Sweet Zombie Jeebus, kids. Stephen Colbert announced his candidacy. I've never wanted to vote for someone more than I want to vote for Colbert, but, aside from the fact that he's only running in South Carolina right now and would have to be a write-in candidate, I still don't think I could honestly vote for him.
First of all, some of the things I've read about him as a person are things I don't tend to agree with. It's social issue education type stuff, for the most part, things that have been hinted at here and there in interviews. Still, they're things that make me remember that he plays a character, and Stephen Colbert the person is not Stephen Colbert the character. Which one is running? (Haven't actually watched the clip yet, read about it online and couldn't find it on Comedy Central when I went to look.) So there's that, and that's the big one.
Second of all, he's Catholic. It's not as big a deal, but it's the one I'm going to take more time to explain. I'm not saying there's anything bad or evil or wrong about people who are Catholic, but, well, part of being a Catholic is the belief that the Pope is "a full, supreme and universal authority" (See this site), this is called primacy. The Pope is also infallible. This all means that if you're a Roman Catholic, you believe that if the Pope calls you up and says, "Hey, you'll do this because I'm the Pope and I'm right because I say so," you do it.
Now, we can say that this primacy stuff doesn't apply to your average church-going American Catholic, because what are the odds that the Pope's going to call you up and tell you personally to stop taking birth control? Strictly speaking, no, that's not going to happen, but if you say you're a Catholic, this is part of the belief system. This is not a church known for embracing "grey areas" of belief.
Disagree with me if you will, but I don't like the implication that an official I might elect has a primary obligation to fulfill responsibilities and commands of a person I don't agree with. It doesn't make me think less of you as a person, it just makes me wonder whether I want you to be in a position to make decisions on my behalf.
Still, if it's a choice between him and Hilary Clinton, or him and a Republican (he's running for both parties), I'd probably take him, though I don't know that I could really be called upon to write him in. (My reasons against Hilary are many and none of them have anything to do with her husband's dick.)
So, as you see, I'm conflicted. If it were Jon Stewart, my choice would be free and clear. For one thing, he does tend to be straight up about things, and he seems honest, which is why I prefer watching him interview. With Stephen, it's like watching someone try to pull your leg and fish for compliments at the same time. It's fun, but I don't think there's much to be gained by it. Jon often has a separate adjenda from whatever the interviewee thought he was coming on the show to talk about, but he's asking genuine questions and makes points I'd stand by.
But Stephen Colbert, I'll eat your ice cream, sir, but you're going to have to have a heck of a party line to get me to write you in.
I woke up at two thirty and couldn't get back to sleep, which is why I'm here now. While I'll still agree with all this later, I'll admit I probably wouldn't have been as frank about it in another situation. Besides, I've probably put way too much consideration into something that won't get further than South Carolina, and that'll likely end with him withdrawing due to grizzly bears or Barbara Streisand.
Heck, I should've just gone with my gut, then I wouldn't have had to worry about this at all.