Main Menu

Street closed in anticipation of large crowd at Stephen Colbert / Herman Cain rally in Charleston

The College of Charleston anticipates a large attendance at today’s “ROCK ME LIKE A HERMAN CAIN: SOUTH CAIN-OLINA PRIMARY RALLY” at the College’s Cistern Yard today. The standing only event will open its gates at noon for the lucky first 3,500 people to arrive for the 1 PM rally. George Street will be closed from 11 – 2 PM.

Colbert and Cain will emerge from Cain’s bus and come through Porter’s Lodge into the Cistern Yard where they will speak from a stage over the cistern. The rally will include the College of Charleston cheerleaders, dance team, pep band, and renowned gospel choir, which is comprised of 150 voices.

Crowd lining up at the event (11:12 AM):

image

Question: Is the Secret Service now providing protection for Colbert? Check out this photo from today’s event. See the ear piece?

image

image

The Charleston newspapers have given prominent coverage to the event:

, ,

25 Responses to Street closed in anticipation of large crowd at Stephen Colbert / Herman Cain rally in Charleston

  1. avatar
    J. Potter January 20, 2012 at 11:44 am #

    Comment at Charleston City Paper:

    “This morning, Steven Colbert has come out in favor of Ron Paul.”

    Right! LOL!

  2. avatar
    Reality Check January 20, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    Doc

    Does South Carolina allow crossover voting in primaries? (Pardon me if this has been answered in another article.)

  3. avatar
    J. Potter January 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

    Reality Check: Does South Carolina allow crossover voting in primaries?

    Yes, open primary …. Doc has already pledged his support to “Cain” πŸ˜‰

    I had suggested an O/U of 10% for Herman Colbert in tomorrow’s voting, but then was reminded it was open. And he is polling at 18%! So now I’m sticking it at 20%. I’d still be surprised at 10%. If he gets near 20%, or (heehee!) more thans 20%(!), it’ll be a huge slap in the face to the parties and process status quo.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 20, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

    Well, I’m not sure how many partisan comedy fans will be voting tomorrow. However, you have to remember that Herman Cain will get some votes just because his name is on the ballot. If Cain gets 10% I would consider it significant. Any more than that, a mandate.

    J. Potter: I had suggested an O/U of 10% for Herman Colbert in tomorrow’s voting, but then was reminded it was open.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    Comment on Facebook:

    If you get lost, just look for the shining beacon of Democracy.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 20, 2012 at 12:44 pm #

    Check out the Twitter Feed and Facebook comments attached here:

    http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2012/jan/20/crowd-forms-colbert-rally-c-c-cistern/

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    From Twitter:

    Colbert just sang a surprisingly great rendition of the National Anthem

  8. avatar
    J. Potter January 20, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: … sang a surprisingly great rendition of the National Anthem

    An excellent suggestion for a new requirement in our Presidential Beauty Pageant! How many votes would mangling the anthem cost a candidate? No pressure.

  9. avatar
    RuhRoh January 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    Doc, that’s not Secret Service protection. The photo you posted showing earpieces is the back of Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist’s heads during the normal broadcast of Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning, on which Colbert was a guest.

    I can assure you that Scarborough and Geist wear an earpiece every single broadcast. πŸ˜‰

  10. avatar
    Paul January 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

    Off-topic, but… chek out Oily Taint’s latest post.

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30563

  11. avatar
    RuhRoh January 20, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

    Paul, Orly’s site generally can be expected to be full of malware and viruses. Folks should know that before clicking your link.

    If this is about her Opposition to Motion To Quash, this link is safe: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78812960/Georgia-Farrar-v-Obama-Taitz-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoenas

  12. avatar
    RuhRoh January 20, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    Paul, wait, I think this is what you meant to highlight instead (safe link) http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=332035#p332035

    And this should probably all be on a different thread. πŸ˜‰

  13. avatar
    J. Potter January 20, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

    Paul: Off-topic, but… chek out Oily Taint’s latest post.

    Hmmm….Mr. Malihi has seriously renovated his signature πŸ˜‰ And shouldn’t there be a cover page or a heading of some kind? How about a date?

  14. avatar
    glen wolf January 20, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

    COLBERT FOR PRES!!!!

  15. avatar
    Arthur January 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm #

    Isn’t this a rather serious turn of events . . . a sitting President being compelled to attend a ballot hearing for a primary that is run by a political party? Frankly, I’m amazed.

    RuhRoh: Paul, wait, I think this is what you meant to highlight instead (safe link) http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=332035#p332035And this should probably all be on a different thread.

  16. avatar
    Paul January 20, 2012 at 2:53 pm #

    Ah, sorry guys

  17. avatar
    J. Potter January 20, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    Arthur: Isn’t this a rather serious turn of events . . .

    Would be breaking news …. if it were real! Even if real, it seems to be saying, I see no reason to quash the subpoena. Not the same as issue a court order to compel anyone or anything! A negative does not ipso facto imply a positive.

  18. avatar
    Arthur January 20, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    J. Potter:

    Thanks for your reply, but I remain confused. I look forward to learning more about this in the days ahead.

    J. Potter: Would be breaking news …. if it were real! Even if real, it seems to be saying, I see no reason to quash the subpoena. Not the same as issue a court order to compel anyone or anything! A negative does not ipso facto imply a positive.

  19. avatar
    Dave January 20, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

    Did Colbert really get Cain to go along with this? How?

  20. avatar
    Wile January 20, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    You’re right Potter. That signature does seem awfully different from the ones on the subpoenas.

    But maybe that’s Judge Malihi’s *angry* signature? Just judging from the reaction over at FB and NBC, it seems like the real deal.

    You didn’t type that up and send it to Orly, did you?

    J. Potter: Would be breaking news …. if it were real!

  21. avatar
    J. Potter January 20, 2012 at 4:49 pm #

    Wile: You didn’t type that up and send it to Orly, did you?

    As much fun as that would be, I have a limited imagination, and am reluctant to play with reality … thanks for giving me that kind of credit, tho!

    Again, if real … so? It had been widely quoted Obama was not required to appear, she is serving a do-it-yourself subpoena. If real, Malihi declined to quash because Jablonski didn’t have a good reason to supply. Not quashing and enforcing are two different things entirely. If he intends to put teeth in her subpoena, whouldn’t he next issue an order to compel? Will he ultimately find the President in contempt for not showing? Seriously, if there was a story here, it would be HUGE. Not a peep from the media.

  22. avatar
    J. Potter January 20, 2012 at 4:57 pm #

    In my last post, I should have used “If consequential…” rather than, “If real …”. Assuming forgery, with a solid compelling reason is bad form. There lies birtherism! The apparent source, Orly, is a pretty darn good reason, but ya never know.

  23. avatar
    G January 20, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

    I concur. That is pretty much my assessment of the situation, based on what is known so far too.

    J. Potter: As much fun as that would be, I have a limited imagination, and am reluctant to play with reality … thanks for giving me that kind of credit, tho!Again, if real … so? It had been widely quoted Obama was not required to appear, she is serving a do-it-yourself subpoena. If real, Malihi declined to quash because Jablonski didn’t have a good reason to supply. Not quashing and enforcing are two different things entirely. If he intends to put teeth in her subpoena, whouldn’t he next issue an order to compel? Will he ultimately find the President in contempt for not showing? Seriously, if there was a story here, it would be HUGE. Not a peep from the media.

  24. avatar
    Arthur January 20, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    I guess . . . you’re talking to someone who doesn’t have a good grasp of legal terms and procedures. When I read that the judge refused to quash, I assumed that the Pres. would be compelled to attend. Maybe you can see how easy it is for someone outside the legal profession to be led astray by ignorance. I include Orly Taitz in that group.

    G: Not quashing and enforcing are two different things entirely. If he intends to put teeth in her subpoena, whouldn’t he next issue an order to compel?

  25. avatar
    G January 20, 2012 at 9:00 pm #

    Arthur, IANAL either, so I can only go by what little familiarity I have gleaned from listening to lawyers explain these types of things over time and try to match that up with what I read in the judge’s orders.

    I will defer to actual lawyers to weigh in on this and openly classify my opinion as just speculation based on a limited understanding of the issue.

    I agree with everything else you said and yes, I can see where a lot of this stuff can cause confusion. However, there is a big difference between how folks like us react to this info and the blind, overblown “matter-of-fact” claims made by Birthers, when faced by matters outside of our personal expertise.

    We are simply able to be honest about when we are only speculating and our egos are secure enough to admit when something is beyond our knowledge or where we are simply unsure. We are able to convey this intent easily in our words.

    However, Birthers and others who are proudly ignorant simply talk out of their @ss all the time about stuff they don’t know about and don’t know how to ask questions instead of make uneducated blowhard pronouncements…

    Arthur: I guess . . . you’re talking to someone who doesn’t have a good grasp of legal terms and procedures. When I read that the judge refused to quash, I assumed that the Pres. would be compelled to attend. Maybe you can see how easy it is for someone outside the legal profession to be led astray by ignorance. I include Orly Taitz in that group.