In an effort to scrape together some money for their upcoming presidential primary, the South Carolina GOP tried to sell "naming rights" to none other than Stephen Colbert, the famed political satirist. Although party officials renounced the proposed title, "The Colbert Nation Super PAC Presidential Primary," they did consider adding a question previously proposed by Colbert to the 2012 primary ballot.
The question, which some have considered a dig at Mitt Romney, created controversy when it appeared on a sample ballot. The questioned concerned whether or not corporations qualify as people, as Romney has previously declared.
"We weren't trying to embarrass Mitt Romney," Matt Moore, the party's
executive director told Yahoo News. "It was a question proposed by
Stephen Colbert, who was a potential donor to the party, and it didn't
work out. It won't appear on the ballot."
Do you think that the question should still be debated? Colbert apparently does, as he is now negotiating with South Carolina Democrats to include the measure on their presidential ballot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, first, the Supreme Court of the state of SC has blocked referendum questions (like the one Colbert proposed) to appear on the ballot right after the sample ballot was released. So Stephen Colbert isn't really directly negotiating for the inclusion of the question in the ballot; rather, he's trying to gather support to petition for a re-hearing from SC's supreme court to change the original ruling (so he can include the referendum). I also found it quite amusing that the SC GOP reached out to Colbert, who is very well known for using the GOP as the butt of a lot of his jokes. It's like they're asking to embarrass themselves.
Furthermore, I think this subject is worthy of debate. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations hold some of the same First Amendment rights as American citizens, which obviously links to Romney's "corporations are people" statement. I personally do not believe that corporations should not be allowed to hold the same rights as people. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers meant living and breathing human beings when they began the US Constitution with "We the people". But just in general, I really think corporations are too soulless to be considered and hold the same basic rights as us humans.
I find this interesting how as a Super Pac Colbert has so much more power. Corportions naming states primaries seems a little odd and is that not have the economic side and economy to involved with the elections. The elections are suppossed to be a place to vote, not a place where someone with a lot of money can put their name on it.I do not think that this question should debated. It is absurd.
I agree with Rebecca. I don't understand how debating whether or not a corporation counts as people is valid for a presidential debate. I'm sure that corporations do affect our economies which do affect our political parties, but the connection seems to far-fetched to even seem to qualify for a realistic question to be asked.
I agree with Michelle, that "It's like they're asking to embarrass themselves." Stephen Colbert is "an American political satirist" (according to wikipedia). It's natural that he is not taken seriously by his image, but as an advertiser he has serious fans and outreach. He is a prime example of the media being a tool to the American Party system.
However, the implications of the subject he is supporting bring most reactions to a halt. "Corporations are people"? Double-think leads me to believe that this wording is too general and may imply that repercussions that favor business may happen at the expense of the actual "people". The outcomes are likely to be the ones at stake in the likelihood of debate.
Post a Comment