Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

No Truthiness in S.C. Race

He didn't even want to be president. He just wanted to run. That's what he told Tim Russert last month anyway. And for a few short hours today, it looked like comedian Stephen Colbert could live that dream on an actual presidential primary ballot in the state of South Carolina, not just from his own late night perch on Comedy Central.

But when the South Carolina Democratic party's executive council met this afternoon to certify the slate of candidates from those who had filed the necessary fees and paperwork by today's deadline, Colbert did not make the cut. Both he and a man named Henry Hewes were not deemed "viable candidates" for the office or were not seen as actively campaigning for the South Carolina democratic presidential primary--criteria from the bylaws for inclusion on the party's ballot, according to a party spokeswoman.

He won't even get to lose once, let alone "lose twice" like he said he wanted to when he announced his intention to run on both the Democratic and Republican ballots in South Carolina.

Running for office as both a Democrat and a Republican in South Carolina is not a cheap trick. In fact, it would have cost a total of $37,500, which is why Colbert only spent the $2,500 necessary to file as a Democratic candidate. He said he had neither the 3,000 petition signatures that would waive the fee or the $35,000 necessary to enter the GOP race.

Now South Carolina voters are stuck with only the Hollywood version of this extended electoral punch line: "Man of the Year," a 2006 film where comedian/late night talk show host, played by Robin Williams, runs for president and actually wins the White House.

Director Barry Levinson told Newsweek's The Stumper that Colbert's run was "inevitable" and said that a comedian as candidate with what appears to be genuine support is "all based on our complete and utter disillusionment with our political figures."

How disillusioned exactly is Levinson? In response to prodding on whether Colbert could be an effective leader, compared to other contemporary leaders, Levinson said: "It's a little bit like, him against FDR, I don't think so. But where we are right now, why not?"

--Rachel Dry

By Washington Post editors  |  November 1, 2007; 4:35 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Union in Clinton's Corner--And Ready For a Fight
Next: Bloggers Demand Fox News Debate Footage


I hope that some of you Colbert supporters will join us on the Ron Paul Peace Train?

It is shaping up to be one Hell of a party!

Posted by: washingtonpost | November 1, 2007 8:04 PM | Report abuse

South Carolinians, start a write-in campaign! Take our party back!

Posted by: dawnforsythe1 | November 1, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

I hate to say it, and I know the guy probably means well and all, but what WAS he thinking... Sorry man, there are only enough cameras for Billary and Osama. I mean, Hillary and Obama.

Posted by: kogejoe | November 1, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm glad to see that the two party system is set up so that anybody, rich or poor, can run for president. I mean, doesn't everybody have 2,500-35-000 dollars to spend on getting their names on a ballot? The primary candidate for a party should be up to the people, not a few high level executives of a party. Steven Colbert should run as an independent in South Carolina just to spite both parties. He would probably get more votes than Perot ever did. Besides, come the real election, that would take the real votes that matter away from the other candidates instead of knocking him off the ballot during one of the primaries.

Posted by: scrunner0 | November 1, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company