, but didn't really mean it and Edwards responded with some kind of joke, would it be taken the wrong way and blown out of proportion, making it seem as though he meant something he didn't? Honestly, in his "Better Know A District" interviews with Eleanor Holmes Norton, I've never been entirely sure when Norton has been genuinely annoyed or angry with him and when she's just pretending.
Seeing how the candidates responded to whatever Stephen would have said to them would have been a good test of how well they can think on their feet, but it also could've made them look bad, and I guess they didn't want to risk that.
Posted by: Chris Grillo at November 2, 2007 09:08 AM
For those who care, over on the Democratic side I like Barrack Obama, and over on the Republican side I like Ron Paul.
Oh yeah, an Obama vs. Paul election would be great. The only issue on which I disagree with Paul is abortion, and even there I can understand his point of view. But it ain't happening. :(
Posted by: Peter David at November 2, 2007 08:55 AM
Actually, I think it says a lot about the country that less than a generation ago, the prospect of Dan Quayle being a heartbeat away from the presidency was unthinkable because he was considered such an intellectual lightweight...and in 2000 we wound up with a president (subsequently reelected) who made Dan Quayle look like Aristotle.
Some dialogue from one strip of "The Boondocks" bears re-posting at this time (does this count as fair use, legal professionals?)
HUEY: Speaking of stupid, you know who's got to be really mad about Bush being President?
CAESAR: You mean Gore?
HUEY: No, no. I mean really mad.
CAESAR: Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton?
HUEY: Nope. Madder than that.
CAESAR: Who?
HUEY: Dan Quayle.
CAESAR: Ahh, yes. Intellectually, a man way ahead of his time.
Posted by Susan O. at November 2, 2007 09:36 AM
Personally, I like Australia's ploy of voting is MANDATORY, or you face penalties. My inlaws, I'm ashamed to say, have never voted in their lives.
Right, but here's the thing. What if you got them to get off their asses and vote...and they decided that Giuliani looked good to them? What if they'd voted for Bush/Cheney in the last couple of elections.
There was one election where I didn't vote because basically I was unwilling to lift a finger to help either candidate, let alone lift a pen and a ballot.
Posted by Bladestar at November 2, 2007 09:46 AM
Too bad MANDATORY voting is a waste if people don't do the research and actually study up on the candidates before they cast their forced votes...
Hear hear!
But then again, this is the Democrat party.
I am really sick of hearing that Rovian moniker repeated over and over. It's those kinds of nasty little jabs (and other, less subtle, tactics) that firmly cemented my support for the Democratic Party. I wasn't going to vote for a bully, or a guy who sent bullies like Cheney, Zell Miller, and the Swift Boat guys to do his dirty work.
Your boy Thompson isn't above mocking his opponents either, as you can see here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTQzYWY1MGM5NTkyZTM2YWVlMDMzMDlhMzQwNThhNDU=
He also isn't above childish namecalling as you can see here (the "loony left" comment):
http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/fred-thompson-on-harry-reid%E2%80%99s-attacks-on-rush-limbaugh/
Or calling the Democrats cowards as you can see here (the "white flag" comment):
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/21/326698.aspx
Or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdAm6UY4xOE
Thanks, but no thanks. A guy who conducts himself that way will not be getting my vote.
"...a deserving candidate? You mean the Democrats have one?"
Peter, is there a single solitary thing you have EVER said on this blog that actually encourages anyone to do anything positive in politics? All I've ever seen is carping and whining and not a single instance of your suggesting people support a candidate with time or money. If you're seriously going to sit on your ass and suggest that the entire Democratic field is somehow "undeserving," maybe you should stop pretending you're a Democrat.
At this point, I'm inclined to vote for any Presidential candidate who does NOT have a southern (US) accent. By the time Bush leaves office, it will have been 16 straight years of that coming from the White House. Add the four years of Carter's run, and that's almost half my lifetime right there. I'd cast my vote for Jeff Spicoli just to break up the monotony.
I think Stephen Colbert would be a fantastic candidate. After all, what is politics if it isn't entertaining?
We certainly don't leave them alone for enough of a time so that they can get their jobs done. They're so busy worrying about how they're going to keep their jobs, they don't really get down to actually doing the things we elected them for.
I'm with the 'what-ever' crowd. If we elect them, we get what we deserve.
Sometimes I think we truly do need a Victor Von Doom running this country. At very least, he's driven and has a plan.
Really, how many Latverians have gone hungry under him? He wouldn't allow it. It would imply that he is an ineffectual leader, and that would be a truly severe blow to his ego. No, I truly believe he'd think of his people first because his people would truly praise him and that would inflate his ego to the size of Galactus' big toe.
'At this point, I'm inclined to vote for any Presidential candidate who does NOT have a southern (US) accent. By the time Bush leaves office, it will have been 16 straight years of that coming from the White House. Add the four years of Carter's run, and that's almost half my lifetime right there. I'd cast my vote for Jeff Spicoli just to break up the monotony.'
I think we need a New Yorker in the White House, and an Italian-American to boot.
The choice is obvious.
My vote goes to Joe Pesci!
Will McLaughlin: "Sometimes I think we truly do need a Victor Von Doom running this country."
Victor Von Doom is a fictitious character whose ability to seize and hold political power is the result of his fantastically powerful armor and his genius intellect. He conquered a fictitious Eastern European nation that was weak, largely agrarian and ripe for the plucking. The U.S. bears little resemblance to Latveria, and I know of no presidential candidates who can fire energy bolts from metal gauntlets or who control robotic sentries.
In the real world, dictators are as dangerous to their own people as they are to those of other nations. Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin... all examples of fanatical dictators who caused great suffering both within their respective nations' borders and without.
Our democracy is still robust enough to prevent anyone from achieving total power. But George W. Bush has made the attempt to assume something close to that, and the results have been disastrous.
So, no, we don't need a leader who is like Victor Von Doom in any respect.
Posted by: Sean at November 2, 2007 08:32 PM
Kucinich sees UFOs.
Got a problem with that?
Oh God, how I wish he hadn't said that. More ammunition for anybody who wants to tear him down. Strangely enough, this revelation comes shortly after Kucinich questioned Bush's mental health.
Speaking of write in candidates, my high school history teacher once told us of a mayoral election (I believe it was) in another state. When the votes were counted, the two candidates for mayor had the same number. A tie.
But one voter didn't vote for either of them. What would have been the tie-breaking vote went to a "candidate" the voter wrote in:
Batman.
"Oh God, how I wish he hadn't said that. More ammunition for anybody who wants to tear him down. Strangely enough, this revelation comes shortly after Kucinich questioned Bush's mental health."
If people didn't make fun of Kucinich, they wouldn't know who he is at all. I don't really see the UFO thing hurting him.
"If people didn't make fun of Kucinich, they wouldn't know who he is at all..."
I'm sure some people are prepared to vote Kucinich in, if only so his wife (hot redhead with classy Brit accent) can stay in the public eye. Anyone here see Jason Jones drooling over her on "The Daily Show"? I hope Samantha Bee didn't see that!
Regarding mandatory voting: in Australia, I think lots of people who don't give a crap about voting, but are forced to vote, just tick 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 on the ballot paper - which is good for whatever party is listed first. But I'm not sure how much of a difference the "donkey vote" makes - I'm sure if voting wasn't compulsory, we Aussies would still be stuck with the same conservative glove-puppet of a Prime Minister we've had for the last eleven and a half years (for all the faults in the American democratic system, at least you guys can't have any more than 8 years of the same schlub...).
Mandatory voting is an interesting idea. The current endgame of every presidential election is masses of negative ads. Both sides do them for the specific purpose of getting the *other* side to not bother voting. It's not about changing people's minds at all, it's just about making less of their people show up to the poles than the your people.
It seems that this tactic wouldn't work if everyone was required to vote. They'd have to try and find a strategy to actually change people's minds about who the best candidate is.
Peter, is there a single solitary thing you have EVER said on this blog that actually encourages anyone to do anything positive in politics? All I've ever seen is carping and whining and not a single instance of your suggesting people support a candidate with time or money. If you're seriously going to sit on your ass and suggest that the entire Democratic field is somehow "undeserving," maybe you should stop pretending you're a Democrat.
I always find interesting the selective amnesia required for people to slam me.
Two weeks ago I was singing the praises of Al Gore, saying that I was hoping he would run and that he was far more electable than anyone on the Democratic slate. That involved neither carping nor whining. And I'm sure that two weeks from now, if I write something critical about Bush, someone will pipe up and comment how I never say anything critical of the Democrats.
I didn't say no one was undeserving. I asked, rhetorically, "You mean the Democrats have one?" Personally I'm not sure, but I'm willing to be convinced. And everyone else took the comment exactly right, since it seems to have prompted various people to sing the praises of particular candidates.
Personally, I haven't made up my mind. I honestly think the Democrats overestimate how electable Hillary and Obama are. Personally, I still kind of like John Edwards. He seems, for no reason I can put my finger on, less manufactured.
But honestly, if the Democrats don't win the presidency, there could be a huge plus that Garry Trudeau touched on in "Doonesbury"--by the end of four years, if/when we're still mired in Iraq, it's no longer going to be considered Bush's war. It's going to be (for instance) Hillary's war. If a Democrat is elected, the belief among the voting public is that she or he will find a way to get us out of Iraq. Should they fail, then it almost doesn't matter what else they accomplish. They'll still have the albatross of Iraq around their necks. And the Democrats will pay for that four years later.
PAD
PAD>>>
So therefore they will win 4 years later for letting the Republicans do what the Democrats also would have done. Stay in Iraq. Which is not what you would wish them to do in your heart of hearts? Sounds like you are interested in the long term success of the party more than any alignment with your own beliefs.
I'm ok with that. I don't think you mean it though. You still wanna win.
Hey, maybe in 4 years they'll be able to take credit for the new Iraq, Jewel of the Middle East.
I don't buy the Ralph Nader argument at all. If I want to vote for Nader, that's my business. My vote counts and if I want it to count for Nader or Stephen Colbert or anyone else, that's what it will count for. This -- excuse me -- BULLSHIT about someone siphoning a vote that would go to a more "deserving" candidate... well fuck anyone that thinks that way. You don't care about the political process you just care about your guy. Fuck your guy. "Lesser of two evils" is a shitty game and I will never play it.
Is it Nebraska (?) whose state government is partyless? You worry about the actual candidate and what they stand for, not party lines. While it would be nice if the concept would spread (though I know it sadly won't), it would stop some of the crap of "throwaway" votes. I voted for the 3rd party in a Gubernatorial election because I just couldn't in good conscience vote for either party, and sure enough, the worst choice was elected by a margin that would have made him lose if half the 3rd party people had voted for the opposite candidate (the winner eventually stepped down in the face of impeachment and did jail time).
Mandatory voting??? I'd rather make it MORE difficult--at least have people jump through a flaming hoop or something.
Forcing people to make a choice seems somewhat totalitarian to me--what if they honestly don't like anyone? In Australia is it an option to choose none of the above or leave the form blank? (If so, I'll bet that choice would win more than a few landslides).
And how is this enforced anyway? What's the punishment if you don't vote? Can one be a conscientious objector?
Jason - I believe that, when George Takei ran for office (in L.A.?) a couple or more of decades ago, the city banned STAR TREK reruns for the duration of the camaign such as not to give him an unfair advantage. Harder to do with LAW & ORDER with the no longer locan broadcasters.
Mitch - None of the Above means, to me, that I want a new slate of candidates because I don't care for any of the ones on the ballot. Write-ins probably wouldn't work because there is no one called "none of the above" to get elected. They'd have to amend the election laws for that to work, I think.
I'd be okay with amending election laws to create a "none of the above" option.
I honestly think the Democrats overestimate how electable Hillary and Obama are. Personally, I still kind of like John Edwards. He seems, for no reason I can put my finger on, less manufactured.
Electability-wise, Edwards's pledge to take matching funds, for the sake of distancing himself in the primaries, has been criticized even by those who support him (ie. kos readers) as handicapping him in the general election.
It sounds like he's counting on McCain (who is making ground) to win his nomination and reciprocate. If Edwards rolls the dice and things work out that way for them, that's fine, but I wouldn't count on it.
Has anybody considered that this is exactly what
Stephen Colbert was trying to achieve? A sort of
"If you Dems dont start showing some promise soon I will jump in the race and make it a real comedy bit"
Just a thought
I still think the biggest missed opportunity in this is that Colbert won't be in any of the debates.
Colbert is a smart guy, and I doubt he would have done the debates in character. Funny, yes, but not in character. When Thursday's episode showed him interacting with real people in South Carolina, he didn't do his regular fake neo-con pundit bit, he talked and joked with them in a more relaxed manner.
I think in an actual debate Colbert would have made a lot of jokes, but he would have joked while *actually answering the questions*. No talking points, no party rhetoric, I think he would have actually said interesting things that some people wouldn't like and others would. He would have made the other candidates look very dumb, not because of his jokes, but because of his willingness to actually think about the questions instead of just reworking them towards prepared talking points.
Hmmm. The question that is unanswered would be if stephen Colbert had been able to win, which Stephen Colbert would actually serve as President?
"Hmmm. The question that is unanswered would be if stephen Colbert had been able to win, which Stephen Colbert would actually serve as President?"
By that point, the pundit Colbert will have tried to kill the actor Colbert, as per Stephen King's "The Dark Half."
Oh well, the worst thing about Colbert not making the ballot is that it would have been a good way of seeing new material from him in light of the fact that we are going to be doomed to reruns of his show for the duration of the WGA strike.
Well, a comedian made it on the ballot eight years ago, and the American people gave him a second term.
I've never thought of W. as a comedian. However, if you think of the last sevenish years as performance art, it makes a tragic kind of sense.
>"Lesser of two evils" is a shitty game and I will never play it.
The nice thing about living in a free(?) country is that it is indeed up to you. However it is remarkably naive to think that it is harmless. For several years, the Canadian equivalent of the Republicans (Progressive Conservatives) couldn't get elected. Partly, yes, due to the fact that Canadians remembered what a disaster they were the last time they were in, but also in large part due to the radicals splitting off and forming their own party (The Reform Party of Canada) thus splitting the right-wing vote in many ridings, and allowing the center-left Liberals to walk in through the middle. Now, it's the other way as the center-left vote is split between the Liberals and the NDP, while the united Conservative Party of Canada (renamed fusion of the Reform/Alliance and the old PCs) now is the one to walk in through the middle.
"Forcing people to make a choice seems somewhat totalitarian to me--what if they honestly don't like anyone? In Australia is it an option to choose none of the above or leave the form blank? (If so, I'll bet that choice would win more than a few landslides)."
It's a secret ballot, so although the electoral commission has a record of voters who show up at the polling place, and they make sure voters put their ballot papers into the box, they have no way of identifying which voters complete their papers incorrectly. You can fill out your voting paper incorrectly, leave the spaces on it blank, etc if you want. Papers that are filled out incorrectly or have spaces left blank aren't counted in the election. So when we talk about "mandatory voting," we're compelled to show up, and electoral employees make sure we put our ballot papers in the box - but no one makes sure voters complete their votes properly.
"And how is this enforced anyway? What's the punishment if you don't vote? Can one be a conscientious objector?"
Well, if you're on the electoral roll, you have to show up on voting day to have your name crossed off. If you don't show up, the electoral commission will have a record of it, and will ask you to explain why you didn't vote. I think if you don't have a reasonable explanation, you get fined and if you don't pay up, you have to go to court.
Just a lurker here, but the reason mandatory voting will likely never happen in the US - well, okay, there are many, but here's one - is that the people who don't vote tend to be (disproportionately) young people and minority voters. There are a lot of reasons for this that I won't go into. The point is, if everyone voted, there would be a lot fewer Republican victories across the board because the people who aren't voting tend to be more liberal. Whereas older people, who vote in huge numbers, tend to be conservative, broadly speaking. And since, for the last year, Republicans have controlled two of the three houses of government, and before that, all three for six, and generally have a much more effective political machine in place, they are unlikely to support such a system.
Mind you, I don't necessarily think it's a good idea, but it does tend to benefit the righties.
I just hate that guy he just stares though his glasses and takes himself too seriously to be a comedian. John Edwards an Dennis Kuchnich would make a good ticket.
Compared to the current administration, Krusty the Klown and an over-ripe cantaloupe would be a dream ticket.
J. Alexander: Oh well, the worst thing about Colbert not making the ballot is that it would have been a good way of seeing new material from him in light of the fact that we are going to be doomed to reruns of his show for the duration of the WGA strike.
Luigi Novi: Then again, depending on how far he intended to go in the campaign, they'd eventually have to take his air off the air completely in order to comply with equal air time campaign laws.
Anyone know when during the campaign those laws kick in? Is it after one of the primaries?
Equal time laws apply as soon as a candidate declares. In fact, if a candidate seems to be campaigning without declaring, he can still get into a lot of trouble.
That was a concern with Fred Thompson. Before he actually declared, there was a lot of buzz about the possibility of him running. People started saying that he was holding out an official declaration so that he could keep the Law and Order reruns going longer, thus getting an unfair publicity advantage. I think one of the other campaigns was actually threatening to file some kind of complaint about it.
Colbert is currently avoiding those laws because his campaign doesn't seem significant. The $5000 limit is part of keeping it below the radar, but I don't know what else he has to do to keep from looking significant.
"lack of voter turnout in this country is a huge problem."
BULLSHIT.
One reason that this if any country is in the motherloving crapper is that people who really don't have honest and invested interest in this country are persuaded to vote!
We want less people to vote! It's a right! Yes! But I don't think people should use their First Amendment rights to educate eighteen-year-old children about sex with graphic pornography! I don't think people should use those rights to teach 18-month-olds vulgar language.
I certainly don't think we should ever persuade people who are not honestly inclined to thoughtfully follow on all intellectual processes to make a decision that I make while being informed!
Assuming that someone who votes is ideally informed and should be informed I will sit here and psychically batter people into realizing that most people that are persuaded to vote who aren't inclined to vote GENERALLY VOTE IN DUMBASSED WAYS.
Are these the kinds that voted for President Bush? Almost certainly.
Of course there are tons of uninformed IDIOTS that were persuaded to casually go exercise a sacred right.
What the frell is wrong with our civilization that we have people (here) saying that it is bad that people are not casually effecting their sacred rights? It's good that less peopel are voting! IT. IS. GOOD. you want more people to be voting, based on the get-out-the-vote drive of a cable tv host? It's like a great big idiot drive.
what a ruin upon society.
Whoa, Blue, don't bust a gasket!
I'm not sure it's ever really been determined who is not voting. Even in the elections with the lowest voter turnout, a ton of people who did vote were the straight ticket people (on both sides) who never think about anything. And those people care a great deal, they're very enthusiastic and have lots of interest in voting, they just don't think about who they're voting for.
And there are always people who don't vote, but it's not because they don't have good opinions. There are moderates who just don't vote because they don't care for either side. Some of these people would think hard and vote for what they thought was the least bad choice if they had to.
How many are there of each group? I have no idea. It could be that almost everyone who doesn't vote has nothing to add to the process, or it could be that it's mainly the people voting now who are bad; and having other people vote would drown out their bad decisions. I don't really see a way to find out for certain just by anecdotal evidence.
Keep in mind, everyone, that the Blue Spider is a whiny little right-wing chickenhawk who likes to talk big but would never ever ever put his own precious ass on the line in the war he says he supports. He has no gaskets left to blow; he's been wandering around blubbering to himself since last November.
Posted by: Blue Spider at November 5, 2007 01:24 AM
But I don't think people should use their First Amendment rights to educate eighteen-year-old children about sex with graphic pornography!
An eighteen-year-old is a "child" in your eyes? Are you sure you meant to type "year"?
Assuming that someone who votes is ideally informed and should be informed I will sit here and psychically batter people into realizing that most people that are persuaded to vote who aren't inclined to vote GENERALLY VOTE IN DUMBASSED WAYS.
Are these the kinds that voted for President Bush? Almost certainly.
Yes.
I tend to think third parties don't have as big an effect as people tend to blame. After all, it's a virtual certainty that third-party candidates will lose. I have a feeling a lot of the people that vote for Libertarians or the Green Party or whoever, probably wouldn't vote at all if they had to chose one of the big two. It's a statement in of itself to vote for someone you think will likely lose.
It's a bummer Colbert won't be involved more. I think it'd be great to have him host a debate, if he can't be in one.
This was a pretty striking show of man, I don't even know what the word is. Crazy-old-person-disease, where you can't discern the difference between fact and fiction? Wait, I think that's a form of schizophrenia. Which is actually a pretty good description for both of our wonderful political parties these days.
Assuming that someone who votes is ideally informed and should be informed I will sit here and psychically batter people into realizing that most people that are persuaded to vote who aren't inclined to vote GENERALLY VOTE IN DUMBASSED WAYS. Are these the kinds that voted for President Bush? Almost certainly.
Then why were votes from entire Florida counties dumped in 2000? Why did Florida announce hundreds of thousands of votes in these same counties turn up to be counted after Jeb's 2002 reelection was announced? The most vulnerable segments of our society were the least likely to vote for Bush. The idea obstructing votes would have cut Bush's vote-count is crap you either bought from those who benefit from you passing along their deception, or a deception you deliberately participate in spreading.
"The only issue on which I disagree with Paul is abortion, and even there I can understand his point of view. But it ain't happening. :( "
Oh, I don't know about that. Did you see what his grassroots supporters accomplished on Nov 5th?
And, the 16th of Dec will even be bigger.