I can’t imagine that commercial cost too much. It was a pretty genius move. He only paid to air it on two local stations, and then the news media picked it up and aired it nationwide.
Tonight he said that the Republicans refuse to give details of the write-in vote.
My guess is that future ads will continue to show what PACs can do under the law, such as try to get supporters of a candidate write in the wrong name. Everything legal and legit, but taken to the extreme.
The Republicans indicated the Rick Parry votes were counted toward Rick Perry’s total, which was the obvious problem with that setup. And the other problem is that Ames voters aren’t Colbert viewers. Anyway the Daily Show says Perry got a total of 718 votes. As for Colbert using his own money… I don’t know. We already know what rich people (much richer people) can do with this system. I think the fact that he’s convincing people to part with their own money has to be part of the joke.
I don’t know if it’s better, but here’s another take on the issue: Murray Hill Inc.
I think people who want to measure Colbert’s success based on the percentage of votes amassed by “Rick Parry” are missing the point. Colbert is using the ads as a platform for educating the public about how fundamentally broken the PAC system is, not to alter Rick Perry’s chances at the Republican nomination. The ads themselves spend more time pointing out that PACs are essentially under-the-table money from out of state contributors than talking about either Rick.
That’s what makes this brilliant satire. Colbert is using the PAC model itself to illuminate the flaws in the PAC model. And he’s managed to bring more attention to this issue than virtually everyone else combined. That is the only real measure of his success, and in that measure, he is kicking ass.
I’ve been thinking about it and I finally hit on what was bothering me about all this. I feel like I should agree with everyone, after all. Poking a stick at the ridiculousness of the campaign finance laws is wonderful. And it’s better to show them up by using them ridiculously than to stand and point at them saying that they’re ridiculous.
The problem is that Colbert can’t do anything but stand and point. If any of his stunts wind up affecting the actual races, in even the teensiest way, that Monty Python giant boot comes out of the sky and tromps on him. He’s setting you all up for massive disappointment.
Or not. He does have a huge team of writers, all of whom are better at comedy than I am, and they’ll all be thinking about this day and night. Maybe they’ll hit on the perfect stunt. But my bet is that being truly subversive means affecting the race. And that’s the one thing they can’t do.
Why not? That’s what PACs try to do, why would the expectations be different for a SuperPAC which aims to skewer the idea of itself? If the Colbert effort alters the race in favor of the Presidential candidate who’s actually spoken against the Citizen’s United decision -or in favor of less antidemocratic politcal action- I’d think he’d be delighted.
I think it’s funnier when his satire is non-partisan, like when he announced he was going to run for President as a Republican and a Democrat. If he’s just going to use the SuperPAC money to dick with the Republicans, it’s less interesting to me.
I thought the commercials were pretty funny, though.
But he’s dicking with the idea of unlimited corporate influence, isn’t he? I think you could argue that while individual candidates differ, both parties are overly influenced by corporate money, and that what Colbert is doing is seeking to alter the political system in a very nonpartisan way
I’ll admit that this focus currently puts him much more at odds with the Republican Party, but so does his attachment to reality. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
That’s what happened in 2008.
At this stage there is just not that much action on the Democratic side because everyone knows Obama will be the nominee. Later on, the PAC could run ads on behalf of both candidates or on any issue that affects both parties.
Not to mention that currently only Republicans are campaigning. There is nothing for him to do on the Democratic side since they are not holding a primary. If his PAC is still around for the general election that would be when you can judge is partisanship.
Sure. Like I said, it’s been pretty funny so far; I just hope the idea (and/or the SuperPAC money) hasn’t run out of steam before it’s the Democrats’ turn.
The straw poll was a good place to run the ad, since the results are totally meaningless except in the context of how the media handicap the races. That was shown last night in the bit about how the media totally ignored Ron Paul’s near win, because they’ve decided that the story isn’t about him.
As for the money, it is clear that people are donating. Part of the joke was his absolute refusal to say what the goals of the PAC were. Other PACS might give a goal, but any donors have to trust them just as much as Colbert’s donors trust him, since there are effectively no controls on how the money is spent.
My only concern is; how hard will it be for Rick [del]Parry[/del] Perry to take this to court and claim: "All those people who wrote ‘Rick Parry’ really meant me.
No one is going to sue over a Straw Poll.
Yeah , I realllllly want to know how many write in votes she got.
Thank you.
I saw the name “Huffman” at work today, which made me immediately think of “Filliam H. Muffman,” which then made me think of “Munchma Quchi.” I had to step away from my desk because I couldn’t stop laughing.
What he said.
This thread needs some links to the recent goings-on of Colbert’s SuperPAC for people who aren’t regular viewers of the show.
Colbert Super PAC - Matthew Dowd & Ham Rove *
Colbert Super PAC - For the Children
Colbert Super PAC - The Heroes Respond
Colbert Super PAC - Rick Perry for President *
Colbert Super PAC - Campaign Donation Addiction
Super PAC Ad - Episode IV: A New Hope
Super PAC Ad - Behind The Green Corn *
**
Colbert Super PAC - Confused by Rick Parry with an “A” for America****
Colbert Super PAC - Iowa Straw Poll Results** *
**
- = required viewing
**