Stephen Colbert's Super Pac's First TV Ad: Episode IV: A New Hope

[Chimichurri]

Run time: 01:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrygYmTsTfU   Posted on YouTube: August 10, 2011 By YouTube Member: ColbertSuperPAC Views on YouTube: 307   Posted on DU: August 10, 2011 By DU Member: Chimichurri Views on DU: 7456

 
Brought to you by:
Munchma Quchi

[WCGreen]

1. Fucking brilliant.....

[Chimichurri]

19. *******UPDATED LINK HERE*******

The original link has been removed, I've no idea why but here's one that works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s87IkeNq3I&feature=player_embedded

[TheBigotBasher]

2. K&R

[polichick]

3. LOL - great stuff!

[Muskypundit]

4. Well.. there goes ANOTHER ten dollars of mine.

http://colbertsuperpac.com/

[dtexdem]

5. But I'm an American and I want a better tomorrow today!

;-)

[Liberalynn]

6. I wonder if anyone will really do it.

;). :rofl:

[Firebrand Gary]

7. hahahahaha, I cannot stop laughing ahahahahaha

So flipping smart, ahahaha. Way to go Steven!

[CarrieLynne]

8. is growpac real and are they really pushing a repug?

[IndependentDem]

27. Yes it is a real PAC.. but has nothing to do with cannabis

http://www.growpac.com/about-grow-pac/

[iandhr]

9. wonderful...

...

I am super pac and so can you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhMMTaHpvKg

[Relax77]

10. Hilarious

Great video. Glad I was able to find it it.
Thank you, Muchma and regards to you son Suq and husband Liqa.

[qb]

11. I can't wait for the repukes to start complaining about "misleading" political ads!

:bounce:

[classof56]

12. Oh, my...Stephen is amazing beyond words.

Just made a contribution to the cause. The entertainment factor makes it well worth while.

Long live Colbert and his Pac!

Tired Old Cynic

[Ruby the Liberal]

13. "Americans for a better tomorrow tomorrow"?

:rofl:

I am so glad he is doing this. Laugh or cry, right?

[japple]

14. Well shite!!! It's been removed. n/t

[blogslut]

15. Here's a working link

http://youtu.be/7s87IkeNq3I

[highplainsdem]

16. Thanks! TPM has the video, too. Link:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/colbert_pac_debts_iowa_straw_poll_ad_vote_for_rick.php

[JohnnyRingo]

17. Please explain...

What are the ramifications to writing in "Rick Parry"?

Will they count it as simply a mispelled vote for Rick Perry, or will this somehow toss a hilarious wrench into the process? If it's the latter, I'm not sure I understand.

I know Colbert Nation is good at following directions so I expect a substantial number of write-ins, but I wonder what the end result will be.

[rfranklin]

18. As you know, misspellings count for Republicans...

When it's a Democrat, obviously it doesn't count (as we saw in Bush v. Gore) and automatically defaults to the Republican.

[iandhr]

21. no no no...

.... votes for Gore default to Pat Buchanan not Bush.

[Land Shark]

30. Misspelling consequence depends on jurisdiction, and...

can often end up in losing the vote, as it has in many a race, including the San Diego Mayor's race about a decade ago when a clear majority of folks voted for the female Democrat by the voter intent standard (every reasonable person would agree they meant her with their vote) but the "failure to follow instructions" of a couple thousand voters disqualified those votes from being counted. (They "failed to fill in the oval" even though they spelled the Democrat's name CORRECTLY!) So the candidate that accomplished a near-miracle (a write in victory for a major office) was announced the loser based on this technical rule few knew anything about in San Diego.

But, in the Iowa caucuses or in straw polls, I'd bet some serious coin, if I were a betting person, that they WILL COUNT misspellings. This throws a major hypocrisy wrench into the Republican machine. They count misspellings in Iowa, but not elsewhere?

One part of the revolution accomplished by Bush v. Gore is that "objective rules" for ballots are required and that "violations" of rules like misspellings or failing to fill in ovals means that the voter loses their vote under these "objective rules" (Provided the "objective" rules provide the voter must do this or that, which the rules nearly always do given the requirement of Bush v Gore in the first place for objective rules sufficient to judge all ballots, which "constitutional" requirement per Bush v. Gore was implemented by state via HAVA the Help America Vote Act). The transformation of law that occurred in this area of Bush v. Gore meant that the centuries long "voter intent" standard in which the pollworkers (government) literally "listened to" the messages voters were sending even if in somewhat non-standard form, was replaced by the "objective rules" system in which such nonconformity results in disfranchisement for that race, and sometimes for the entire ballot.

What the above paragraph means, simply put, is that instead of the government serving us and LISTENING to each and every voter for whatever messages those voters are sending, we now have a "voter compliance" regime in which voters must comply with objective rules or else they will lose their vote. That's the difference between real democracy (listening/voter intent standard), and an autocratic orientation in elections.

[AlbertCat]

20. Oh! The truthiness of it!

So brilliant... Perry voters won't even get it!






Parry voters on the other hand....

[glinda]

26. I don't get it. It started interesting then I think it will just go over everyone's head.

[DWilliamsamh]

22. I think Colbert is almost as brilliant as Stewart but this is a dud IMO. (N/T)

[theophilus]

31. Stewart is not nearly as bright, imo. Colbert is much more savvy. He's more liberal, too. n/t

[Saturday]

23. Seriously, please explain this to me too....

what are the ramifications of writing in Parry?

[JohnnyRingo]

25. No one has explained the "brilliant" joke yet...

so either no one really gets it, or it's on a higher plane of satire and we just don't understand.

I look at it and have a hard time imagining people laughing aloud as they tell friends: "Hahahaha, hundreds of people wrote in 'Rick Parry'... get it?"

I would have seen more humor in "Prick Parry" or "Rick Party", but not much more. Even better would have been to write in "The guy from Texas" to throw vote counters into a quandary and watch Perry, Ron Paul, and Huntsman all scramble to claim the votes. It would have been amusing to hear reasons like "That was my nickname in college!".

I love The Colbert Report and never miss it, but maybe Steven could have asked Howard Stern, who commands a similar cadre of pranksters, for some ideas.

[boxman15]

24. Stephen Colbert is the greatest satirist of this generation.

His SuperPAC is absolutely brilliant, and it's hilarious to watch what he's doing with it. He and Jon Stewart are national treasures. They bring sanity to an increasingly insane world, since no one in the media seems to want to be a part of that.

Munchma Quchi is probably the greatest character break ever, by the way.

[annabanana]

28. I am hopless in love wth this guy. . . /nt

[MUTigers]

29. I love truthiness

:bounce: