I know as crazy as huckabee sounds when hes talkng serious but while on the Dem side I really want Obama, not just as their nominee but as President, at the least as the GOP nominee I want Huckabee.
Because then we get Obama campaigning as his Vice President
Go Huckabee Go!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Grrr, took me five minutes before I realized I made a major slip of the tongue, I meant Colbert as vice president nomination.
Jeez, what was I thinking.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Do you really believe Huckabee would run with Colbert as his VP?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
He has said so, no less then three times on national television.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Colbert would make an awesome VP.
Comedians know their stuff. The first sign of fluency in a language is when one makes jokes in that language; Colbert is therefore a master of politics. And besides, VPs, (besides Cheney) have been more like figureheads who don't actually do anything unless the criteria for succession are met. VPs are all talk, and that's what Colbert is good at.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm almost certain that Colbert would find some reason to decline the offer. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
He has already accepted it, and brags about it at every oppurtunity.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Well, he wouldn't want to break character.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Grrr, took me five minutes before I realized I made a major slip of the tongue, I meant Colbert as vice president nomination.
Jeez, what was I thinking.
So why not edit the post?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If he was running for it he'ld obviously do it in character.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Because that takes effort and it would confuse people making them wonder what I edited.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Comments like this disturb me. You sound genuine. You genuinely propose(d) voting for Huckabee, on the basis of the fact that he MIght have a TV character as his runningmate. I don't suggest Colbert would not be a stellar politician, but it seems like having some background in politics couldn't HURT in being vice president. And then there's the part where one would have to vote for Huckabee, and that's just silly.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
based of wha I have seen Huckabee does seem a genuinly charasmatic person, if I were republican and actually to think as a greater prerequsit Ild have to be American to start with. Ild votee Huckabee just to get Colbert, if Dem Obama, as a Canadian citizen who nonetheless pays attention to current events I give my foreign endorsement to Obama as I thnk hes whats best for you folk.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Charisma does not translate into: Makes good decisions
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd never vote top of the ticket to get the bottom of the ticket. Maybe if I liked both tops equally I might but, the bottom of the ticket, barring assasination or a heart attack, is virtually useless. His Constitutional authority extends to breaking deadlocks in the Senate and making sure he keeps his cholesterol down, just in case!
Having Colbert as, say Obama's VP, would be fine with me. However, I think he's better on the outside than the inside. You need someone like Colbert on the outside railing against the establishment, it keeps them honest. I'd be too afraid of him being pidgeonholed on the inside.
Starsnuffer -
If you're talking about Colbert, I don't think anyone could seriously deny that he has political savvy. He IS charmismatic, but that's not where his appeal ends. He's very good at distilling a situation simply, carving through the spin that the media and the government put on things and getting to the meat. I don't know how that translates into being a good decision maker on policy matters, but it certainly lends a lot to credibility I think.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: based of wha I have seen Huckabee does seem a genuinly charasmatic person, if I were republican and actually to think as a greater prerequsit Ild have to be American to start with. Ild votee Huckabee just to get Colbert, if Dem Obama, as a Canadian citizen who nonetheless pays attention to current events I give my foreign endorsement to Obama as I thnk hes whats best for you folk.
- Charisma > Actual Things Said in regards to qualities in a Good American president - Canadians do not pay attention to current events - Dems wise, Obama should be president because ____
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:the bottom of the ticket, barring assasination or a heart attack, is virtually useless.
You didn't hear the rest of Blayne's plan.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Lyrhawn-I agree with what you said about Colbert. (I guess that's it)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:the bottom of the ticket, barring assasination or a heart attack, is virtually useless.
You didn't hear the rest of Blayne's plan.
Nice.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: based of wha I have seen Huckabee does seem a genuinly charasmatic person, if I were republican and actually to think as a greater prerequsit Ild have to be American to start with. Ild votee Huckabee just to get Colbert, if Dem Obama, as a Canadian citizen who nonetheless pays attention to current events I give my foreign endorsement to Obama as I thnk hes whats best for you folk.
You drunk posting or what, dude?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ooooh! If TV characters can play, I want President Bartlet!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The fact that Blayne supports Obama makes me so uncomfortable with my decision.
Hey Boots, are you having second thoughts too?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:the bottom of the ticket, barring assasination or a heart attack, is virtually useless.
You didn't hear the rest of Blayne's plan.
Part 3: Profit!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Profit should not play any part in any plan of Blayne's. Profit is a Capitalist ideal. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nah. My support of Senator Obama is strong enough to withstand Blayne's endorsment. (Possible he is a counter-propogandist sent by China?)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
my support of Obama has been very vocal and serious since even before he announced his bid, also how would I supporting Obama make you uncomfortable? If my support is enough to do that then maybe you should be voting for someone else.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
you're missing something here Blayne.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:the bottom of the ticket, barring assasination or a heart attack, is virtually useless.
You didn't hear the rest of Blayne's plan.
Part 3: Profit!
Phase 1: Collect underpants.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Why do they have to be collected? Where did they go?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: my support of Obama has been very vocal and serious since even before he announced his bid, also how would I supporting Obama make you uncomfortable? If my support is enough to do that then maybe you should be voting for someone else.
They're just teasing you Blayne. Even you have to admit that your near total fanboyism for communist China/Russia makes your endorsement of Obama cause others to shuffle their feet alittle. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This teasing is starting to get as frustrating as Godwin's Law.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: This teasing is starting to get as frustrating as Godwin's Law.
Don't take yourself so seriously and don't react to it and it won't be a part of your hatrack persona.
Also a lengthy criticism of why Chairman Mao, and Stalin were both terrible people who caused immeasurable harm to their countries would probably help alot.
Heck some sort of explanation for why China claims to be communist but is in fact a corrupt capitalistic state would do it for me. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: He has already accepted it, and brags about it at every oppurtunity.
Colbert is joking... ? I didn't think that had to be pointed out.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BB (1st post): Thats actually interesting, if I was role-playing China it would be hard to decide who I would want to run the US out of the remaining presidential candidates.
See, the idea would be to pick someone that can continue running the US into the ground, but *not* quite so quickly that it brings the rest of the world and my export market down with it. I would want someone that would stay in Iraq as long as possible, bleeding off volunteers, money, and national enthusiasm for another war as long as possible. Plus the war on terror is an excellent way to avoid criticism on any policies regarding Xinjiang or human rights in general. The West has been rather quiet on Chechnya at least ever since 2001.
I would want someone that would make the US education system inhospitable to foreign students via large scale incidents such as the Los Alamos incident and small scale issues such as making it difficult for foreign nationals to immigrate to the States after graduating, to encourage them to come back to China after their educations. Yet I would not want someone quite so restrictive that would restrict their coming over to study in the first place. Policies such as affirmative actions would not be preferred either.
Economics is tough, candidates that favour protectionism would not be preferred. On the other hand, someone that can run the economy at least decently would be needed.
Its tough, I can name a few strikes against certain candidates but I am not familiar enough with the situation to pick a specific candidate. McCain favours a long stay in Iraq which is good, but would he be too much of a hawk over Taiwan? Clinton might be a bit against free-market economics and was proud about some protectionist policy against Chinese candlemakers, on the other hand all these constant donation scandals make me wonder if it is possible to unduly influence her positions. Obama is a bit of an unknown owing to his lack of experience, particularly in the foreign policy realm.
Its tough, I'm not sure who to pick.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm certain Bill gertz probly knows who.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I'm certain Bill gertz probly knows who.
Is this a tacit refusal to offer a self criticism?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm not changing my stance, the evidence critisizing Mao is heavily slanted against him, the very idea that somehow he had managed to intentionally murder "80 millions or more" people as Jung Chiang would lead you to believe is an excersize into absurdity. You will not cannot find even a single shred of evidence to possibly support this.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Blayne, an easy way to notify people of edits in a post is to signify them as such. EDIT: Such as this.
-Bok
EDIT: Screwed up my .sig
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Bokomon I choose you!
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Aww, I really thought your signing that one -Bik was intentional.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Maybe it was... It certainly reinforces the use of edits, no?
By the way, it's Bokonon, or Bok. No M's.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You don't want to be your own pokemon character?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What would he evolve into? Bokozaur?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I get to vote in the West Virginia caucus tomorrow. We should be done early in the afternoon so it’ll make the news before any others while their polls are still open. My current plan is to vote for Romney. I like Huckabee, but don’t think he has a chance. And I really don’t want McCain since he has so many liberal stances. So…. Go Romney!
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Hey! Me and Jay agree. We both want Romney to win. That's not going to happen so often.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
A Huckabee nomination would be the best thing that the Republicans could do for the Democratic party.
I imagine he will arouse the democratic base just as much, perhaps even more, than Hillary rouses the republican base.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
yeah, i pretty much want any Republican other than McCain. He's too much of threat.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm pulling for Romney too.
We'll crush him.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Romney has been coming on strong there.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
So why do all like Romney and dislike McCain? Juzcurious
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Because McCain will win, if he goes against Hillary.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's not assured. Personally I think he'd lose. But it's a much harder race to try and parse out. It depends on how the campaigning goes, but for sure I think Romney assures a Democratic victory.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
That's funny, I thought that Obama ensured democratic victory.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
California is not winner-take-all for Republicans, they award delegates according to a somewhat complex proportional system, so even if Romney ties or is slightly ahead of McCain, delegates will still be split between the two. McCain will likely win on the basis of other states that are winner-take-all where he is substantially in the lead. Even if McCain does not outright win enough delegates for the nomination, he may be so far ahead in delegate count after today, that Romney will face a hopeless prospect of trying to catch him. And McCain could always make a deal with Huckabee, offering him the veep position on the ticket, so they could combine their delegates and go over the top of what is needed for winning the nomination.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
McCain will not have the Magic Number, but he will have about 700 to Romney's 300, if my guesstimates are correct. My spreadsheet is in the Primary thread.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm praying that no one has enough for a first ballot. That's how we're going to get Ron Paul.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Somehow I'm not surprised to see that Romney is off the charts in Utah.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Literally!
(I heard on NPR this morning somebody use the word "literally" figuratively. :pirate:)
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
One of my Republican friends didn't understand my claim that most Dems dream of a Huckabee win. Pretty much guarantees the White House with a nice big bow on top for whoever the dems pick.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think it's tacky in the extreme to express a wish for a win by somebody on the other side because you think they're a crappy choice.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Oh, the whole conversation was probably pretty tacky. We are both very strongly on opposing sides on just about every issue. Yet, we are still best friends and can say tacky things (if Huckabee wasn't anti-Mormon, she would vote for him).
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I think it's tacky in the extreme to express a wish for a win by somebody on the other side because you think they're a crappy choice.
why? This is all a game right? Are you saying strategy isn't important? Otherwise no one would worry about electability. No one would talk about how they're better suited to beat a particular opponent. People would solely vote for who they thought was the best candidate, and not who they thought had the best shot at winning.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's like hoping that the quarterback of the opposing team breaks his ankle, instead of hoping that you'll beat them because you'll play better than them.
It's tacky to wish ill upon others.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I'm praying that no one has enough for a first ballot. That's how we're going to get Ron Paul.
McCain won't have the Magic Number today. He'll certainly have it by the end of March.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I don't know that that's an apt analogy. It's not wishing ill onto others. I don't want harm to come to McCain. And so what if I hope that whatever candidate the dems face is weak? I'm sick and tired of our current administration, and I thoroughly dislike all the republican candidates. Yeah, it's selfish, but I want more than anything to see Obama, or a dem in power, so I'd like to see whatever gives them the best shot of doing that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Literally!
(I heard on NPR this morning somebody use the word "literally" figuratively. :pirate:)
That is one of my chief pet peeves. I had a friend who did it ALL THE TIME and it drove me NUTS.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I'm praying that no one has enough for a first ballot. That's how we're going to get Ron Paul.
McCain won't have the Magic Number today. He'll certainly have it by the end of March.
You sound just like the pundits the evening before the Iowa primary.
I too think that ultimately McCain will win over Romney in the winner takes all states. But it will be by very small to small margins. Yet those wins will be there.
But I would not say I am certain in this regard at all.
Elections like football games have shocking endings much of the time. I wish Huckabee had just dropped out days if not weeks ago instead of going into Super Tuesday like he is.
But I think he wants a veep nod, or possibly a cabinet position.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:This is all a game right?
Not at all, really. And if it is, it's a game with only one team, whose players simply disagree on the best strategy to win.
It is better to have your candidate lose to a superior candidate than it is to have your candidate beat an inferior candidate - because we want the best President possible, even if it isn't "our" side that nominated him (or her).
[ February 05, 2008, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Literally!
(I heard on NPR this morning somebody use the word "literally" figuratively. :pirate:)
That is one of my chief pet peeves. I had a friend who did it literally ALL THE TIME and it drove me literally NUTS.
There. Better?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*smites mph with the Ketchup of Righteousness*
No.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't know that that's an apt analogy. It's not wishing ill onto others. I don't want harm to come to McCain. And so what if I hope that whatever candidate the dems face is weak?
Perhaps a better analogy is hoping that the opposing coach puts in their crappy third-string quarterback instead of their star, thus torpedoing their chances of effectively competing before they ever get on the field.
It's still tacky.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Regardless... they are saying Huckabee has won West Virginia!
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
As this is a huck thread - thought I would post that he has just won the WV caucus thingy...
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Jinx!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Regardless... they are saying Huckabee has won West Virginia!
There's a shocker. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I wonder if they couldn't conduct polls there because of a lack of telephones. :ducks:
For real, I have known about 5 people who've moved to WV since I got to Maryland, because it's cheaper or something.
And they don't like nosey neighbors telling them it's wrong to eat squirrels.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: And they don't like nosey neighbors telling them it's wrong to eat squirrels.
It's wrong to eat squirrels!? Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I seriously knew a lady who used them for her principal protein source.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There's nothing wrong with eating squirrels that's not also wrong with eating chickens.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, except squirrels are rodents and therefore not kosher.
I suppose we ought to get a Hartz trap for our year's supply.
Posted by The Amazing Squirrel Boy (Member # 5158) on :
Eating squirrels is just plain . . . plain wrong! And no one should do it, ever!
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
I'm going to have to revise the dinner menu now... Gah!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, it's Havahart traps.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I'm praying that no one has enough for a first ballot. That's how we're going to get Ron Paul.
Please take this as my ignorance of how the convention works and not a bash on Ron Paul, but how in the world would that work? Do you think Paul could somehow get the nomination even if he's not one of the top two or three in delegates? Or do you mean you'd get him as a VP because he'd be able to sway some delegates towards one of the leaders? *confused*
--Enigmatic
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Amazing Squirrel Boy: Eating squirrels is just plain . . . plain wrong! And no one should do it, ever!
*pulls out his .22*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know how it works, but I've heard someone propose Dick Cheney as a fifth ballot. :shudder:
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I'm praying that no one has enough for a first ballot. That's how we're going to get Ron Paul.
Please take this as my ignorance of how the convention works and not a bash on Ron Paul, but how in the world would that work? Do you think Paul could somehow get the nomination even if he's not one of the top two or three in delegates? Or do you mean you'd get him as a VP because he'd be able to sway some delegates towards one of the leaders? *confused*
Some delegates are pledged to certain candidates, and some aren't. For example, here in Illinois, I voted for the two Ron Paul delegates and the two Ron Paul alternates. I also voted for Ron Paul, but that made no difference whatsoever, because it's the delegates who count.
When the delegates get to the convention, pledged delegates are obligated to cast their votes for whoever they're pledged to -- on the first ballot. If that results in more than half of the delegates going to one candidate, that candidate wins. If not, they go to another ballot, at which point pledged delegates are allowed to vote for whomever they want.
Not all states are like Illinois, where there are specific delegates elected. Instead, there are delegates who are merely pledged to vote according to whoever they're assigned based on the state vote. Again, on the first ballot.
If there isn't a winner on the first ballot, it becomes a free-for-all, and even delegates from states where McCain or Romney won can vote for Ron Paul. Or vice versa, of course, but let's not think about that.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Regardless... they are saying Huckabee has won West Virginia!
There's a shocker.
The shocking thing is Romney had a good lead. But after the first ballot, when McCain's people saw they couldn't win, they threw their support behind Huck to prevent Romney from winning. (I wrote more about this effect over on the primary thread).
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
So if that happens do the candidates give speeches or something between the casting of the ballots? I imagine that's more useful than just giving the results and telling everyone to vote again.
Do you think it's likely that a second or third or etc ballot would actually go to Ron Paul, or is it more a matter of being pretty sure he's not going to get enough for the first ballot so that's the only chance left? I have to admit, I think it'd be pretty cool to see happen, if only for seeing pundits scramble after that kind of upset.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: And they don't like nosey neighbors telling them it's wrong to eat squirrels.
Thanks for the explanation, Lisa.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: So if that happens do the candidates give speeches or something between the casting of the ballots? I imagine that's more useful than just giving the results and telling everyone to vote again.
From what I know, between the casting of votes there will be frantic horse-trading and arm-twisting to get delegates to pledge support for the various candidates. Kind of like what happens in close Congressional votes, but with more people changing positions. I'm not sure about speeches from the candidates.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
My understanding (from reading descriptions of the process in the 1980s, so take it for what it's worth) is that the candidates do not give speeches between votes, but campaign staff are all over the convention floor schmoozing with the delegates, brokering deals, making promises, and generally trying to convince people to vote for their candidate.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There's a pretty good movie about a brokered convention, starring Henry Fonda. I think it's called "The Best Man" or somesuch.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)