I was watching The Colbert Report last night (by the time this post is published) as Colbert unfolded his plan for how to compete in South Carolina without having his name on the ballot -- and by halfway through the segment I was grinning from ear to ear.
Here's the URL for his Jon Stewart's PAC's new ad, which for some reason I am not able to embed.
My jaw-distorting grin came from the fact that Colbert is essentially adopting the plan that I proposed on December 28 for Democrats to use to send a protest vote at the January 3 Iowa Caucuses: go into the Republican contest and vote for Herman Cain. The votes should presumably have to be calculated -- remember, Cain's campaign is only "suspended" -- and then we'll see how great the dissatisfaction is with Nominee-Apparent Romney.
Don't believe me? An edited (but not added to) version of the diary I wrote -- in which I leave out the attempts to co-opt Cenk Uyger's "protest vote" proposal of that day, change "caucus" to primary, and a few other things -- appears below the gnocchi.
How can Democrats send a message...? We can do it pretty much anyway we want ... so long as our actions are understood as conveying our intended message. We accomplish that by letting people know ahead of time that that's what we're doing.
I think that I might engage in a benign version of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos." I'd re-register as a Republican for the day and take part in the Republican [Primary]. But rather than trying to propel [Rick Perry] or Rick Santorum or some other sad creature to the nomination, I'd stand in a corner where I and my fellow Democrats could stand alone.
I would vote for Herman Cain, who remains on the ballot.
[T]o have its desired impact, it has to be clear that it is a joke.
Voting for Herman Cain at this point -- probably at any point, but certainly at this point -- is clearly a joke.
The Republican Party ... couldn't take Cain's name off of the ballot -- and a vote for Cain is, in 2012, the way that Republican [primary] voters (be they Republican or Democratic the rest of the year) can, in effect, vote "uncommitted." And that does hurt the Republican storyline.
I mean, just imagine the headlines if Cain wins.
(Hell, just imagine the headlines if Cain doesn't get the joke after winning -- and so reopens his candidacy. But, to paraphrase Barney Frank, I don't think that God likes us that much.)
If ... you still do feel like embarrassing the Republicans in a way that they will understand, then your path is clear: [take a ballot for] the Republican [primary] and VOTE FOR CAIN.
What's the best result that can be hoped for here? I think that it's beyond our hoping that Herman Cain would ever get back into the race. But I believe that his name remains on the ballot for Super Tuesday races, so he can still amass delegates (and, importantly, deny them to Romney.)
Well, sure -- but to what end? Simple: at this point in the year it would probably still be possible for another candidate to get into the race if the "Herman Cain" vote is high enough (and remains so in future contests). That candidate won't be Stephen Colbert, in all likelihood; at some point, he would have to give up his gig -- and we simply can't have that.
No, it would have to be someone from the now-being-trashed evangelical movement who had not been defeated by Romney, who could raise extraordinary amounts of money quickly, who could get onto the ballot, and who could take away Romney's votes in many of the large later states. Someone who still has their finger on the true, non-Romney pulse of today's Republican Party. Someone who could work with Herman Cain so that his delegates could be transferred at the convention. Someone who could slap Romney down in debates -- maybe even someone whom he would not dare to slap back.
I don't know if Stephen Colbert and his band of merry pranksters has thought this far ahead, but:
Sarah Palin: Stephen Colbert and Herman Cain may have just kept your dreams alive! You're being ignored now, Sarah! Are you going to let the big boys get away with that disrespect for you?