Vox News

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, greets supporters as he leaves a campaign stop followed by his wife Carol on Tuesday, in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Paul should watch out for Stephen Colbert, who may be trying to steal his voters in the upcoming South Carolina primary. (David Goldman/AP)

Ron Paul: Are his voters being stolen away by Stephen Colbert?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 01.18.12

Ron Paul should watch out: Stephen Colbert may be trying to steal his voters in the upcoming South Carolina primary.

Laugh if you want, but this is semi-serious, in the way that the chips in a chocolate chip cookie are usually semi-sweet. Talk-show host/political provocateur/hair model Colbert has formed an exploratory committee to look into the possibility of running for president of South Carolina, in case you haven’t heard. He took this action after a Public Policy Polling survey showed him ahead of at least one real politician, Jon Huntsman, in the Palmetto State race.

Mr. Huntsman’s since dropped out, of course, which Mr. Colbert says was the result of his (Colbert’s) possible candidacy.

But there is a flaw in the comedian’s ointment: South Carolina has no provision for write-ins on its ballot, and it’s too late for Colbert to enter the primary.

What to do? Flip the problem around, and adopt the name of someone who can’t get off the ballot, even though they’re no longer running: Herman Cain. Brilliant!

“Anybody who shares my values can show it by voting for Herman Cain,” said Colbert on his Monday night show.

And here’s where Representative Paul comes in: Colbert appears to be reaching out to the demographic that in Iowa and New Hampshire supported the Texas libertarian. That means he wants young people (a category in which Paul has done very well), independent-minded voters, and Democrats willing to cross party lines to vote for someone whose policies they admire.

As Colbert noted on Monday, South Carolina has an open primary, which means you don’t have to be a preregistered Republican to participate in the GOP vote. He said he’s fishing for “independents, Democrats, college kids, viewers of my show, people who attended my rally, my Twitter followers, my good friends on Reddit, young people of the Internet – stand up and shout!”

Doesn’t that list sound like people who are also attracted to Paul? Yes, it does to us, too. Paul won a plurality of 46 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 in New Hampshire, for instance.

Now, Paul is not expected to do as well in South Carolina as he did in Iowa and New Hampshire. Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy, in particular, does not always go over well in a state with many large military bases.

Right now, Paul is tied with Rick Santorum for third in South Carolina, at 14.3 percent of the vote, according to the RealClearPolitics average of major polls.

But you know how the media play the expectations game: If even a percentage point or two of Paul’s vote decides to bolt for the Cain/Colbert experiment, then the MSM will pronounce that Paul did worse than expected, and they'll pay less attention to him than they do now. Or something like that.

One last bit of evidence that Colbert is after Paulites is the new ad from the "super political-action committee" that he once controlled. Now named the Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, it released a spot this week explaining that a vote for Mr. Cain in South Carolina is really a vote for Colbert. And the "notion voter" they have pondering this choice is a thin, young man who appears to be a college student, probably spends a lot of time on the Internet, and so forth.

Sure looks like a picture of a Paul supporter to us.

Read entire post | Comments

In this photo provided by Comedy Central, Stephen Colbert (c.) and John Stewart (r.) hold hands during The Colbert Report, as Trevor Potter looks on Thursday in New York. During the episode, Colbert legally transferred his super PAC to Stewart, his friend and Comedy Central cohort. Dropping by from 'The Daily Show,' Stewart happily signed the documents and accepted the post. (Comedy Central, Kristopher Long/AP)

Stephen Colbert for president? What's his point? (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 01.13.12

Stephen Colbert is thinking about running for the presidency of South Carolina! He announced that he’s forming an exploratory committee to that effect last night at the top of the “Colbert Report," in case you haven’t heard. Yes, yes, we know – this is huge, something so big it may possibly upend the 2012 presidential race and democracy as we know it.

It’s as if a giant, smoking volcano that is not Newt Gingrich has burst out of the intersection of 17th and K Streets in Washington and is now threatening to spew lava over all it surveys. Or possibly not, since he may decide not to run, in which case, never mind.

Here’s the bottom line: Colbert has two bottom lines in this case, we think. The first is to get attention. We mean no disrespect by this – that’s what people in show business do. He’s seized upon an actual poll that shows he’s the choice of 5 percent of voters for the upcoming GOP primary in his home state of South Carolina and turned it into show-stopping comedy. That means better ratings for him and for Comedy Central.

Look, Colbert appears to love attention even more than your average spotlight grabbing funny guy, as a recent New York Times profile points out. Look at him at the start of his show, when the audience is chanting his name as he comes on – his face just lights up.

“I’m just a guy who likes to keep a low profile,” Colbert said last night at that moment. “Ask anybody who subscribes to the ‘Stephen Colbert 24/7 Low Profile Web Cam’.”

The second bottom line is to expose the absurdities at the heart of the US campaign finance system. Colbert long ago launched a comedic crusade against super PACs, organizations created in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 “Citizens United” decision. Super PACs are allowed to accept unlimited amounts of cash from individual donors, and spend same on ads that promote or attack political candidates, as long as they don’t coordinate with the candidate who benefits from their actions.

The “coordination” thing is a tissue-thin distinction, as Colbert rightly points out. Super PACs can be run by candidate’s ex-chiefs of staff, and so forth, and pick up ideas as to what to do just by following what their person says in the media.

Colbert’s main tool in this crusade has been his own super PAC, which he formed last year. Among other things, the Colbert super PAC has paid for an ad urging Iowans to vote for Rick Parry, with an “a”. It’s produced an ad that features GOP also-ran Buddy Roemer bemoaning that he has to appear in Colbert’s ad to get any attention (watch for Colbert on a unicorn at the end).

But candidates can’t overtly direct super PACs. So last night on the Report, Colbert handed over control of his beloved cash pile to Jon Stewart, his former boss and business partner. All perfectly legal! They did a handshake thing with special effects to dramatize the switch. They looked like Severus Snape and Narcissa Malfoy doing the Unbreakable Vow in “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.”

“From now on, I’ll have to talk about my plans on my television show and take the risk that you’ll watch it,” said Colbert to Stewart.

That’s not so funny, really – that’s how Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry convey their wishes to their associate Super PACs, which are run by former aides, ex-business partners, and so forth.

Anyway, now Colbert continues onward, presumably milking this for all it’s worth through the South Carolina primary on Jan. 21. It’s too late for him to get on the ballot – he’d have to be a write-in. There isn’t even a post of "president of the United States of South Carolina.” (Insert your own Civil War joke here.)

But Colbert is a dangerous kind of comedian, almost a performance artist. So we would not be surprised if he continues to find ways to insert himself into the actual political process. He testified before Congress on the conditions facing migrant workers, after all, following one day’s stint as an agricultural picker. He and Jon Stewart held that big quasi-political rally on the National Mall in Washington last year.

“With your help and possibly with the help of some outside group I’m not coordinating with we can explore taking this country back.... Thank you, God bless you, and God bless ‘Citizens United’,” Colbert said Thursday night.

Read entire post | Comments

A screenshot from kingofbain.com of the anti-Mitt Romney documentary, 'King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town.' (kingofbain.com)

'King of Bain': 6 questions answered about anti-Mitt Romney attack ads

By Gloria Goodale, Staff writer / 01.11.12

A much-anticipated ad campaign claiming that Mitt Romney helped to destroy businesses and kill jobs is set to hit the airwaves Thursday.

The ads, taken from a documentary called "King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town," have drawn criticism from some Republicans, who say they unnecessarily attack American capitalism and could help President Obama if Mr. Romney wins the Republican nomination. 

But they are seen as one way the divided Republican field could haul Romney, now the clear front-runner after wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, back to the pack before the Jan. 21 South Carolina primary.

Here are the basics about the controversial campaign. 

Question: Who is behind the ads?

Answer: A pro-Newt Gingrich super political-action committee, called Winning Our Future, bought the 27-minute "King of Bain" documentary, which is already available at kingofbain.com. While Twitter and other online social media are already pushing the digital message out, the TV and radio ad campaign – comprising various clips taken from the documentary – starts Thursday. 

Question: What is so negative about this film?

Answer: The documentary profiles four companies that it argues were stripped and sold by Romney's venture-capital firm, Bain Capital, leaving many out of work and little if anything of value behind. The film details the hardships of those who were allegedly put out of work by Bain Capital.

Winning Our Future's Gregg Phillips calls this "the Romney treatment," and he denies the film is an attack on capitalism.

“This is not free-market capitalism,” says Mr. Phillips, a small business owner who says he owns a software firm. “Romney destroys businesses by sucking the cash out of the system.” 

“This film shows just what he actually does,” he adds.

The four companies are KayBee Toys, a Florida commercial laundry-equipment company called UniMac, an Indiana-based office-supply firm called AmPad, and an electronics company called DDI.   

Question: Who made the movie?

Answer: The filmmaker behind it is Jason Killian Meath, who created ads for Romney’s failed run in 2008. He is a former associate of Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer, top Romney strategists, according to The Daily Beast. Mr. Meath did not return a call requesting clarification about why he made the anti-Romney film.

Question: How did the super PAC obtain the film?

Answer: According to Phillips, Meath’s associates reached out to Winning the Future this past week, offering the film for sale. After negotiations, “we bought the film on Thursday for an undisclosed sum," he says.

He denies reports that money from Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson was used to buy the film and would not discuss any donations to the super PAC by Mr. Adelson. However, according to Factcheck.org, IRS documents show that Adelson donated $7 million to a now defunct Gingrich super PAC called American Solutions for Winning the Future.

Media have widely reported that Adleson has donated $5 million to the current super PAC, making the $3.4 million ad buy in South Carolina possible.

Question: What does Romney say about the film? 

Answer: Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for the Romney campaign, said Saturday: “It’s puzzling to see Speaker Gingrich and his supporters continue their attacks on free enterprise. This is the type of criticism we've come to expect from President Obama and his left-wing allies at MoveOn.org. Unlike President Obama and Speaker Gingrich, Mitt Romney spent his career in business and knows what it will take to turn around our nation’s bad economy.”

Question: What are other Republicans saying?

Answer: Republican strategist David Johnson, who worked on Sen. Robert Dole’s 1988 presidential campaign, said this film could backfire for the Republican Party, while not helping Mr. Gingrich in his South Carolina bid.

“All this does is hand fodder to the Democrats for attacking Romney in the general election, and it reinforces the image of Gingrich as mean and too personal in his attacks on fellow Republicans,” he says.

Read entire post | Comments

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul is swarmed by members of the media after visiting a restaurant in Manchester, N.H., on Monday. (Stephan Savoia/AP)

Is Ron Paul getting too much media attention?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 01.10.12

Ron Paul followers have long complained their guy does not get enough media coverage. They echo the words of comedian Jon Stewart, who last August pointed out that reporters generally ignored Representative Paul following his second-place finish in the Ames, Iowa, straw poll. “How did libertarian Ron Paul became the 13th floor of a hotel?” Mr. Stewart asked on his “Daily Show.”

Well, Paul’s the main lobby now. A media horde follows him everywhere. Is he getting too much press attention – so much that it's interfering with his ability to get out his preferred campaign message?

On one level, the answer to that is obviously “yes.” Paul’s appearances over the past several days in New Hampshire have been jammed, to the point where one crucial stop degenerated into chaos.

Paul seemed “overwhelmed” by the madness at a morning event at Moe Joe’s diner in Manchester on Monday, according to CNN political reporter Dana Bash.

Paul circulated some in the room, but eventually he and his wife, Carol, were forced to retreat because of the media scrum. Cameras followed them outside and surrounded their black SUV. One voter pounded on the vehicle’s windows, pleading for Paul to come back inside. A heckler called Paul “chicken” and played the chicken dance song on portable electronic equipment.

“The scene rendered Paul’s SUV immobile for about 5 minutes – until his security was forced to move everyone out of the way,” said an ABC News account of the incident.

Paul’s campaign apologized for the incident in a post on his website. The statement noted that Mrs. Paul got shoved by a cameraman and claimed that 120 reporters had created a moblike atmosphere.

“The campaign had planned to cover our normal degree of media interest, which is always ample. However, a significant increase in the press corps, largely driven by an influx of foreign journalists, exceeded all expectations,” said the Paul statement.

Should Paul really be blaming this on “foreign” journalists? And were they foreign in the sense that they’re from another country, or are they fresh troops reassigned from the Bachmann beat?

Anyway, the real point is that this is a bad time for Paul’s campaign machine to develop problems. Monday was the last campaign day in New Hampshire, where Paul is projected to finish in second place, and meet-and-greets have been crucial to Paul’s appeal everywhere.

As New York Times polling analyst Nate Silver notes on Tuesday, Mitt Romney’s and Paul’s share of the vote has remained stable in a volatile year – in part because of the skill of their organizations.

“Mr. Romney and Mr. Paul have built the best field operations in New Hampshire and other early-voting states, many Republicans say,” writes Mr. Silver on his FiveThirtyEight blog.

The harsh scrutiny of the media could be damaging to Paul on a more abstract level, as well. The press is like a searchlight: It has a narrow focus, but when it shines on you, it can be blinding. In recent weeks, media reports of racist language in old newsletters printed under Paul’s name have angered his campaign and reminded voters of an old controversy involving the libertarian.

Reports have also focused on Paul’s refusal to completely disavow any intention to run as a third-party candidate, or his refusal to promise to support any eventual Republican nominee in the fall. This has caused some conservatives to begin to grumble about Paul’s continued participation in the GOP process.

“Having thus used the GOP’s brand and standing to hoard a metric ton of attention for himself, the very least he could do, even if he could not bring himself to promise to support the eventual GOP nominee, would be to promise not to run against the GOP’s nominee under the banner of some other party,” wrote contributor Leon Wolf on the conservative RedState blog on Monday.

Meanwhile, Paul is continuing to do OK in polls. A new CBS survey finds a hypothetical race between Paul and Barack Obama as a statistical tie, with Paul the choice of 45 percent of respondents and Obama the choice of 46 percent. Among Republican candidates, only Romney does better: He leads Mr. Obama 47 to 45 percent in CBS’s findings.

Read entire post | Comments

Sen. Rick Santorum leaves a campaign rally in Keene, N.H. on Friday. (Charles Dharapak/AP)

Rick Santorum and his Google problem: Are digital dirty tricks here to stay?

By Gloria Goodale, Staff writer / 01.07.12

Even as Rick Santorum rises in Republican primary polls, his so-called “Google problem” just won’t go away.

While he struggles to shut down the website of scatological material that pops up during a search on his last name, media experts and political strategists warn that this is just a hint of things to come.

“We are in the infancy of digital dirty tricks,” says David Johnson, a Republican strategist based in Atlanta who worked on Sen. Robert Dole’s 1988 presidential campaign. “The technologically savvy are only going to get better at using the Internet to attack political foes,” he says, and the “unwary public who believe everything they see or search for on the Internet are the ones who will be impacted.”

Mr. Santorum’s cybertroubles began back in 2003 when, during an interview with the Associated Press, he compared homosexuality with bestiality and bigamy. (Sound familiar? He just got booed at a college forum in New Hampshire Thursday for comparing gay marriage with polygamy.) Syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage took offense at the remarks and created the scatological website as well as a slew of secondary sites that help direct traffic to the primary website. A Google query still brings up – in first or second place – what the former Pennsylvania senator has called a site so offensive he cannot allow his children to search for his name on the Internet.

Santorum has asked Google to filter offensive results from searches on his name. But according to a Google spokesperson, "Google’s search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Web. Users who want content removed from the Internet should contact the webmaster of the page directly.”

Pro-family activist Peter LaBarbera on Thursday appealed to Mr. Savage to take down the site. The columnist responded via the Politico.com website using his iPhone: "Just gonna keep doing what we've been doing since 2003.”

Paul Levinson, Fordham University professor and author of “New New Media,” says he is no apologist for the Republican presidential candidate, but he is concerned about the public trust in the functioning of the Internet.

“Satire is an important poltical tool, but this goes way beyond that because a play or a cartoon is something that people choose to view,” he says. Directing users to a website under false pretenses, however, is another thing, he notes. “I can just imagine a fourth-grader searching for Santorum for his homework and coming on this site," he says. "It is not appropriate for that search to yield material like this.”

Santorum's Google problem does bring up some serious ethical issues, says Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. “Abusing the search privilege is a form of Internet fraud and compromises the integrity of the Internet as a whole. As such, it is a potentially serious problem for all users of the Internet.”

But these concerns must be balanced by the important leveling of the playing field offered by the Internet, says Lori Brown, an associate professor of sociology and criminology at Meredith College in Raleigh, N.C. “Santorum chose to make these comments about gays that he knew would be reported and probably knew would be seen as homophobic by many,” she says via e-mail.

The placing of the content about Santorum that is now part of search engine results is an organized response to his comments, she notes, adding that the material is a collective response to offensive statements from a politician. “He has a much larger microphone than the average citizen, and this is a way to have a big microphone to respond to him,” she says. “This is a political action by people offended to a political statement, and all politicians should be aware now that the public has tools like these to protest.” 

As for the technologically unsophisticated Internet user, she suggests that manipulated search results will not be an issue for the upcoming Internet-weaned generation.

“My guess is that the biggest issue for Santorum in the national election will be less that people associate him with this term, but rather that he is – and will be seen quickly by those who are technologically savvy (especially younger voters) as being – uncool," she adds.

Read entire post | Comments

Former Republican presidential candidate, Herman Cain speaks at a state GOP fundraiser at the Oklahoma City Marriott, Dec. 5. Cain was one of Barbara Walters,' “The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2011,” which aired Wednesday night. (David McDaniel/The Oklahoman/AP)

Barbara Walters scoop: Herman Cain wants to be SecDef!

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 12.15.11

Barbara Walters' show, “The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2011,” aired Wednesday night, if you haven’t heard. One of her picks was Herman Cain, the ex-Godfather’s Pizza chief who flamed out of the GOP presidential race amid continued allegations of sexual misconduct.

Though it started off slow, Ms. Walter’s interview produced something of a scoop: Asked which Cabinet post he’d like, Mr. Cain said he could see himself being secretary of Defense.

“If I could influence the rebuilding of our military in the way it should be, that would be a task I would consider,” said Cain.

Walters reacted with disbelief. This is the same Herman Cain, after all, who previously did not appear to know that China already possesses nuclear weapons. Then there was that time his tongue tied itself in knots when he was asked whether he approved of President Obama’s Libya policy.

Walters resurrected the Libya snafu, then pointed out that a SecDef is expected to know the names of the other countries in the world.

“Yes, but I have been doing my homework ever since that difficulty,” said a smiling Cain.

Doing his homework? What, he’s reading the atlas at night before he goes to bed? Doing those interactive tests on the Web where you get a blank map of Europe and then click on a list of names to fill it in? The response begged a follow-up, but there wasn’t time – Walters quickly segued into her request that Cain sing a gospel tune to wrap up the chinwag. Which he did. (It was “Amazing Grace.”)

Though that SecDef thing was kind of a scoop, we have to say that Walters went easy on Cain. She looked as if she just did not feel like grilling him, actually. She made a pass at getting some answers on the allegations of sexual misconduct (“Are they all false?”) but, again, did not follow up much on Cain’s denials. Perhaps more seriously, she left unchallenged Cain’s assertion that race played a part in the events that pushed him out of the presidential contest.

“Did this have anything to do with the fact that you are black?” asked Walters at the interview’s beginning.

Cain answered this way: “Yes. Because I believe that the Democrats do not want an accomplished, articulate, optimistic black man to face President Obama. I can’t prove that Barbara. But I do believe that.”

Again, Walters let that slide. (If only she had been as tough on Cain as she was on the Kardashians in another segment of the show. She basically pointed out that they can’t act, sing, or do anything remotely entertaining. They appeared unfazed.)

Oh, who was Walters’ pick as the most entertaining person of the year? Steve Jobs. R.I.P.

Read entire post | Comments

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin addresses a Tea Party Express rally in Manchester, N.H., in September. (Stephan Savoia/AP)

Sarah Palin speaks, but are Americans heeding her anymore?

By Gloria Goodale, Staff writer / 12.13.11

Long live Sarah Palin?

The former GOP vice-presidential candidate is back in the news, tangling with Washington insiders such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I) of Connecticut over alleged insider trading and "sweetheart land deals" by members of Congress (see also Tuesday's op-ed in USA Today) and shopping a new reality TV series featuring her husband, Todd.

The one-time GOP kingmaker – who said Oct. 5 she would not run for the party's presidential nomination but who has yet to endorse a candidate – proved to be a force to be reckoned with during the 2010 midterm elections. But analysts now are divided over Ms. Palin's political influence on the election cycle ahead, with some saying her star has waned so far it's about to drop into the ocean and others noting that she remains popular with her base and is even "electable."

“Palin is trying to reposition herself to have influence in the upcoming political season,” says Atlanta-based Republican strategist David Johnson, an adviser to Sen. Robert Dole during his 1988 presidential campaign. This is a tough path, because she has lost so much credibility with even her committed followers. “Many expected her to carry their values forward, and instead she seemed more interested in pursuing her own celebrity," he says.

Others see that path as all but impossible. Palin has become nearly irrelevant, says Tom Fiedler, former executive editor of the Miami Herald and now dean of Boston University’s College of Communication. “America’s fascination with Sarah Palin is like everyone’s fascination with a shiny and sleek new car that hints of fun and adventure,” he says. But if it quits early, or if it refuses to run at all, “preferring to sit at the curb and look nice, our fascination will quickly die."

Palin quit as Alaska’s governor midway through her first term, he notes, and she refused to answer supporters’ pleas to enter the GOP presidential race. “She’s become the Kim Kardashian of politics,” he adds, “famous only for being famous.”

As if to drive home that point, the TLC and A&E cable networks are both reported to be passing on a pitch for a second Palin-based reality TV series. The first, "Sarah Palin's Alaska," sold for roughly $1 million per episode and racked up 5 million viewers. But the latest idea – which would feature Todd Palin's snowmobiling adventures – is going begging, reports the trade publication The Hollywood Reporter.  

Palin's "sell by" date is past, agrees Dorothy James, a government professor at Connecticut College in New London. “There are newer Republican hopefuls who are sucking the oxygen out of any hopes she may have,” she says via e-mail. “She lacks the discipline to do the hard slog of running for national office on her own or actually governing.” 

But Palin retains a strong base of political support, note others who are not so quick to write her off.

“Is Palin electable? Absolutely,” says Mark Tatge, visiting professor of journalism at DePauw University’s Center for Contemporary Media.

Palin could deliver a certain base of people a presidential ticket with, say, Newt Gingrich at the top, he says. “Such a partnership is not out of the question,” he says, although Palin will have to find a way to “atone for quitting the job of governor.”

Less-likely candidates, he says, have made it to the top spot. “Consider the former B-movie actor who was seen as a bit of a lightweight with a messy divorce in his past,” says Professor Tatge, “and Ronald Reagan not only got elected but went on to become a two-term president.”

Read entire post | Comments

Comedian Stephen Colbert shouts to the crowd during the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on the National Mall in Washington in 2010. The "sanity" rally blending laughs and political activism drew thousands to the National Mall with comedians Jon Stewart and Colbert casting themselves as the unlikely maestros of moderation and civility in polarized times. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)

Stephen Colbert almost bought naming rights to South Carolina GOP primary

By Gloria Goodale, Staff writer / 12.09.11

Comedian Stephen Colbert just can’t keep away from mixing it up with presidential politics in his home state of South Carolina. After a failed attempt to enter the 2008 GOP primary there, he's at it again.

This time, he began with an audacious bid to rename the January GOP primary after his super PAC, Making a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. In exchange for a donation, the primary’s proposed new tag would have been, “The Colbert Nation Super PAC Presidential Primary.”

He also wanted to place a referendum on the ballot, asking voters to decide if “corporations are people,” or if “only people are people.” 

The GOP ultimately turned down Colbert's naming-rights offer and the state Supreme Court ruled there could be no referendum on the ballot, leading Mr. Colbert to appeal to the South Carolina Democratic party for help. 

The possibility that the primary might have been up for sale is leading some Republicans to shake their heads in dismay. 

“What were they thinking?” says Atlanta-based Republican strategist David Johnson.“They were clearly dazzled by the potential donation and now they have egg all over their face.” He says they ought to have known better, noting  that the comedy card must be played very carefully.

“Leno and Letterman are one thing. They are basically a talk show and if you go along with them they are pretty much a softball.” Mr. Johnson says. But cable hosts are a different matter, with fewer restrictions for on-air content.

“You get down in the mud with Colbert and you will have mud all over yourself,” he says.

But South Carolina Republican Party executive director Matt Moore says the comedy host was very respectful when he made the initial overture back in September. “He promised not to lampoon us or make the party look bad in any way,” he says. He made it clear that his interest was in bringing attention to a cause that is close to his heart – namely, the influence of corporate money in politics.”  

Party officials weigh serious donor offers carefully, balancing the risks and rewards, says Mr. Moore. “We are interested in reaching out to a younger demographic, and Stephen Colbert clearly appeals to that group.”  

In the end, the offer was turned down, in part he says, because “we were afraid of opening a Pandora’s Box if we allowed the primary to be renamed.” Beyond that, “we were not certain if it might even lead to the  primary being declared invalid.”

According to Colbert’s super PAC website, the comedy host is still pursuing the possibilitiy that his question about corporations versus people might still make it onto the January ballot. He has requested the South Carolina Democratic party appeal to the Supreme court to reverse its position. "Trust me, this was a measure of last resort,” he says in a statement.

Chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party Richard Harpootlian has filed a rehearing to get the referendums put back on the Republican Primary ballot, according to Democratic party spokesperson, Amanda Loveday. Even if it doesn't get on the ballot, she notes, the question may get out to some voters because “some of the absentee and military ballots already have been printed and have the question on them.” 

Read entire post | Comments

Republican presidential candidates businessman Herman Cain and Representative Michele Bachmann (R) of Minnesota listen as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks during the CNN GOP National Security debate in Washington on November 22. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

Digging for political dirt? Twitter could be the source for you.

By Gloria Goodale, Staff writer / 12.08.11

As the presidential race heats up, Twitter is turning into the water cooler for more and more Americans to dish about the dark side of a candidate, according to a new study of social and traditional media sources released Thursday by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Noting that some 13 percent of Americans are now using Twitter, Mark Jurkowitz, the project's associate director, says, “this is fast becoming the country’s vox populi.”

The Pew study surveyed some 20 million Twitter tweets, blog postings and traditional news stories filed on the election from May 2 through Nov. 27, and examined them for the tone of the commentary.

“The political conversation on Twitter is noticeably different than that on blogs, and both are markedly different than the political narrative presented by the mainstream press,” he says.

Tweets tend toward the negative far more than both blogs and mainstream media, he says, and they are also far more event-sensitive. “People will be sending tweets as top-of-mind comments as an event is actually going on,” Mr. Jurkowitz says.

The discourse is also far more volatile on Twitter than the other media, he adds. “Blogs tend to be the least sensitive to events and news of the day,” while the traditional news media still remains a steady bastion of more objective and neutral information, he says.

The sole exception to Twitter’s critical tone for candidates are those relating to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose profile is unexpectedly positive despite lagging in both polls and overall media coverage, says Jurkowitz.

The other GOP hopefuls are receiving negative commentary at a ratio of more than two to one. Obama is not faring particularly well, either, he notes, adding that negative tweets on the President outnumber the positive by three to one.

What this means for the candidates is they need to pay even more attention to the narrative in social media, points out presidential scholar Charles Dunn, who says, “they need to have teams of people managing and tracking both the negative streams of comments as well as countering them with the positive.”

New media pundit Paul Levinson, author of “New New Media,” points out that “never in our history has there been less distance between the synapse in our brains and our ability to share that with the entire world.”

While conventional wisdom about social media often holds that they function independently of more traditional media, the Pew study found that the negativity of the Twittersphere often tacked alongside the level of candidate scrutiny in the mainstream press.

“The level of attention and vetting that gets done by the mainstream media tends to turn up a wider range of information for the social media landscape to comment on,” points out Jurkowitz.

Indeed, says Professor Levinson, far from trending away from each other, “traditional media and social media are very intertwined with each and, in fact, feed off each other in important ways.”

Candidates may not welcome a negative narrative in the digisphere, points out Jurkowitz, but he suggests that the attention that produces it may be a silver lining. “More scrutiny can sometimes be an indication of more presumed viability for the candidate’s future,” he adds.

Read entire post | Comments