The dream is over for Stephen Colbert

By Jason Wright, Editor

Filed Under Race for White House 2008 on Nov 2 

We could write something clever here about how the South Carolina Democratic Party denied Colbert a spot on their primary ballot. But why waste the virtual ink? Palmetto Scoop said it best:

VIABILITY, S.C. (TPS) – It’s rather humorous that the South Carolina Democratic Party Thursday denied Stephen Colbert from appearing on their presidential primary ballot in January, despite his paying the requisite $2,500 fee and filing the proper paperwork. It’s humorous because they made that decision based on Colbert’s “viability” and their belief that he lacked it on the national level.

Now, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, viable means: 1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions; 2. Capable of living outside the uterus; 3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness.

We’re pretty sure every human being passes the first two tests, so number three must be the deal breaker. And by this standard, it must be that Colbert is not effective enough at the national level and lacks the ability to have success in venues outside of South Carolina.

But wait… hold on just one second. Doesn’t Colbert have a devoted audience numbering well into the millions every night on his nationally-televised show, The Colbert Report? Oh, and didn’t he recently place fifth among Democrats nationally? Seems to us like he’s both effective and successful across the country.

Surely the candidates that did make the ballot — even the ones he polled ahead of — must be more viable than Colbert. There’s no way they could reject him and allow a less effective candidate who is less likely to succeed on the ballot.

Thankfully, the Democrats got this one right and only the truly viable candidates have made it to the presidential primary ballot. Viable candidates like Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel.

Read the rest. (trust us, it’s worth it)

Comments

4 Comments

  1. Bruce, Political Columnist on 02.11.2007 at 11:04 (Reply)

    Yes, those mentioned in the full article are truly “viable” indeed … but lest we not forget how viable is Obama as the voters realize that this guy doesn’t do the Pledge or show respect to the flag (must be his early childhood in a Wahibist Muslim school ya think?

    And the most viable candidate of all? Why the former Co-President Lady Hillary, who will not suffer us to see her looking “glamorous” at 60 in a Vanity Fair photoshoot.

    Yes, viability is important indeed.

  2. AndDru1 on 02.11.2007 at 11:39 (Reply)

    The Democrats have offered us the sorriest bunch of candidates ever, and now they say Colbert isn’t “viable”. I’m actually kind of upset about this, and not just because he would have chose Huck as his running mate.

  3. Ethan Boivie on 02.11.2007 at 12:19 (Reply)

    Colbert announced the sad news on his show. I’m surprised he didn’t immediately begin a write-in campaign, which I am officially suggesting right now.

  4. Toby on 02.11.2007 at 13:57 (Reply)

    thank goodness. the GOP’s pretend candidates have already made enough of the mockery of the process

Leave a comment