That's because being a part of an administration would severely limit his money making ventures after the election.

Is it just me or does anyone else constantly laugh their ass at

A) Herman Cain
B) Herman Cain jokes

?

/what's the only thing that's going to beat Fartbama?
// a Cain

Of course not. Herman Cain doesn't like being on bottom.

Attaching crazy to a (comparatively) moderate ticket?

That can't possibly be a bad idea!

Herman Cain doesn't take second place because Herman Cain is Herman Cain.

I heard Romeny invited Cain up to his hotel room to discuss the job possibility.

It's going to be Romney/Huntsman.

It's the only really electable combination they have.

The base and the hard right wing of the party will throw a fit but political expedience will win in the end.

Below the video, there's an update saying he'd be "excited" to serve as Secretary of Defense.

WHAT!?!

Cain has to be F'ing with us.

"Unless they rename the position of 'vice-president' to 'Herman Cain', Herman Cain is not interested." - Herman Cain

Just what we need... a damn chickenhawk as Secretary of Defense.

jso2897: They tried the "Sane candidate, "colorful" running mate" thing in '08. I don't see the GOP going that route again.
Of course the grey suits , knowing that victory isn't on the table, might want to engineer a truly crushing defeat to teach the baggers to sit down and shut up. But that's getting a little too tinfoil-hatty even for me.

Actually, it wouldn't be too crazy a thought. They decide to intentionally blow the 2012 election and give Obama another term. They put their crazies in the spotlight now and then when 2016 comes around and you have a higher chance of party change after 8 years of a party in President, they put their sane group of candidates and hold back the crazies to win the position and make it look like the learned their lesson and cleaned house (which they didn't). Granted, if they run the sanes in 2016, the primary debates will be boring with only 2.2 people on stage.

However, putting their super crazies on stage now may cause them to lose seats in Congress in 2012, which is a nice bonus for the country.

Honestly, if the GOP fails to nominate a sane candidate (read as Huntsman, Johnson, or Roemer), I'm really hoping for a double derp-fest on the ticket. A Cain-Bachmann ticket strikes me as one that would virtually guarantee Obama wins four more years unless the economy collapsed like the Galloping Gertie and al-Qaeda destroyed several national monuments as an October surprise.

Snapper Carr: It's going to be Romney/Huntsman.

It's the only really electable combination they have.

The base and the hard right wing of the party will throw a fit but political expedience will win in the end.

From what I've read their families have not gotten along well at all. Also, though I do think most evangelicals are ready to accept a Catholic or Mormon nominee, an unbalanced ticket of two silver spoon Mormons would be pushing it.

Black is only bad when it's conservative, I guess.

The Teaderper crowd won't allow their darlings to run as a VP this time around...

They've concluded that the Establishment is to blame for the loss in 2008, and had Sarah Palin been the head of that ticket, they would have won.

And like the huckster she is, the woman pushed all the blame for the loss off onto McCain and the Establishment GOP.

So, they're going for broke this year. It's head of the ticket or nothing at all.

Snapper Carr: It's going to be Romney/Huntsman.

It's the only really electable combination they have.

The base and the hard right wing of the party will throw a fit but political expedience will win in the end.

Mormon twin powers, activate.

Pawlenty will probably be VP.

jackthezomber: Black is only bad when it's conservative, I guess.

And, not surprising, you would guess wrong.

Jackson Herring: jackthezomber: Black is only bad when it's conservative, I guess.

Typical lib racist, always playing the race card

lol libs are the racist ones, but nice try. you'd like to be able to paint the Republican party as racist by saying "oh they made THEIR black man be the VP, but we made ours the President." You'd love that, wouldn't you? You won't get the satisfaction, though. We'll beat you with whoever we run.

I don't see how any of the candidates would make a good VP choice. Mitt'll most likely pick someone safe like Mitch Daniels or Christie or some obscure, plain-vanilla guy.

Sgt. Pepper: I don't see how any of the candidates would make a good VP choice. Mitt'll most likely pick someone safe like Mitch Daniels or Christie or some obscure, plain-vanilla guy.

if he has half a brain he'll pick Rick Perry. He's goofy, yeah, but next to Biden's foot-in-mouth goofiness, Perry will just look strong.

Isn't tonight's debate the costume lightening round? Maybe, Michele Bachmann will bust out her bowling ball with Raygun's soul trapped inside.

There is no conspiracy. The party has no power to stop people from running or to control how crazy or same they come across. There are a couple of candidates just in it for the book sales and paid appearances on Fox News, and if the party could stop them, they would. But they can't.

jso2897: OK, now you're just encouraging my worst tendencies. I was reaching out for some sanity, in case you didn't pick up on that. :D

Sorry, but GOP and sanity usually aren't found in the same line of thought, unless the thought is 'God damn the GOP is f*cking crazy. I wish they had some sanity.'

That seems to be the big reason why Huntsman gets praise from Farkers since compared to the rest of the GOP, he's sane.

The country does benefit from have a sane GOP who actually tries to do things that really help the country as a whole. I wouldn't mind them as an opposition party if they had better alternatives to democratic ideas. However, they oppose to either oppose or because they have ideas that are horribly worse for almost everyone.

The democrats aren't super great (no, this isn't one of those 'both sides are bad' things) but they have a potential to get better. As of right now, the GOP can't get better unless they completely overhaul the party and remove the stranglehold that the crazies have on it.

Or maybe at this point, the democrats should change their name to the republican party, the GOP fades to obscurity and maybe a 3rd party that's center-left/left fills in the void.

Jackson Herring: Oh cool you're even a recent reg. What a coincidence...

you can rip on me for being new to fark or you can actually discuss the topic. sorry i haven't been wanking all over fark since it started a few years ago. is this some bullshiat hipster thing where you tell me 'oh you don't know cause you weren't here when it started. it was way better back then. they sold out now.'

Cause i don't deal well with douchebag hipsters.

jackthezomber: Jackson Herring: jackthezomber: Black is only bad when it's conservative, I guess.

Typical lib racist, always playing the race card

lol libs are the racist ones, but nice try. you'd like to be able to paint the Republican party as racist by saying "oh they made THEIR black man be the VP, but we made ours the President." You'd love that, wouldn't you? You won't get the satisfaction, though. We'll beat you with whoever we run.

Why The South Must Win
By William F Buckley
National Review editorial, 8/24/1957, 4:7, pp. 148-9:

The central question that emerges-and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal-is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.
National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.
The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds.
That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could. Overwhelming numbers of White people in the South do not vote. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom. Reasonable limitations upon the vote are not exclusively the recommendations of tyrants or oligarchists (was Jefferson either?).

jackthezomber: if he has half a brain he'll pick Rick Perry. He's goofy, yeah, but next to Biden's foot-in-mouth goofiness, Perry will just look strong.

No way, as goofy as Biden gets, Rick Perry is now the world champion of debate gaffes. If they had a debate, Perry would make Biden look like Cicero.

jackthezomber: Sgt. Pepper: I don't see how any of the candidates would make a good VP choice. Mitt'll most likely pick someone safe like Mitch Daniels or Christie or some obscure, plain-vanilla guy.

if he has half a brain he'll pick Rick Perry. He's goofy, yeah, but next to Biden's foot-in-mouth goofiness, Perry will just look strong.

I fully agree. Perry would destroy Biden. I mean, compared to Biden, Perry's got 3 important things on him: style, hair and the third........sorry, I forget. Oops.

HighOnCraic: jackthezomber: Jackson Herring: jackthezomber: Black is only bad when it's conservative, I guess.

Typical lib racist, always playing the race card

lol libs are the racist ones, but nice try. you'd like to be able to paint the Republican party as racist by saying "oh they made THEIR black man be the VP, but we made ours the President." You'd love that, wouldn't you? You won't get the satisfaction, though. We'll beat you with whoever we run.

Why The South Must Win
By William F Buckley
National Review editorial, 8/24/1957, 4:7, pp. 148-9:

The central question that emerges-and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal-is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.
National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.
The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds.
That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could. Overwhelming numbers of White people in the South do not vote. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom. Reasonable limitations upon the vote are not exclusively the recommendations of tyrants or oligarchists (was Jefferson either?).

Hey cut them some slack. Like Jon Huntsman, William F. Buckley had a very polished veneer of civility in his authoritarianism.

HighOnCraic: jackthezomber: Jackson Herring: jackthezomber: Black is only bad when it's conservative, I guess.

Typical lib racist, always playing the race card

lol libs are the racist ones, but nice try. you'd like to be able to paint the Republican party as racist by saying "oh they made THEIR black man be the VP, but we made ours the President." You'd love that, wouldn't you? You won't get the satisfaction, though. We'll beat you with whoever we run.

Why The South Must Win
By William F Buckley
National Review editorial, 8/24/1957, 4:7, pp. 148-9:

[snip snip snip]

Jesus titty-farking Christ...that's some grade-A racism there.

This whole republican field reminds me of the time Al Haig said "I'm a dark, dark, horse." By now, one candidate should be attracting most of the money. They're all being funded through these endless debates to keep the range of GOP talking points alive until we get to the brokered convention. None of them can win both the nomination and the election.

HighOnCraic: words

Ronald Reagan
Delivered before the Senior Class in Divinity College, Cambridge, Sunday Evening, July 15, 1838

"By trusting your own heart, you shall gain more confidence in other men. For all our penny-wisdom, for all our soul-destroying slavery to habit, it is not to be doubted, that all men have sublime thoughts; that all men value the few real hours of life; they love to be heard; they love to be caught up into the vision of principles. We mark with light in the memory the few interviews we have had, in the dreary years of routine and of sin, with souls that made our souls wiser; that spoke what we thought; that told us what we knew; that gave us leave to be what we inly were."

Your point?

DarnoKonrad: HighOnCraic: jackthezomber: Jackson Herring: jackthezomber: Black is only bad when it's conservative, I guess.

Typical lib racist, always playing the race card

lol libs are the racist ones, but nice try. you'd like to be able to paint the Republican party as racist by saying "oh they made THEIR black man be the VP, but we made ours the President." You'd love that, wouldn't you? You won't get the satisfaction, though. We'll beat you with whoever we run.

Why The South Must Win
By William F Buckley
National Review editorial, 8/24/1957, 4:7, pp. 148-9:

The central question that emerges-and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal-is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.
National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.
The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds.
That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could. Overwhelming numbers of White people in the South do not vote. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom. Reasonable limitations upon the vote are not exclusively the recommendations of tyrants or oligarchists (was Jefferson either?).

Hey cut them some slack. Like Jon Huntsman, William F. Buckley had a very polished veneer of civility in his authoritarianism.

And even Buckley has admitted he was wrong.

OVER THE PAST HALF-CENTURY, YOU HAVE ENGAGED IN VIRTUALLY ALL THE GREAT DEBATES IN AMERICAN POLITICS AND CULTURE. HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY POSITIONS YOU NOW REGRET?

Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.

Link (new window)

jackthezomber: HighOnCraic: words

Ronald Reagan
Delivered before the Senior Class in Divinity College, Cambridge, Sunday Evening, July 15, 1838

"By trusting your own heart, you shall gain more confidence in other men. For all our penny-wisdom, for all our soul-destroying slavery to habit, it is not to be doubted, that all men have sublime thoughts; that all men value the few real hours of life; they love to be heard; they love to be caught up into the vision of principles. We mark with light in the memory the few interviews we have had, in the dreary years of routine and of sin, with souls that made our souls wiser; that spoke what we thought; that told us what we knew; that gave us leave to be what we inly were."

Your point?

ah crap.

nevermind.

Dear Jerk: They're all being funded through these endless debates to keep the range of GOP talking points alive until we get to the brokered convention. general election

There will be no real fight. The whole purpose of this circus is to keep GOP talking points alive for as long as possible -- and more importantly, to keep the media oxygen low enough to make sure Obama's message doesn't break through in the meantime.

HighOnCraic: And even Buckley has admitted he was wrong.

OVER THE PAST HALF-CENTURY, YOU HAVE ENGAGED IN VIRTUALLY ALL THE GREAT DEBATES IN AMERICAN POLITICS AND CULTURE. HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY POSITIONS YOU NOW REGRET?

Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.

Link (new window)

I LOL'ed at this part in the linked interview:

A REVIEW OF A RECENT NOVEL OF YOURS SUGGESTED THAT ONE OF YOUR CALLINGS HAS BEEN TO WINNOW THE KOOKINESS OUT OF RIGHT-WING POLITICS. ARE THERE KOOKS STILL IN NEED OF WINNOWING?

There are always kooks. The question becomes, Is their strength damaging to the vital and healthy organs of a political movement? The communists took over the American Labor Party. The Birchers did not take over the Republican Party.

AlwaysRightBoy: Sgt. Pepper: I don't see how any of the candidates would make a good VP choice. Mitt'll most likely pick someone safe like Mitch Daniels or Christie or some obscure, plain-vanilla guy.

After Mitt gets the nod, he's going to pick Christie. It's their only semi-sane change.
/my .02 cents

Quoted for troof.

/srly, so let's hope he picks a derpy teahadist

Serious Black: HighOnCraic: And even Buckley has admitted he was wrong.

OVER THE PAST HALF-CENTURY, YOU HAVE ENGAGED IN VIRTUALLY ALL THE GREAT DEBATES IN AMERICAN POLITICS AND CULTURE. HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY POSITIONS YOU NOW REGRET?

Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.

Link (new window)

I LOL'ed at this part in the linked interview:

A REVIEW OF A RECENT NOVEL OF YOURS SUGGESTED THAT ONE OF YOUR CALLINGS HAS BEEN TO WINNOW THE KOOKINESS OUT OF RIGHT-WING POLITICS. ARE THERE KOOKS STILL IN NEED OF WINNOWING?

There are always kooks. The question becomes, Is their strength damaging to the vital and healthy organs of a political movement? The communists took over the American Labor Party. The Birchers did not take over the Republican Party.


LOL, yea, dying is one way to become an honest man Bill.