Ain't It Cool News (

AMERICAN CANDIDATE - A Capra Dream of a Populist President or A Nightmare To Be'

Hey folks, Harry here... I don't do too much over here at Coaxial, but I'm just very interested in discussing and seeing you comment on the idea of a television show that has the potential to actually push into existence a third party candidate with the media exposure to actually become the President of the United States.

If you've been watching CNN or reading reports around the net, you've probably heard about the concept of AMERICAN CANDIDATE and new show by FX - which plans to have viewers and regular people attempt to become President of the United States... Apparently there will be debates, discussions, backgrounds, primary style situations... All sorts of stuff that will help the home viewer choose their candidate. Here's the breakdown...

Applications will be accepted from natural-born U.S. citizens who will be 35 years old by January 20, 2005. The candidates must produce a petition signed by 50 supporters.

A panel of experts will choose 100 semifinalists, two from each state, who will be introduced to viewers in the series' first episode.

Episodes will be broadcast live from locations like Mount Rushmore, Gettysburg and the Statue of Liberty, where the candidates will compete with such things as debates and stump speeches. Viewers will gradually eliminate candidates.

Now will these "candidates" be writing their own speeches or will they have "network writers" honing and crafting their speeches? Is this Fox's bid to take over the country? Giving Millions and Million and Millions of dollars of free publicity behind a non-seasoned politician wannabe - could it possibly work to dislodge the established two party system? Having a popularly chosen candidate that people tune in week after week to watch come into power... that you would root for, hope for and would be being groomed with all the powers of a network for the express purpose of possibly becoming the leader of the United States?

Is this the dream of a Frank Capra MEET JOHN DOE situation? Is Rupert an Edward Arnold would be Richelieu? Is this a bad thing? Is this exactly what the U.S. needs to get a candidate that is outside of the established political arena? Someone more pure? Or would this turn into MILLI VANILLI - fakery? Or are we already seeing that today with our current political leaders?

I am genuinely interested to see what you folks think of this sort of thing. Comfortable or a perversion? Here you go with your forum to Talk Back...

The series will begin in early 2004 and culminate around July 4 with a live show at The Mall in Washington, D.C., where viewers will choose their favorite candidate for president.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Sept. 21, 2002, 12:22 p.m. CST

    We live in a Sci-Fi world

    by SpiderJ.

    Satire is officially dead.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Kelly Clarkson for Prez!

    by I Hate Movies

    Justin Guarini can be vice-dork.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 12:32 p.m. CST

    So instead of big oil companies fixing the election...

    by enigmainyourhead

    ... you now get a giant media conglomerate doing it for ya. Good job America.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 12:44 p.m. CST

    I See your hesitation Big guy...

    by Massawyrm 1

    I'm amazingly mixed on this myself. I mean, if this is legit, a real heart felt attempt putting America back where it was always meant to be - in the hands of the people- then this could be the most amazing, beneficial thing to come from television ever. The thought of changing the rules of the game, the ideal of he who has the money (in effect, he who is bought by special intrest) has the loudest voice, would revolutionize and galvanize this country. HOWEVER, and this is a mighty big HOWEVER, if this is some lame American Idol crap that turns into "Battle of the Jaywalk All Stars" where people root for Jethro the Plumber because they think it would be funny, well then this is possibly the worst mockery I can Imagine. "Who wants to be a Millionare President" indeed. Tread lightly Fox. You walk a fine line between genius and madness on this one.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 12:54 p.m. CST


    by ledbetter51

    I agree with Massawyrm. IF this is legit and done with some integrity, and IF the people who watch and vote take it seriously, this MIGHT be a good thing. I'm going to reserve judgement until I see what kind of candidates they come up with and how the show is presented. This is one of those things that will either be very good or incredibly disgusting.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 1:15 p.m. CST

    "From the man who brought you Austin Powers and Meet the Parents

    by akbose01

    What would be really funny is if celebrities entered this competition as well. A debate between say John Cusack and Cletus from Alabama moderated by Ben Stiller would be damn hilarious. This is really is just another attempt by Rupert Murdoch to take over the world.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 1:16 p.m. CST


    by Pageiv

    At least we'll know who is supporting the candidate (FOX).

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Vote Sideshow Bob

    by Xcalibur

    This can either be really sweet or go very sour. It depends on how liberal or conservative the populist candidate is. Though, I tend to think this contest is likely to create more liberal candiidates. I think it is safe to say that this will be taken seriously. Afterall, the people likely to vote for so moron (like Bush) probably will get bored by the show. I mean, it is going to be a lot of debates. As for Fox controling the White House. Fox has produced so fine films. I think we're safer in their hands. At least we can rely on them to not increase censorship. This could be George W. Bush's only chance to get re-elected.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 1:38 p.m. CST

    A view from England

    by KID AB

    Reading this news, it just does not surprise me at all. In England Big Brother is king. The first series i enjoyed, but the third series, broadcast this year, i just ignored because where the first series was a new thing, when the contestants did not know what they let themselves in for, the third series is now a disgusting sham where people stoop to their lowest to get the prize. The same will happen here. America will go mad, i can see thousands of America, some decent some not, will be desperately signing up with little effort, and will probably, if they are selected, be in the public eye and not knowing what to do when they are in the senate. The people doing the hard work will be behind the scenes, only this time it won't be a political party, but a media conglomerate run by a media mogul who is only interested in the ratings of his beloved TV channels. I don't know about you but that does not seem to me to be a democratic way of "election". I am hopeful that in England we won't be seeing Tony Blair being challenged by John Doe, whose "Party" is the BBC/ITV/C4 or C5.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 1:49 p.m. CST

    After all the issues American Idol had with people speed dialing

    by Lobanhaki

    This stands to have a credibility problem that makes the 2000 presidential election look like the results were vouched for by God.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 2:01 p.m. CST

    by Piccolo Daimao

    I prefer it if candidates get there on their own initative, not as a result of a game show. Do you think many people would take this seriously? We all know how shows like this can be easy fodder for late-night talk show hosts. Anyway, people focus too much on the presidency to effect change and pretty much ignore the Congress. If real change is to happen, the Congress needs to be on board or no dice. Remember Bush 41's "Read my lips, no new taxes?" Congress basically turned around and said, "Read OUR lips, buster, we control the purse strings and WE WILL RAISE TAXES" Remember, we as voters are responisible for electing our congressmen and senators as we are the presidency. BTW, this whole oil conspiracy bit is simply absurd. I hardly think after the slaughter of 3,000 Americans, Bush and Cheney are going to be thinking of oil. (Did FDR have this problem?)

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 2:19 p.m. CST

    Your Next President is...Former MTV VJ Jesse Camp

    by Anyawatcher

    What a joke this is. Your gonna get wannabe actors, crazies, bible thumpers and a whole bunch of losers who go for this. If Fox really wants to do this, start a political party, get the guy-more likely a female winner, on ballot in all 50 states and force the Democrats and Republicans to have this person in all debates. This has bomb written all over it.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Okay, I'm confused....

    by Keyser195

    Isn't this already how we elect a president? A panel of experts (Congress) nominate potential candidates, have primaries, and the American people vote some of them out, and then they have speeches, debates, etc., and finally the American people choose who they want. The election process was the original "reality TV," so who cares if Fox wants in on it? Only problem is, we're not gonna get a man of the people, we're gonna get some other schmo who looks good in a suit and can't string a sentence together.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 2:36 p.m. CST

    To quote a famous horse: "No sir, I don't like it."

    by XTheCrovvX

    Whether or not this thing turns out to be the saving grace for this abstract democracy of ours, or the final capitalist nail in our coffins, I gotta tell ya...the entire concept of this thing scares me shitless. It's like the last Manson album come to life. The sheer idea that the by-product of TV's next ratings bonanza may have a decent shot of having access to a nuclear weapon in 2 years just plain gives me the creeps...and the fact that, whether the person who gets elected wants to or not, theyll owe a massive debt to one Mr. Rupert Murdoch scares me even more....come to think of it...i retract my previous statement...there's no way in hell that this could be anything but a disaster...what we'll get from this show is, like American Idol, Making the Band,and Popstars before it, is a product. And it won't be like any of those shows where all we gotta do is just not buy their singles, their cds, and turn to different stations on the radio when they come on. This product will have the final say in some of the biggest decisions in the world, and i can see this as nothing else but, as Jeff Goldblum succinctly put it in The Lost World, "The worst idea in the long sad history of bad ideas." Yup, world's goin bye bye, all right. See you all in hell. Revolution is my name.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 2:44 p.m. CST


    by ChrisPC24

    This is ridiculous, besides all candidates would have to have equal time on TV, wouldn't they? BTW, ChickenGeorge, the minimum age is 35.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 3:18 p.m. CST


    by FNORDknt

    I thought HBO was supposed to do a show like this too.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 3:23 p.m. CST

    I am confused

    by Al_Shut

    After reading the article I thought I was just a show were fictinal Presidential elections were held but the talkbacks sound as if the winner of the show would become a candidate in the real election.So what of these two is the truth.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 3:33 p.m. CST

    I hereby declare my candidacy for your next President

    by Regis Travolta

    Free Lifetime Internet Access for every damn one of you! How's that for starters? No more monthly fees to your ISP and no more fucking POP UP ADS and NO MORE SPAM! More later once I get on the show.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 3:37 p.m. CST

    "moronic yahoo in charge of our country"

    by SmutGirl

    so in other words, it will be business as usual

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 3:41 p.m. CST

    I prefer it if candidates get there on their own initative??

    by eclectic heretic

    riiight. like bush or gore got to where they were due to initiative. they got where they were because of who their fathers were. this process sounds a hundred times more credible than our current process of finding candidates. which is driven by a few people within the party, not by the populace.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Murdoch lifted the idea from a game show in Argentina!

    by SmutGirl

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 3:51 p.m. CST


    by ThePoleOfJustice

    (1) Hey, if Jesse Ventura can win... (2) What, exactly will be different from our current elections? We already vote according to how a candidate appears on TV (i.e. the Kennedy/Nixon thing, although in hindsight the result might not have been such a bad idea after all.) So the guy (and let's face it, if the candidate actually has any kind of shot, it WILL be a guy) is chosen by TV viewers and not businessmen...and? Fox isn't controlling the election process as well, are they? Whoever they choose will be subject to the same election process that all the other candidates are. While, granted, the populartity of the cheesedick who wins Fox's thing might propel them into the Oval Office (improbable, but technically possible,) this is only a baby step away from the way we do things now. (3) (Insert Ronald Regan being an actor joke here.) (4) The silver lining to this impossibly poop-laden cloud may be that millions of people who just plain don't vote, finally get off their asses and hit the polls. So what if they elect someone vacuous and entirely dependent on TV exposure...what the Hell do you think we've had for the last 30 (or more) years? (5) (Insert self righteously indignant response, i.e. "Well, the guy *I* voted for has INTEGRITY!" Blah blah blah. The only thing worse than someone who thinks their guy is better than everybody else is, probably, that guy himself.) (6) Now I know why I never watch TV. (7) Go see NETWORK. Creepier now that the future is upon us, ain't it?

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 4:02 p.m. CST

    i don`t know...typical american idea...;)

    by drjones

    well...infact as massawyrm said it COULD be a good thing. though i think it also could be very risky.... what about manipulation??? i wouldn

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 4:28 p.m. CST

    Don't worry

    by InvaderZim

    The TB is so far a bunch of the ususal, predictable natterings about how this is not different from what we do now, how this is the end of responsible democracy, etc. *** It shows the utter amount of cynicism that, rightly or wrongly, colors the way we view American politics, but..come on, this is FOX. This will be a silly gimmick show that'll have the more middling of the pundits busy for a week or two, but the country won't make a world leader based on someone on a TV show. It will NOT be the same as the traditional televised debates that we have already. This is crass, but I doubt it'll be especially popular. I realize its easy to sneer at the viewing public (I do it all the time), but I think they can seperate what is entertainment with what are matters of world power and repubican democracy.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 4:48 p.m. CST

    You could do worse.

    by RawShark

    Like you always have.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 4:51 p.m. CST


    by Rayanne Graff

    Most people in the US will just vote for whichever of the two parties they always have no matter who's standing or what their policies are. Remember - a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush! Poor old Ralph.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Hell YEAH!!!

    by ShadowBlade

    BTW... if something like this is to work there would still ahve to be a real election. FOX does not have the power to make a PRESIDENT. The winner of this would then run for office with FOX backing them financially no doubt. HE/She would still ahve to be ELECTED in a REAL ELECTION. HEY MAYBE YOU CAN FINALLY HAVE A SHE!!!! ANy chance of a CANADIAN Version!!!???!!! :-)

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 5:16 p.m. CST

    It's a good idea.....

    by BornAmazing

    As a young American let me tell you, my peers and I are fed up with this country. Our leader is a joke, our policy's on international matter's are scary, and the patriotic rhetoric that I've heard so much of the past year is disturbing. Democracy in America is a dead thing, I mean most of us don't even vote. Maybe this is the way to reach into our stupid American heads and get the population interested and excited about a canidate. While I do beleive we have become slaves to capitalism, this concept seems somehow different. Fox would be backing this candidate to a great extent, but they would be backing the candidate that we choose, Corporations always own the they might as well be owning one that the people are REALLY interested in. My veiw is that the two party system in worn out and ragged. We new new blood in our political system. Blood with original idea's and idea's that include a more global veiw of politics. Ill watch this show, and I'll hope that it will produce an intelligent, liberal, forward thinking candidate for president. Now Im not sure at all if the show will actually acheive what I hope it will...but if it does it could save America from the collision course we are on with the rest of the world... If it's not to late by 2008....

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 5:59 p.m. CST

    I'm not worried, and here's why. . .

    by Jumpstart

    Does anyone here REALLY believe that Kelly Clarkson is going to be the next great thing in music? I certainly don't. The streets are littered with those people who thought a reality TV show would give them their "big break." Just goes to show that people don't really take the contestants, let alone the winners, of reality TV shows really seriously. But onto the issue at hand: Is this a good idea for the country? The answer: It don't make a lick of difference. Here's why: Politicians are garbage. Because people are garbage. We need to worry that the REAL politicians are not screwing us YET again. And if we start spending our energy doing that, then it won't matter what kind of shit Rupert Murdoch is serving us at the dinner table.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 6:17 p.m. CST

    don't take this seriously

    by niveknivek

    A couple of points. One, Fox will not back the candidate that emerges from this TV show. They will back "Dubya", because they are a Republican news channel. Two, running for President takes money, and even if Fox did take the TV show candidate seriously, they obviously couldn't bankroll his campaign. Three, there's more to running for President than getting on a TV show--namely, getting your name on the ballot, finding Electors to back you in the Electoral College, etc etc. There is only one way that this could possibly have any influence at all, and that is if a genuine third party candidate, like the Reform Party guy or the Libertarian Party guy, used the TV show to get exposure that they would not otherwise. Nader would never do it because he has no sense of humor.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 7:21 p.m. CST

    15 minutes into the future...

    by RenoNevada2000

    Who ever thought that Max Headroom would be a prophet of things to come...

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 7:40 p.m. CST

    Anyone got a link?

    by Doubting Thomas

    I don't know how I missed this. Can anyone provide a link to this proposed show? I can't find anything on it.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 7:51 p.m. CST

    Speaking of the presidency, did anyone catch Kristy Swanson'

    by billz3bub

    My god, she should be Buffy again right now! And president! I'd vote for that body- I mean, her.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Xcalibur: "so moron (like Bush)"

    by jorson2

    I find it interesting that Xcalibur can call Bush a moron and still put "so" instead of "some" more than one time.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 8:55 p.m. CST

    OK, let's think this through.

    by Prankster

    ASSUMING Fox doesn't turn it into a gimmicky joke and it becomes a serious thing, what'll happen? The people of the US will essentially endorse a third party candidate. Sounds good to me. Murdoch WILL endorse this guy, even if he is a Republican, because he doesn't have any direct control over Bush, and here's the possibility to "own" a candidate. That's the potentially scary part, but for God's sake...the last two candidates were blatantly owned by Big Oil and China, respectively. There IS more to the job than simply pandering to the people who elected you. So, we'll get this candidate, and he'll actually be a huge success and loved (presumably) by a great many people, and famous throughout the land. The winner *will* have a serious shot at winning the election. Remember how everyone said Martin Sheen could have won last election? And this'll be even more powerful, because people will feel like they have a stake and a personal say in this candidate. We may be able to vote for "our guy", but who felt like they had a say in picking the two weenies we were saddled with last time? No one, that's who. Because we didn't. Two powerful groups of people got together and presented the candidates who were most firmly in the pockets of that party's special interests. This time out, the people getting the candidate up there will be a TV audience...which is, at least, a more populist choice. Once the guy is picked, he barely needs to do a lick more advertising--everyone will know who he is. Unless there's a concerted effort to keep the guy out of the public eye between then and the election, I'd almost say he's a lock--the "people's candidate". And would this be a terrible thing? It's funny, but no matter how ludicrous it may sound, you can't really level a complaint against it that doesn't already apply to our current political system. The guy will be inexperienced? Well, Gore and Bush had experience doing what, exactly? Running for office, basically. Bush's previous leadership credentials were a freaking joke, and Gore got to where he was because of his breeding. The Fox candidate will just be a media-savvy puppet? Again, that's different from our current leaders HOW? And at least we'll get to see this guy overcome obstacles, get a chance to really *know* him as the months roll on, which is a heck of a lot more than we ever get from other candidates. Sounds good to me! The Fox candidate "won't have gotten there on his own drive"? He'll be a guy who WON'T have been a lifelong power-seeker and kissass? Who got into the process late, and got to where he is by undergoing a weird but nevertheless presumably honest series of trials in a short time? Works for me. Heck, the more I think about this, the better it sounds. The big problem is the degree to which the media moguls will manipulate the process...they could use judicious editing to make a guy they don't like appear foolish, or what have you. Otherwise, though, people are recoiling from this because we're trained not to take the media seriously...but really, we should. This may be a damn solid process...maybe even the future of US politics. If every candidate was chosen this way, wouldn't the whole process be more involving and democratic?

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Jesus Fucking Christ, This Is Really What It's Come To !?!?!

    by thecomedian

    It seems like ever since 9-11 the day to day news is just more and more bizzare. It's like we've all stepped into some kind of bad satirical, "dark future" movie. Jesus, what's next, THE TRANS-CONTINENTAL ROAD RACE!?!?!? Guess I better break out my Frankenstein T-Shirt.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 9:50 p.m. CST

    chastain86 said:

    by Xillah

    "we're somewhat likely to end up with a moronic yahoo in charge of our country, just because he's a hoot to watch on TV" to easy :p

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 9:58 p.m. CST

    here's your link

    by SmutGirl

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Yet another reason to move to Canada

    by Pulzar711

    As if I haven't been freaked out enough by what the country has come to in the past year... must we parade our stupidity for the entire planet? How embarassing. Max Headroom DOES become more relevant every year. Makes it hard to sleep at night when all the darkest and most cynical science fiction shows up on CNN, served up by a giggling blonde between segments on the latest sports crap and Cool New Gadget. Yesterday they had a chick holding a cute puppy as they went to commercial and I was confused thinking I had somehow tuned into Daily Show's Moment of Zen. The world has become a scary, upbeat place. More Prozac, please.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 11:33 p.m. CST

    worst case scenario

    by Subversive01057

    A borderline retard gets elected, someone with little understanding of foreign policy and an embarassing lack of eloquence, who tries to further erode civil lilberties and engineer a constant state of warfare in order to hold onto political power. Wow, I'm really scared.

  • Sept. 21, 2002, 11:59 p.m. CST

    I think I might be for it

    by Vern

    This really is surreal and bizarre and Max Headroomy and yet, sadly, it really seems like a better chance at getting things right than our current, also surreal and bizarre system. Chances are if you hire some VJ off of tv, he will not have a maniacal plan of world domination already set in place by his dad's golf buddies. Therefore, it would have to work out better than the last "election." If the candidate was good I don't think they would have that much of a chance, because the rival networks would all do whatever they could to make people not take him/her seriously. Which would be easy. But it would be nice if the show would 1) popularize the idea of viable third party candidates 2) make more young people follow politics. I think it will make more people vote, just to vote against the tv candidate. It will still be a very small minority of americans voting, and alot of the black votes will still be deliberately thrown out in Florida, but it will be a start. I think it will also be an interesting social experiment. I mean which way will people lean? Would the As Seen On TV Candidate end up being some white ring nutjob? A genuine liberal? Another kissass middle of the road politician with no vision or convictions? I really have no clue. p.s. It's too bad this won't be until the 2008 election, because it would be really beautiful to see Bush come in third place.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 12:12 a.m. CST

    but Vern

    by SmutGirl

    It's for 2004, not 2008. KnowwhaddImean?

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 12:44 a.m. CST

    Electorial College

    by DarkseedLV

    The Fox Candidate would never be president. Lets face it, the candidate, reguardless of how well he/she comes off on television wouldn't become president. If he gets the popular vote, he wouldn't make the electorial college vote. However this could affect the popular election ala Perot in 1994. Not that the show isn't a great idea, i personnaly like it. It has the potential to turn a large number of American's on to politics. Something that MTV has been trying to do for years and has had some success. However I don't think the show's ratings will get it past 9 episodes, so this will be a moot point.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 12:49 a.m. CST


    by joeypogi

    i think its a good idea.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 1:29 a.m. CST

    A vote for the Fox candidate is a vote for ______?

    by xeeds

    Perhaps Murdoch's goal isn't to own a candidate, but to own a spoiler? Some believe that Perot was a factor in Clinton beating Bush Sr. and that Nader was a factor in Gore losing to Bush, I'll refrain from comment on that. If there is a manipulation and grooming, it could just as well be to create a spoiler. A likable and visible liberal populist would easily spell doom for most any centrist, bought out Democrat. On the flip side a non-whacko, non-extremist, non-Buchanan conservative would easily sway the election to the Democrats. Of course Instant Runoff Voting ( eliminate this possibility, but that would require Americans to be a little progressive. I honestly hope as cheesy as this show sounds, that it will create a serious challenge to current 1 1/2 party system, and not just a spoiler candidate. Oh and in response to, "It will NOT be the same as the traditional televised debates that we have already," no it won't, we will actually get to see more than two candidates. Though I wish people would just take the initiative withotu a TV show, reject the two (1 1/2 in relaity) party system, and vote third party. It's the only way to save Democracy in America.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 2:39 a.m. CST


    by niveknivek

    Look folks, this is easy. Whoever wins this popularity contest won't have any money to run. Say the FX channel gives the winner a million dollars. $1 million might be enough to get you three days worth of TV ads in North Dakota. Besides, he will have to get on the ballot in all 50 states--costs money--travel to give speeches--costs money--pay for some kind of staff--costs money. Plus, any candidate selected by a TV show would have only slightly less credibility than Charles Manson. I repeat, the only way this will have any influence on the 2004 election whatsoever will be if a REAL candidate, like the Libertarian Party guy, uses the TV show to get more exposure. Oh, and one more thing. No 3rd party candidate has ever won the Presidency. Ever. Only once in history has a 3rd party guy finished better than 3rd (ex-President Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive in 1912, finished 2nd). The last 3rd party candidate to win even one state was Wallace in 1968.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 3:06 a.m. CST

    TY Smutgirl

    by Doubting Thomas

    Just wanted to say thanks.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 4:11 a.m. CST

    People already don't trust the media for shit now..

    by TheMatarife

    If this gets going, they will realize the media's power to fix elections.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 4:27 a.m. CST


    by Superdudebobby

    If this is real, then it's the sort of all-out, we-admit-it's-about-looking-good-on-TV-not-actual-quality, media-augmented election that the US has been edging towards for a century. It's phoney and gimmicky, but at least it's honest about it; the cards are now on the table. There's no telling what will happen: perhaps the candidate will be a joke that ultimately no-one votes for, but he/she could become a hype, in which case he/she doesn't even *need* a big budget to get publicity. And then at least (well, probably *at most*) he/she could become the spoiler candidate some have mentioned (BTW, Nader did ruin Gore's changes -- that's a simple matter of maths. Not that he wanted to; no conspiracy there... I think.)

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 8:09 a.m. CST

    It's not a winner, it's a precedent ...

    by adriantullberg

    When this airs, the concept of a publicly backed (as opposed to silently supported) candidate will be fixed in the public mindset. This will pave the way for future candidates to seek the open support of networks and other media organisations. It will not be this candidate that has a chance of winning, it's the one two or three elections in the future. (By the way, the Max Headroom episode where candidates are supported by networks, and ratings replace votes is Grossberg's Return, references are at,23102,3396558,00.html and,24330,3382263,00.html#tele )

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 9:16 a.m. CST


    by Ludwig Curious

    Absolutely fascinating. Whether or not it's a good idea is another thing altogether, but I think it's the next step in a world already consumed and semi-controlled by the media. Of course, seeing as how I'm from Canada this wouldn't affect me in the slightest. Or would it ? This is interesting. I think they should go ahead with the idea, just to see how far it'll go. This is like the kind of humorous s.f. story Asimov used to write.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 10:22 a.m. CST

    Superdudebobby, I'm Confused

    by Anton_Sirius

    How did Nader ruin Gore's chances, when Gore won the election? Unless Nader is actually Scalia in disguise... actually, that would explain a lot.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 11:29 a.m. CST


    by uberob

    I skimmed through the other talkbacks and saw that the majority of them either think this is a terrible idea and reference their personal dystopian future sci-fi fav, or say this could go either way. Let me just say that if this thing makes it into the production stage, it can ONLY be good. America is a nation that is in a constant state of flux. We understand that humans are flawed and any truths we hold evident can reflect this. Hence the Amendments. Like it or not, television is the most powerful medium in the world. It brings better, more personal, more easier to understand news to more people faster than any other medium to date. The U.S. needs to try and retry ways of utilyzing this medium. And any other medium that comes along. No matter how Fox handles this, it will have an it as a grand joke or as an actual threat to the other candidates...because people will be talking about it. If this thing gets near the ratings of American Idol, it will have already served a purpose. Whether this turns out to be viable or not, everyone will have learned something.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Why the hell not?

    by WizardX

    Two years ago, I would've been horrified at this idea. However, given our last election and the end result of it, honestly, I'm happy to see something new come along. And I don't see how this could give us something worse than what we currently have..... This really makes for a grand sociological experiment, the likes of which has never been tried before. Candidates always talk about what "The People" want, but they really have little idea. People often seem to say "Populist Candidate" like it's a bad word, but who knows? This may turn out to be the clearest indication imaginable about what The People actually want..... My one concern lies on Murdoch and Fox. We're having to trust in them to play fair. To let in qualified, intelligent people of all political views. It would be easy to stack the deck, lean all the candidates to the left or right. Most people wouldn't notice. What I want to see is them start off on day one with at least one candidate from every ideology. If the first show has a Neo-Nazi facing off against a Socialist, then we're in good shape..... But, wow, if this works, imagine the revolution this could bring to American democracy overall. It would be bringing a hell of a lot of power to the people. And I'm guessing that's what scares a lot of people.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 12:23 p.m. CST

    Third Party Success Story

    by Mark Twain

    A third party candidate has become president. There was a man named Abraham Lincoln who was the candidate of the radical Republican Party.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 1:44 p.m. CST

    by niveknivek

    Lincoln was not a "third party" candidate. There were two main parties in 1860, Republicans and Democrats, just like there are now. The Whigs, who proceeded the Republicans as the 2nd party, ran their last candidate in 1852.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 2:09 p.m. CST

    I am with the *HATE IT* crowd. And its a GIMMIC, not REAL! NO

    by SkiffyPup

    Um, does Murdoch have a family member born here and over 34 that can qualify constitutionally??? :::::shudder:::: For you Canadians and ignorants... It takes a ton of petition signatures by primary time in EACH of the 50 states to get a party on the ballot.... (Sure, you can win without some states, but would FOX want some viewers in no ballot states that mad at them? NO!) You cannot just qualify for a federal ballot. Its 1/50th at a time./// The only way it would work is if the pre-book Jesse Ven. vs. Ahnold Terminator.... The WWF Fans are energetic and dumb enough to pull it off./// If FOX does this, they will earn my ACTIVE and UNDYING enmity!

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 3:11 p.m. CST

    American President


    FOX already picked our current "president", remember, Bush boys cousin at FOX made the decision to declare Bush the winner, even though the election was still too close to call, and the other networks followed like sheep, thus setting in the public mindset that Bush had actually won even though he hadn't. Some young candidate could get on this show and at least get some exposure. Or maybe Jerry Brown could give it a shot, I'm sure he's itching for yet another run for president (I would probably prefer our current "president" to Governor Moonbeam).

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Superdudebobby, Gore and Nader...

    by xeeds

    Nader didn't spoil anything that wasn't already rotten. Gore turned an about face early in his career and ran in Tennessee on a platform that appealed to the conservative bible belt views of the region. It wasn't until he elevated past the state level that he started to let his more liberal roots actually show a little, but even then it was just a sham. Gore lost his home state because on the national level he had betrayed the platform on which he had come into power and they didn't want to vote for him because of that. Though on the national level he followed his liberal words with very little action and again betrayed the platform that brought him to power (if you consider the Vice Presidency to be power). The guy exploited the death of his sister and his son getting hit by a car at two different Democratic National Conventions. He is the epitome of what we have come to expect and loathe in a career politician, he will say or do anything to get elected, but then he has his own agenda that in no way serves the convictions he preaches. Did Nader have an impact sure, but Buchanan lost more electoral votes for Bush than Nader did for Gore. Gore had almost every advantage going in and he blew it, nobody else hurt his chances more than he hurt himself.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 3:42 p.m. CST

    My Big Fat Greek Election

    by xeeds

    CBS is playing off of their recent rights acquisition and are going to be airing My Big Fat Greek Election, it will produce a sleeper candidate like none has ever seen before, and reach great heights on a tiny budget. He or she will then go on to try to fix the country and the world's problems with Windex.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 4:39 p.m. CST

    Good idea! Even if it's Faux

    by sinople

    It is nearly impossible for a third party candidate to run because of the dragconian laws and control of the system by the 2 major parties. The only 3rd party candiates to make any impression lately, have been celebritites like Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader. The News Media will cover them thinking only celebrities are interesting to the American people. Which is why I get most of my news straight from the wire services or overseas newspapers. Hey, it this series gets more people interested in the process and actually registering to vote. And maybe shows the public how the system is rigged against 3rd parties, maybe something will change. Or at least it will split the vote and the libbies will have a shot <g>.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 4:50 p.m. CST


    by Piccolo Daimao

    The big three networks called Florida for Gore prematurely, which cost Bush votes in the panhandle region. The knife cuts both ways, pal.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 6:35 p.m. CST

    The average American is libetarian, yet the two major parties wo

    by Declan_Swartz

    What is a libertrian> Take the test>

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 7:12 p.m. CST

    1860 Election niveknivek

    by Mark Twain

    No offense, but there were four parties in 1860, not two. Lincoln was a true third party candidate, in fact he did not receive a majority of the popular vote in that election. Had there been only two parties, he probably would have lost. And speaking of the Whigs, they started as a third party.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 7:27 p.m. CST


    by sjanich

    I am not sure Lincoln would have lost. I think he syil would have won. I suspect most of the Constitutional Union votes would have gone to Lincoln. Here is a nice summary:

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 7:47 p.m. CST

    Okay, NOW I&#39;m scared

    by Drath

    I&#39;m gonna make no bones about it, the crap of American Idol is at best trashy kitch that appeals to the tastelessness of American indifference. Apply that to politics and the way things are actually run and I think you&#39;re inviting . . . oh god, Bill Clinton has already broken that ground, hasn&#39;t he? And then there&#39;s George W. Big Oil and Daddy bought me my presidency Bush cheapening the other party. Fuck it, bring it on, unless Anna Nicole Smith is a candidate, they can&#39;t do worse than the real thing.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 8:19 p.m. CST

    Kinda like 1984&#39;s Big Brother in reverse. Still a ridiculous

    by Cuppa Joe

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Vote for me!!!

    by Darth Ebert

    I think this is such a good idea... I&#39;m going to run. How else does this country ever stand a chance of getting a non-millionair sellout ivy leauge rich boy in office. Given a choice between any president from the last 40 years, and a total unknown. I&#39;ll take the unkown any day. Where do I sign up?

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Constitutional Union Party

    by Mark Twain

    It&#39;s unlikely these votes would have gone to Lincoln. All states won by the CUP were slave holding states. Lincoln was fortunate to be the only abolitionist in a crowded field. Had he been in a two candidate race, his position on slavery would have cost him the race against any of the other three candidates.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 10:37 p.m. CST

    by niveknivek

    I know there were four parties in 1860. I just didn&#39;t want to get into deep detail about that election on "ain&#39;t it cool news". But since we&#39;ve 1860, you had Republicans and Democrats. The Rep&#39;s nominated Lincoln. The Dems nominated Douglas. The southern Dems refused to accept Douglas, splintered off, and nominated their own candidate, Breckinridge. Then there was the Constitutional Union Party, a one-off party that basically had nothing to say other than "hey, let&#39;s keep the Union together". So yes, there were four parties, but my original point was that you couldn&#39;t really consider Lincoln a third-party candidate since the Rep&#39;s had already established themselves as the second party (Fremont finished second running as a Republican in 1856). As far as whether Lincoln would have won...I read somewhere that even without the CUP and the Dem split, he had enough votes in enough Northern states to win anyway.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 10:42 p.m. CST

    Get a Canadian

    by EliCash

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 10:50 p.m. CST

    Yep, Lincoln would have won anyway

    by niveknivek

    He won with >50% in every state that he won except for California and Oregon, which combined had only seven electoral votes in 1860.

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 11:24 p.m. CST

    Truthfully, how could anything that happens ...

    by grilly

    ... be worse than the current system? Give it a whirl!

  • Sept. 22, 2002, 11:46 p.m. CST

    A few more points on 1860

    by Mark Twain

    The Republicans were not yet the established second party in 1856. In 1856 Fillmore ran credibly as the Know Nothing candidate. Both Fremont and Fillmore drew their support primarily from former Whigs. In fact Fremont considered running against Lincoln in 1864, which would&#39;ve been the end of the Republican party. The Republicans would&#39;ve had the same lifespan as the Reform Party. On Lincoln, yes he did receive over 50% of the vote in most states he carried, but for reasons to lengthy to go into on this talkback, had he been running against only a Democrat, he would not have received those percentages and would&#39;ve lost the electoral contest.

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 12:21 a.m. CST

    Sounds cool

    by DredPirateMethos

    This looks like it will be really intresting TV. As to whether I will vote for the winner... I will give him or her the same consideration as the other canidates. My biggest two factors will still be integrity and vision. Is s/he someone I would trust to run the country and does s/he want to take the country in a direction that I want it to go. My biggest fear is that just like the democrats and republicans the result will be the blandest and least threatening (or worse, the opposite, a side show freak politically speaking, who just goes for the reaction to get the callers.)

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 12:52 a.m. CST

    mark twain--1860

    by niveknivek

    No, the Rep&#39;s weren&#39;t an established 3rd party by 1856, but they most definitely were by 1860. There was a 3rd party in &#39;60, but it was the CUP, not the Rep&#39;s, so Lincoln cannot be classified as a 3rd party candidate who won the election. As for whether or not he would have won against, say, Douglas running on a united Democratic ticket, I would be interested in hearing your reasons for stating that he would not, despite the numbers. Perhaps you could post them on a message board somewhere?

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 1:17 a.m. CST


    by JohnnyBarrett

    Why does everyone keep referring to Canadians as a uniform group of people? Canadians are just as diverse as Americans. There are tons of screwed up Canadians but, because Americans only ever visit Toronto, you never see them. I&#39;ve lived in Canada my whole life and, while our country is safer and less money-obsessed than the United States, Canada is not some kind of perfect utopian nation. In fact, most of the problems with Canada are the result of fucked up American foreign policy (ie. the USA&#39;s insane disregard for free trade agreements, except when they benefit the United States.). You also see this in the film industry. Canadians are an important part of the film industry: we buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tickets each year (and that&#39;s a lot to us &#39;cause our money aint worth shit), churn out some of the biggest stars (Jim Carrey, Mike Meyers) and directors (James Cameron) and even the occasional auteur (David Cronenberg) but we&#39;re attacked for inviting the movie industry to come to our country and throw a couple bucks into OUR economy. Anyway, my point is, as great as Canada may seem from a distance, most of the bad qualities of the the United States (and, yes, some of the good ones, too) have spilled over. We&#39;re all fucked and there&#39;s nowhere to hide. We&#39;d probably elect our prime minister with a TV show, too, but nobody watches Canadian TV.

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 2:24 a.m. CST



    The networks called Florida for Gore because exit polling showed him to be well ahead, unfortunatly, that weird ass butterfly ballot skewed everything. But Bush&#39;s cousin was in charge of the election coverage at FOX that night, and he named Bush the winner while it was still to close to call. I could just imagine if a family member of Gore had called the election in Gores favor when it was that close, the conservatives would be screaming bloody murder, Rush Limbaugh and all his radio clones would probably still be complaining about it, and you know what? They would actually be right for a change.

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 3:25 a.m. CST

    so you mean it&#39;s business as usual?

    by boomzilla8

    Good points all PoleofJustice!!! Why are we pretending this would be any different than what happens now? besides... they are only going to have a candidate... not the president Every election there are quite a few people on the ballot that we don&#39;t glance at twice. If this guy being on the show makes him so popular that he gets votes enough to win...well oh well the people voted for him and isn&#39;t that the point? Anyone can be president... Anyone can have their say... Not just the sons of the rich ... the priveledged. All it seems is that fox will put that to a test... put the american public to the test... will they vote for him because he was on TV? Will they vote for him because they like what he says? Or will they like any other time be the sheep they are...heh like it really makes a difference in this country anymore.

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 8:30 a.m. CST

    CNN? I read this in VARIETY. Same thing?

    by dobbsy

    This story was in Variety on Friday. Is that the same one we&#39;re talking about, with Jay Roach et al?

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 8:33 a.m. CST

    Oh, please

    by Rosie_Cotton

    FOX is basically owned by the GOP. Any wish on their part to create a new Third Party Puppet would simply be in order to further crack the liberal vote. WAKE UP!

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 8:34 a.m. CST


    by dobbsy

    Wouldn&#39;t it be ironic if this were the way to get Gore Vidal&#39;s message out to the people? Maybe we need to run Matt Damon or Julia Roberts or some other telegenic character who will then reveal they were running for Gore. Just a thought....

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 8:35 a.m. CST


    by radio1_mike

    Say, why don&#39;t you just grow up a little. Ooooo! Democracy in America is dead.. Wah! Most of my generation does not vote! Wahh Wahh! Get over yourself and friggin&#39; vote! Why do you think senior citizens have a lot of power on politics? Derrrr. Because they VOTE! Get off yer ass and do something. If you can&#39;t drag you 18-24 y.o.ass (because there&#39;s no way you&#39;re older than 25 or 26..) to vote once, what every other year?! You are a sad person. And quit yer yappin&#39;!

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 10:02 a.m. CST

    The real danger here is...

    by Penter

    The real danger here is that this gaudy exercise will completely hog all media coverage during the election and wipe any substantive issues or policy questions off the map. Dumb, dumb, dumb!

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Doesn&#39;t need money to run.

    by ManOfLaMancha

    Some people have been mentioning that this won&#39;t work coz once the guy is picked he won&#39;t have money to run. He won&#39;t need money for christ sake. He&#39;s gonna have more TV air time than any other presidential candidate in the past. All he needs is exposure, and if the show is actually popular, getting him/her on the ballet will be no problem, the people will do it. As bad as this could turn out, I kinda wanna see it take off and see how frightened the two Parties. I bet if it does take off, Congress will find a way to make it illegal for people to vote for third party candidates not all ready approved by Congress or some crap like that. This could really shake things

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Why this is a bad idea

    by GypsyTRobot

    FOX will be running the show. Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a very conservative Australian. Any candidate who does well on the show and goes on to political office in any capacity, will have that onus on them for the rest of their life. Look at American Idol - Kelly Clarkson&#39;s life is basically no longer her own. (Check out for an in depth article). Do you really want a crotchedy old Australian monkeying around in our government? (Although we probably deserve it, since the U.S. has monkeyed with the Australian government . . .)

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 11:17 a.m. CST

    What a stupid idea. FOX can&#39;t be really serious.

    by WarDog

    Did the Reform Party have a ghost of a chance of electing Perot or later Buchanan to the presidency? NO. This candidate would also have absolutely no political party to back him up, and the pitiful Reform Party provided more of that for their candidate, even if it was hopeless (they had not one elected official in Congress to aid him. Even the one member of Congress currently in it who isn&#39;t a Republican or Democrat is registered as an Independent, not another party. Face it, all you who hate the Democrats or Republicans, THERE IS NO POWER VACUUM EXISTING NOW which would allow a third political party to have a real chance to grow take the place of either major party. Even the Greens don&#39;t have a chance. Final analysis: I think this is an asinine twist on the reality/contest show. Someone at FOX deserves to die for even pitching this to the network.

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 12:29 p.m. CST


    by MisterMouth

    Your above post about Bush&#39;s cousin calling the election for Bush is total BS. His cousin did work for Fox news, and whether or not he was in a position to call Florida for Bush is debatable. What is not debatable is the fact that his cousin may/may not have called the election for Bush AT 4 AM. Hours and hours after the polls were closed! How could this affect the outcome? Keep in mind that the other stations (including Fox News) called Florida for Gore WHILE THE POLLS WERE STILL OPEN!). Which scenario do you find more damaging?

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 1:45 p.m. CST

    "end up with a moronic yahoo in charge..."

    by j9lime

    We already have one! His name is "President" Bush! This is a looney idea. But I think I agree with Massawyrn. It all depends how FOX means to pull it off. There are easily millions of people in this country more qualified to be President than Dubya. If FOX treats this seriously and avoids crackpots then maybe there is a slim chance the show could produce a viable candidate. At least maybe it would get more Americans interested in voting. I&#39;d be willing to reserve judgement. But I won&#39;t be watching the show as I do not have cable!!! ha!

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 6:02 p.m. CST



    You misunderstood what I was saying, or I didn&#39;t say it well enough. As far as I know, that Bush&#39;s cousin was in charge at FOX that night and made the call to declare him the winner is not in dispute, in all of the post election books and articles I have read, that has been stated as a fact, and I have heard no one, not even Bush or his cousin deny it. But more importantly, I wasn&#39;t saying that him making the decision changed anybodys vote, because as you pointed out, that wasn&#39;t possible because the polls had closed. What I mean is that people were given the impression that Bush had won, and with that decision people that had been waiting up for the results went to bed thinking Bush had won, and woke up to newspapers with that headline. And of course after the networks declared Bush the winner, Gore made the decision to concede, after he found out that the vote count was neck and neck, he retracted his concession to Bush. All of these events and the republicans and the media made it seem as though Gore was just being a sore loser, which was impossible because he hadn&#39;t lost anything yet. All I&#39;m saying is that Bush initially being called the winner set into the public mind, and the fact that it was a family member that made the decision is just ridiculous, it almost sounds like something out of a bad Saturday Night Live sketch. I wasn&#39;t trying to defend the other networks, like I said, they went along with FOX just like sheep. I don&#39;t think they should call states until the polls close, I was just pointing out that exit polling showed Gore was ahead.

  • Sept. 23, 2002, 11:45 p.m. CST


    by BornAmazing

    By your generation do you mean old people? You right, old people are very good about voting, good for them! But if you look at composition of voters in past elections you&#39;ll find that old people don&#39;t vote UNTL they get old. So you shouldn&#39;t be all high and mighty about all that. Actually Im a happy person, the sad ones are those,like yourself, who get off on attacking others for having their own values and opinions.

  • Sept. 24, 2002, 12:05 a.m. CST

    Once more on 1860 niveknivek

    by Mark Twain

  • Sept. 24, 2002, 12:25 a.m. CST

    Once more on 1860 niveknivek

    by Mark Twain

    Oops, on the above post. One reason I and others maintain the Reps were a third party is because they weren&#39;t even on the ballot in most southern states. The Republicans were a regional party with abolition at the core of their platform. Because of the population distribution at the time, the electoral math could work for a regional party, but by no means were they a true national party in 1860. Now if you feel by running a credible candidate two elections in a row and being the best organized made them the second party by default, I certainly can see your point and we&#39;re debating the definition of what a third party is. I&#39;d also add that in 1864 Lincoln and Johnson ran under the National Union Party label, so a semantic argument could be made that a new third party came to power in 1864 (I personally don&#39;t take that position). Johnson was a Democrat and Lincoln a Republican, so a differnt argument could also be made that was the year that the modern Republican Party finally moved beyond third party status by making preservation of the Union its core issue and pulling Union Democrats into the fold (and getting on ballots in all states in 1868). If you have a suggested bulletin board to post on, I&#39;ll give you my long winded explanation as to why I think a united Democratic Party behind Douglas would&#39;ve had different results.

  • Sept. 24, 2002, 3:47 a.m. CST

    Issues, we don&#39;t need no stinkin issues!

    by xeeds

    Penter said,

  • Well I am an "official" applicant ... one of the 416 ... with a page on the site ... <a href=>BOKE's (official) American Candidate page</a> (If that link doesn't work ... just Google boke) As I write this THE TWELVE selected who are going to be on the Showtime series (ep #1 is August 1) ... are on their way to KEENE, NH for a week of "RETAIL" politicing (as RJ calls it) ... door to door ... hand shaking ... baby kissing ... "Hi, I'm BOKE and I'm running for President of the United States and I'd appreciate your support... COME TO THE BIG RALLY in Downtown KEENE on June 12 ... and VOTE FOR ME ... so I won't be "thrown off the island" {smile} You think I'm kidding {grin} ... but that's pretty much whats happening in the next week from today. TOMORROW is D-DAY (in history) ... and most likely the day THE NAMES OF THE TWELVE will be revealed (since they'll be prancing around KEENE starting Monday morning or so) ... Good lord! That's enough prattling about that ... ... EXCEPT to say ... that there's a whole bunch of us in "THE 404" (not one of THE TWELVE") ... who have some argument to make about JUST WHO IS THE MOST QUALIFIED of this bunch to be PRETENDING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. I know that I'm better at pretending to be president than anybody I know .. AND I'm very popular in Mongolia. {grin} Anyway ... Just keep your eyes open about this.... THE WORLD MAY SHIFT IN SUPRISING WAYS. BOKE Google boke Google showtime orator Google american candidate showtime <a href=>BOKE: American Candidate (Showtime)</a>

  • June 5, 2004, 11:35 a.m. CST

    OOPS: ... It is NOW 2004

    by BOKE

    NOW vs NOT (big difference!) BOKE