A Vote for Stephen Colbert is a Vote for the Enemy
Stephen Colbert is a brilliant and hilarious comedian. His work on The Colbert Report is a remarkably cutting counterpoint to right-wing TV hosts like O’Reilly. He manages to make them look ridiculous without ever confronting or attacking them. Instead he imitates their machismo self-confidence in a way that makes it clear no level-headed person could take them seriously.
So why would his recent ‘announcement’ that he was going to run a one-state campaign for presidency be so dangerous? It’s all being done tongue-in-cheek, and only a fool would actually back it, so their should be no harm. The problem is it appears America is a country of fools. Listed as a third party candidate he now breaks double digits in polls. More than one in ten people claim that they prefer the comedian with the false bravado to Clinton, Rudy, Thompson, or Obama.
Still, you might say, people don’t like their choices and voters should have the right to vote for whomever they want. True, but you might remember that 1.9% of people in 2000 handed the presidency to the current king by the same logic. Under the current regime the US has invaded two countries, failed to finish either job correctly, and is now itching to level a third. I know that Nader was more of a joke than jokester, but the effect could be the same this year.
It is virtually impossible that Colbert would actually receive anything close to the 13% that he registers in national polls, but 5% would still be enormous. Imagine the impact on America’s foreign policy toward Russia (the Soviet Union as Fred Thompson recently called it), Iraq, North Korea, and China could be if we have another accidental president.
I love Stephen Colbert, but also know the enemy would love it if you voted for him.
Loading …
Jeremy responds:
Posted: November 6th, 2007 at 9:32 am →
Josh,
I like your subjects more since you have started Cup of Cha - we all know that Stepehen Colbert is in no way a threat to democracy. Hell, he understands foreign affairs and international relations a lot better than our current President.
Frankly, Hillary scares me with some of her entitlement programs (baby bond?) - and while I would rather Ron Paul or Obama get into office, Colbert would make a better President than our current one. Unless, of course, he just made jokes the whole time.
statusq responds:
Posted: November 6th, 2007 at 7:51 pm →
Colbert is only a threat to democracy if, like Nader he neglects to pull out at the last moment, neglecting to redirect non-right wing votes to a more plausible candidate.
Unless of course, we side for optimism, in which case Colbert could make a bigger dent than anyone expected.
Elana responds:
Posted: November 7th, 2007 at 12:16 pm →
Considering the fact that Stephen Colbert as a candidate generated 800,000 “Friends” on Facebook in three days while it took Obama, the leading candidate on Facebook, 5 months to garner 400,000 “Friends”, Colbert is likely to be a splinter factor, more than people realize. He’ll grab the young vote, the new voters, and the undecided voter who may not bother to even read about the candidates but knows that they like Colbert.
Fred Thompson is the Republican version of this. Hey, he was on Law and Order, he could be president. Awesome! Let’s splinter that vote, too!
retro responds:
Posted: November 21st, 2007 at 3:49 am →
Go Colbert! As wacky and wierd as he is, I’d vote for him.