Huckabee's last chance to win

Mitt Romney just dropped out of the race for president, giving Mike Huckabee his only shot at winning the Republican nomination.

After Super Tuesday I told my wife that I thought Huckabee still had a shot, as long as McCain didn't win the majority of delegates. How?

Look no further than West Virginia for how it would work. They nominate a candidate at their state convention, not through a primary or caucus. The candidate who receives their nomination must win a majority of votes from all of the delegates present. Romney led after the first round of voting, with Huckabee in second and McCain in third. However, Romney didn't have a majority, so a second round of voting ensued. McCain's supporters switched to support Huckabee and he was able to garner a majority of support and win.

Similarly, all of Romney's delegates are now free-for-alls. Those votes will have to be given to either McCain or Huckabee at the Republican National Convention. Romney and Huckabee have been considered to be more conservative than McCain (though I think there's an argument as to how true that really is), and it's very possible that a bulk of Romney's delegate votes at the national convention could go to Huckabee. If that's the case, he could secure the nomination.

Huckabee's odds of winning are still slim to none and the race is seen as a virtual win for John McCain. However, if Huckabee can perform well in the next few primaries (as in, he has to win them), he could still be in this thing.

Mike Huckabee is embarrassing.

I'm still embarrassed that I let my dad, who was in town visiting the night of the 2008 Minnesota caucus, talk me into voting for Huckabee rather than McCain. I wasn't excited about any of my options to be honest, so I suppose I could argue that voting for any of them was an embarrassment.

But this latest statement from Huckabee is nothing short of ridiculous.

Mike Huckabee, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, says the effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry is comparable to legalizing incest, polygamy and drug use.

Read that again and let it sink in. Legalizing gay marriage is the equivalent of legalizing incest, polygamy, and drug use. Is he absolutely crazy?!? At least incest and polygamy have something to do with relationships between people, regardless of how crazy the correlation is. But drug use?!?

Wow.

Huckabee also told college journalists last week that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt. "Children are not puppies," he said.
...
Huckabee told the interviewer that not every group's interests deserve to be accommodated, if their lifestyle is outside of what he called "the ideal."

"That would be like saying, well there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?" he said, according to a transcript of the interview.

The 2008 presidential hopeful and former Arkansas governor also said that deciding which lifestyles should be accommodated and which ones should not creates a slippery slope.

Ah, yes, the euphemistic "slippery slope." Sometimes I think slippery slopes are for people who realize that life isn't just black and white. There are gray areas. Those gray areas are immediately deemed "slippery slopes" because those people can't decide if the gray should be black or white, but they're absolutely positive that the gray leads to black. (In this case, the gray is gay marriage and the black is incest, polygamy, and drug use.)

"Why do you get to choose that two men are OK but one man and three women aren't OK?" he asked.

Huckabee added that his goal isn't to tell others how to live, but that the burden of proving that a gay marriage can be successful rests with the activists in favor of changing the law.

"I don't have to prove that marriage is a man and a woman in a relationship for life," he said. "They have to prove that two men can have an equally definable relationship called marriage, and somehow that that can mean the same thing."

I wish for once a politician who's against gay marriage would just be straightforward about their feelings on the subject. Just say, "I'm against homosexuality. I'm a Christian and I believe homosexuality is a sin that our government should legislate. Therefore, I'm against gay marriage. Oh, and I'm against homosexuals adopting too."

That sure would make things a lot clearer than Huckabee's sad run-around.

The Republican Primary: who to vote for (and why)

Heading into Super Tuesday, Minnesotans (and members of 20 other states) will attempt to clarify the Republican presidential nominee. With this post, I'll attempt to help clarify your choice on February 5th.

(NOTE: None of the candidates has 100% of my support. The best candidate is okay, maybe good at best, but I wouldn't say any of them are great. Candidates are listed in order of my preference for them, beginning with my least favorite.)

Mitt Romney

Simply put, I can't stand him. I've expressed my disdain for him here and here and continue to follow that train of thought. As I said here, I doubt he would raise taxes and there's a good chance he'll stick with the pro-life position he is currently holding. But regardless of those positions, he's changed positions so many times on so many issues (including these two issues) that I can't trust him on anything. He's slick and seems to be willing to do whatever it takes to get to the White House. If he garners the Republican nomination, I don't think I could vote for him. If I do, I'll be holding my nose.

Rudy Giuliani

At least Giuliani still holds most of the positions he did 5 years ago. The problem is, he's still on the wrong side of the issues. He's pro-abortion, which is an immediate turn-off for me. I hesitantly considered supporting him here, but by the time I got to here, had definitively cut off the possibility of voting for him. He's only turned me off in debates with his pandering to voters both on the left and right. As I've stated before, "I can't support a candidate who runs kittywampus around the issues and fails to communicate clearly and directly."

Ron Paul

I've expressed both concern and support for Ron Paul here and here. I like his government reform annihilation platform. However, as much as I don't like the travesty in Iraq, I also don't think immediate pullout is the answer, as Paul does. Additionally, the congressman's quirkiness often leaves him looking very silly and un-presidential. Oh, and never mind that he's the only Republican without a legitimate chance of winning the primary at this point.

Mike Huckabee

If I don't vote for Huckabee, he'll have barely lost my vote. My biggest problem with him is economic. He doesn't have a great track record from Arkansas, having been known as a fiscal moderate who was willing to raise certain taxes and - more importantly for me - spending throughout his governorship, but he checks out with me on nearly every other issue and his personality is dynamite. I've indicated support for him here and here and that support remains intact. However, the economy is quickly becoming the dominant issue and I think it's a huge liability for him. He also reminds me of Bush in many ways and we desperately need someone who cuts spending and/or cuts through the partisan mess in Washington. I'm not convinced Huckabee can do either. Combine those things with his failure to build on his momentum from Iowa and I'm seriously questioning his viability as a candidate.

John McCain

Until recently, I don't think I've ever shown any support for John McCain. My impression of him has always been that he's a liberal Republican. I didn't know why or what issues he was liberal on, just that he was liberal. (Never mind that he was the second most conservative Republican in the last congressional period, the 1o9th Congress.) I noted my concerns in a few posts, including here and here. However, he impressed me in a debate that I watched and I decided to take a second look. So, why did I decide I could support him? First, he's pro-life, so an issue that's a major obstacle for me with Giuliani and even Romney was not an issue. Second, the reason he opposed Bush's tax cuts - a serious problem I had with him - was Bush didn't provide reduced spending along with it. McCain realizes you can't cut taxes without cutting spending when you've got a budget deficit. (He's now in favor of extending those tax cuts because, as he says, lifting the cuts would be the equivalent of a tax increase, which he opposes.) Third, McCain is right on the war, but more importantly, he was in favor of increasing the number of troops over there at a time when most Americans (admittedly, including me) were ready to pull out. On top of that, I trust him; I believe what he says. He's also the only candidate who I'm confident can beat any Democrat.

I've had concerns with McCain over immigration, but those concerns are no less with Huckabee, whose position isn't much different. Both are in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in our country. I understand their point though and it's not a make-or-break issue for me.

Does McCain have holes? Yes, absolutely. But I'm leaning towards him over Huckabee because of two major reasons: 1.) I trust him and don't believe he'll change his position, confidence I'm not quite sure I have in Huckabee given his smooth personality (which is a huge advantage and likability factor for him) and spending concerns. 2.) While Huckabee has slowly slid from contention, McCain has established himself as the more viable candidate.

At this point, the race is probably down to McCain, Romney, and possibly Giuliani. Between the three of them, there's no question who I support. I like the grisly Vietnam veteran and former POW.

McCain or Huckabee?

I just watched the debate and I'm very torn. McCain's sniping at Romney is juvenile, snarky at best, and hasn't impressed me. Huckabee keeps on going and is actually polling neck-and-neck nationally with Romney, just behind McCain. On top of that, one of the 8 or so states that Huckabee has a shot at winning next Tuesday is Minnesota.

I'm also not as confident in McCain to nominate strict constitutionalists to the Supreme Court bench. His endorsements from Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger have only made me further doubt this. As concerned as I am about Huckabee's fiscal habits in Arkansas, I'm equally concerned about McCain's temperament as displayed tonight and a few questionable bills and positions of his, including McCain-Feingold and his stance on ANWAR, which I'm not ready to support.

I know there are still 6 days for me to decide before I must caucus, but tonight's debate tips the scales back to Huckabee, 51-49.

Norris for Huckabee

Chuck Norris likes Mike Huckabee for president. Therefore, Chuck Norris will destroy anyone who likes any other candidate.

But seriously, what I've seen of Huckabee has impressed me as well. With Brownback dropping out of the race, there's a good chance his supporters will switch to supporting Huckabee. I've been following the race at a distance (in other words, I can't tell you every position of every candidate), but Huckabee is my favorite at this point.

I'm not 100% sold on anyone yet though.

How a caucus works (roughly)

My wife thought I should explain how a caucus works since a lot of people don't know. Since the Iowa presidential caucus is tonight and Minnesota also votes by caucus (not primary), I thought it was a good suggestion.

Caucuses are run by parties and are used to choose each party's candidate. Each precinct in the state gets a certain number of votes (sort of like the electoral votes awarded to each state). Each precinct must then decide who to give those votes to. The voters in that precinct meet at a set time (usually 7:00) at a set location (often a school) to caucus. They then separate into groups depending on who they're voting for. Those for Obama in one group, those for Hillary in another group, the one guy for Dennis Kucinich in another corner, etc. Each candidate must have at least 15% of the group present in order to get a vote. Once everyone has sided with a candidate and each candidate has at least 15% of the total number of people present supporting him or her, the caucus is complete and the votes are apportioned based on the number of people supporting each candidate.

Here's an example:

• Precinct 123 gets 5 votes.
• 100 people in precinct 123 show up to vote.
• Voters split up into groups supporting each candidate. There is also a group for undecided voters who can be persuaded to join a group supporting any candidate.
• Any group not having 15% (in this case, 15 people) of the total number of people there must dissolve itself. Those members must find another candidate to support. So, if Romney has 15 people, Huckabee has 30 people, McCain has 15, Giuliani has 5, Ron Paul has 10, and the undecided group has 25, the folks supporting Giuliani and Ron Paul would have to go to the undecided group or pick another candidate to support.
  
• Throughout the night, those supporting major candidates (candidates with at least 15% support) are busy trying to persuade those who are undecided and those whose candidates were unable to garner 15% of the vote to join their cause.
• At the end of the night, the 5 precinct votes are divided between the candidates. If Huckabee has 60% of the vote, Romney 20%, and McCain 20%, then Huckabee would get 3 votes and Romney and McCain would each get 1 from that precinct. Each precinct then sends representatives to the state convention to cast their precinct votes for their respective candidates at their party's state convention.

If all of that is really, really confusing, then you're probably just better off going and figuring it out as you go. It's a lot more fun that way! :)

The biggest disadvantage to this system versus the primary system found in states like Wisconsin is that you have to caucus with just one party. It feels a little bit more like you're a member of that party, like you're committed to that party, which results in lower turnout among independents.

Regardless, it's the system that is in place in a number of states and for those of us living in Minnesota, it's the system we'll be following on February 5th.

As for tonight, go Huckabee!! (And I really, really, really don't want Romney to win...)

P.S. I should have noted that this is an EXAMPLE of a caucus. Each party runs their caucus differently in each state. Not to confuse you even more...

An even-handed look at the Republican front-runner

I've had a few posts indicating some favoritism towards the Republican Party's sudden, newfound leader in both Iowa and national polls, Mike Huckabee.

Now, here's for a look at the biggest issue I have with him that has stuck in my craw (when in Arkansas...) for a while now.

As governor of Arkansas, he raised taxes. Not just once, but multiple times. I don't know if he supports this at the federal level or if he did it to meet budget shortfalls, but in my opinion, the best way to solve any budget shortfall is to cut excess spending somewhere.

In fact, Huckabee has gone so far as to draw the ire of the influential Club for Growth, a conservative anti-tax group. Their spokeswoman, Nachama Soloveichik, said,

"If you look at Huckabee's record, on economic issues, he's is the worst Republican in this race."

Ouch. That's harsh.

And therein lies my problem. The only other viable candidates that I trust to hold the line on taxes AND support the right to life are Ron Paul and probably Mitt Romney. Paul likely doesn't have a chance and won't be able to bring any compromise to the bipartisan Washington cronies, and Romney is...well, he's Romney. There are a lot of problems with him, not the least of which is his inconsistency on the issues (including the issue of abortion).

So, that leaves me with Huckabee as the most viable pro-life candidate.

Ouch. It's going to be a long year...

Huckabee nails it

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is one of the few potential Republican presidential nominees for '08 who I could actually support.

This is why.

"When a Republican Congress spends as much as a Democratic Congress, we can hardly call ourselves the party of responsibility," Huckabee said. "I wonder how many people in Washington passed ninth grade civics."

He just makes sense.

WisPolitics straw poll round-up

You can find the results for the WisPolitics.com straw poll here.

Or, you can read them here.

2006 STRAW POLL QUESTIONS, RESULTS
357 total ballots cast

**Who is your choice in the GOP primary for attorney general?
_ Paul Bucher, 88 votes
_ JB Van Hollen, 228 votes
No response, 41

**Who is your choice to run against Herb Kohl for the U.S. Senate?
_ Marc Gumz, 3
_ Robert Gerald Lorge, 20
_ Tim Michels, 76
_ Dave Redick, 2
_ Tommy Thompson, 241
_ Write In, 6
No response, 9

**Which possible 2008 presidential candidate do you currently favor?
_ George Allen, 61
_ Sam Brownback, 11
_ Bill Frist, 8
_ Newt Gingrich, 53
_ Rudy Giuliani, 60
_ Chuck Hagel, 1
_ Mike Huckabee, 2
_ John McCain, 37
_ George Pataki, 4
_ Condi Rice, 50
_ Mitt Romney, 40
_ Tom Tancredo, 8
_ Write In, 7
No response, 15

Here are the Presidential results in order, top to bottom.

_ George Allen, 61
_ Rudy Giuliani, 60
_ Newt Gingrich, 53
_ Condi Rice, 50
_ Mitt Romney, 40
_ John McCain, 37
No response, 15
_ Sam Brownback, 11
_ Bill Frist, 8
_ Tom Tancredo, 8
_ Write In, 7
_ George Pataki, 4
_ Mike Huckabee, 2
_ Chuck Hagel, 1

Frankly, they're downright disappointing. The options are just bad. Allen is a good guy, but a Senator can't win. Giuliani is no conservative. Gingrich can't keep his personal life straight, even if I do think he's brilliant politically. Condi...she's not running (she won the straw poll last year). I've already talked about Romney, and he probably only did well because he had been slated to speak Friday night, so people researched him. McCain isn't much better (or worse) than Giuliani. Brownback is usually good, but went turncoat on immigration. Frist has done a pitiful job as the Senate majority leader, shows no true leadership, offers no real ideas and innovation, and seems to drift with the political winds. Tancredo was my pick, only because he's a reliable conservative who's been leading the charge on immigration literally for years, but he has no realistic chance, being that he's a Congressman (same boat as Allen, possibly even worse for a Congressman). Pataki is similar to Giuliani without at least having the same 9/11 leadership experience. Huckabee is the only governor other than Pataki, and seems to be a reliable conservative, but he's from Arkansas, and a Republican from Arkansas will likely be unable to win nationwide. That leaves Chuck Hagel, who (in addition to being a Senator) may be right on immigration, but is generally moderate.

Not good. Would Pawlenty please step up?!?

I thought this statement regarding the AG race was interesting.

The Republican Party of Wisconsin and attorney general candidates Paul Bucher and Van Hollen, in a letter to WisPolitics earlier in the week, requested that an AG question be excluded from the WisPolitics straw poll because of an agreement between the competing attorney general campaigns to discourage straw polls and a convention endorsement vote. The letter was distributed to convention-goers. WisPolitics.com declined the request.

Apparently there weren't too many people interested in boycotting the poll, considering the 316 votes in the AG race.

Personally, I feel strongly that they should have gone ahead with endorsement. I normally wouldn't say that. Normally I'd rather see things play out into a primary and let everyone in the party decide. However, our stupid September primary is so late that it becomes nearly impossible to run an effective campaign against an incumbent. I really don't want to see Bucher and Van Hollen rip each other apart. Bucher is a no-nonsense tough guy. Van Hollen is a personable nice guy. Both have excellent resumes that are very different. Both have very good arguments for being the better candidate. It's going to be a dogfight, and I don't want to see all of their resources gone for whoever wins the primary. Our saving grace is the fact that the Democrats have a primary too.

Huckabee out, McCain wins, Clinton wins, Obama rambling

The fastest political roundup you'll read.

Huckabee has bowed out and did so with class.

McCain has won and we just hope he doesn't die before November.

Clinton has won Ohio and likely Texas, having run a brilliant campaign over the last week.

Obama is currently speaking about kids reading instead of playing video games (not sure what that has to do with government or the presidency) and a lot of other things that make absolutely no coherent sense.

I'm going to bed.

Republicans debating

I happened to watch the Republican debate last night. I wasn't intending to, but I came across it and decided it was high time I sit down and take stock of the field of candidates.

It's not pretty.

Here are my random thoughts on the candidates:

Rudy Giuliani: Saying that the biblical story of Jonah in the belly of a whale was purely allegorical (along with saying that much of the rest of the Bible is allegorical) couldn't have helped him with evangelicals. Neither did his statement that Islam is a "great religion".

Mitt Romney: polished and cool, he owned up to having been wrong on the abortion issue in the past and even said he believes in the Bible. I'm still not a fan.

Fred Thompson: the slow-talker from Tennessee fell flat. He was scattered and as one commentator put it, he looked like he was missing his cue card.

John McCain: he looked more sad than anything, but the 70-some-year-old has a ton of experience in war and in office to draw from, and he did so masterfully. I like that he speaks from his heart and says what he believes is right. I trust him as much as (or more than) any candidate. While I like him a lot more now than I used to, I don't think I'll be supporting him.

Mike Huckabee: I've liked him the more I've seen him, and this debate was no different. I'm not always on the same page with the Baptist minister-turned-governor, but he's typically pretty straightforward and more often than not, we're on the same page. I also liked this quote: "No finite mind can understand an infinite God, and if we think we can, then our God is too small."

Duncan Hunter: Um, Duncan who? Yeah, I know...and he performed about as well. The few meager shots he had at saying something didn't go too badly, but his argument regarding the "don't ask don't tell" military policy was horrendous.

Tom Tancredo: interesting quote: "everyone's trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo." Yeah, okay. You're still not a threat. For the most part he's right on immigration and a number of other issues, but the Colorado congressman just doesn't have the gusto to get it done.

Ron Paul: The 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate - now a Republican Congressman from Texas - has raised a ton of money and has a ton of support. Unfortunately for him, he's a thin, wiry 71-year-old whose support is largely online. We saw how much good internet support did for Howard Dean a few years ago. Ron Paul is absolutely right in his "less government" schtick, but it's not likely to stick with the hardcore Republicans. He's also very anti-war and, if you listen to John McCain, he's pro-isolationism (McCain actually has a great point on this). I tend to agree with a number of his positions and, while he's entirely un-presidential in stature and presence, he could be the next Ross Perot. Or maybe just a Ralph Nader.

My vote at this point goes to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Other candidates I could see supporting are Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and even John McCain.

Chuck Norris is a WMD

This is great.

Chuck Norris the only WMD in Iraq, say U.S. troops

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - Hollywood action star Chuck Norris, known for his martial arts prowess and tough-guy image, has become a cult figure among the U.S. military in Iraq and an unlikely hero for some in Iraq's security forces.

A small cardboard shrine is dedicated to Norris at a U.S. military helicopter hub in Baghdad, and comments lauding the manliness and virility of the actor have been left on toilet walls across Iraq and even in neighboring Kuwait, soldiers say.

"The fastest way to a man's heart is with Chuck Norris's fist," reads one message at the shrine, which consists of a signed photo of the actor surrounded by similar statements.

"Chuck Norris puts the laughter in manslaughter," reads one and "Chuck Norris divides by zero," reads another.

Known as Chuck Norris "facts," the claims have already become an Internet phenomenon, and scores are featured on www.chucknorrisfacts.com, including "Superman wears Chuck Norris pyjamas," and "There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Oklahoma."

The actor has visited Iraq several times and was made an honorary Marine last year. Some 20 U.S. military personnel and support staff spoken to by Reuters could recite at least one Norris "fact," despite many having not visited the Web site.

U.S. troops in Iraq say his support for them and Norris' invincible image has made him their idol and insist the exaggerated and satirical claims are not meant to mock him.

"The jokes all add to his legend. They're not derogatory. He's an icon," said Sergeant Joe Lindsay at a base in Falluja in Iraq's Western Anbar province, which Norris has visited.

AN IRAQI NORRIS

Bearded and muscled, Norris shot to fame fighting kung fu legend Bruce Lee in the 1972 film The Way of the Dragon, and later films show him devastating groups of men with one kick.

"Norris visited Iraq when violence was its worst and other celebrities were skittish. He's one of the guys," U.S. military public affairs officer Specialist Mark Braden said in Baghdad.

"The Marines love him. He's like a mythical legend," Staff Sergeant Amy Forsythe in Falluja said.

Soldiers cited many reasons for his appeal. Some appreciated his films and fighting ability -- Norris is a martial arts guru, and many of his films have military themes.

Others said the masculine and plainly dressed actor was an antidote to the preening and moisturized metrosexual male.

Some praised his Christian and political values. The actor recently endorsed Republican Party presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, though in the spirit of the Norris "facts," Marines argued it was Huckabee who endorsed Norris.

"He's helped us a lot. The appeal is also his martial arts, and sheer physical presence ... I don't think I go a day without hearing a Norris joke," said Corporal Ricardo Jones in Falluja.

Norris' appeal is not restricted to U.S. troops either. At an Iraqi police graduation ceremony in Falluja, graduates called out for their "Chuck Norris" to pose with them for photos.

"Truthfully, I didn't know who he was. I asked the Americans, and they said he was a great fighter, and that's why they named me after him. They showed me a video, and it's true, he's a great fighter" said police trainer Mohammed Rasheed.

With his handle-bar moustache, Rasheed has a vague resemblance to Norris.

Another police trainer said Chuck Norris was a role model for the police in Falluja, which until 2007 was an al Qaeda stronghold and the scene of fierce battles with security forces.

"I've seen his videos, he's a hero. He saves the city, he protects women and children and he fights crime wherever it is. We should all be like Chuck Norris," Khaled Hussein said.

I voted for Mike Huckabee

Along with a majority of people in my precinct and the other precinct we voted with (he dominated here). But it looks like he's going to lose Minnesota. As great as his victories tonight are, it's still looking like McCain's race.

And I still can't get excited about this year's election...

Why Obama's birth certificate doesn't matter

Image courtesy of Mediaite & many other sources
Donald Trump is making a big deal out of President Barack Obama's birth certificate. As of July 2009, just 42% of Republicans believe Obama was born in the U.S. And Trump isn't the only doubter. Big shots like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee have raised doubts concerning Obama's citizenship.

There are a few reasons I think the debate is ridiculous. First, his birth certificate has been released. Second, both the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin both printed birth notices at the time of Obama's birth. Those notices were routinely sent to the papers by the Hawaii Department of Health and they listed his parents' Hawaiian address.

Image courtesy of the Honolulu Advertiser
But I came across the best argument for why this debate is ridiculous when channel-surfing on the radio the other day. I came across Jason Lewis on KTLK. I'm not a talk radio guy but I have friends who like Lewis so I stuck around a bit to see what they're listening to. Lewis noted that even if Obama weren't a citizen and is removed from office, Joe Biden, whose policies hardly differ from Obama's, will take his place. He noted that the debate has to be about political issues and this doesn't fit into that category.

If you don't believe Obama was born in America, that's your right. I don't get it, but I don't have to. But let's make whatever debate is happening be about the issues. A debate about the issues just doesn't include Obama's birth certificate.

Colbert for President

Stephen Colbert is one of the funniest talk show comedians out there. I don't always endorse his humor, but when he's on, he's as dead on as anyone.

This is no different.

NEW YORK - Stephen Colbert has announced his candidacy for president on "The Colbert Report," tossing his satirical hat into the ring of an already crowded race.
...
Colbert, 43, had recently satirized the coyness of would-be presidential candidates by refusing to disclose whether he would seek the country's highest office — a refusal that often came without any prompting.

Shortly before making the announcement, Colbert appeared on "The Daily Show" (the show that spawned Colbert's spin-off) and played cagey, claiming he was only ready to consider a White House bid. He entered the studio set pulled by a bicycle pedaled by Uncle Sam and quickly pulled out a bale of hay and a bottle of beer to show that he was "an Average Joe."

Colbert said his final decision would be announced on a "more prestigious show," which turned out to be his own.

"After nearly 15 minutes of soul-searching, I have heard the call," said Colbert.

His recent best-seller, "I Am America (And So Can You!)," allowed him to mock the now-standard approach to a White House run, complete with a high-profile book tour.
...
Colbert said he would run as both a Democrat and Republican. He earlier explained the strategy: "I can lose twice." He claimed three running mate possibilities: Colbert-Huckabee, Colbert-Putin or Colbert-Colbert.
...
In a guest column for Maureen Dowd in Sunday's New York Times, Colbert wrote: "I am not ready to announce yet — even though it's clear that the voters are desperate for a white, male, middle-aged, Jesus-trumpeting alternative."

I thought that last quote was poignant. So many politicians sound the "Jesus" trumpet for obviously political reasons. They stump from the pulpit, invoke God whenever they have the chance, but their double standard is so painfully obvious.

Funny thing about all of this is, I can see him actually filing papers and everything.

Sounds like Man of the Year.