Brutally Slaughtering Two Birds With One Stone

Thanks to the ascendancy of John McCain, conservative Christians may be looking for a third-party candidate.

I’ve got just the guy.

Have fun, you crazy kids.

28 Comments on “Brutally Slaughtering Two Birds With One Stone”

  1. That’s about my opinion. Nader is a complete idiot. When I heard him interviewed on TV, and he said that all profit should be outlawed and companies should work only for the common good, I realized how out of touch with reality he is. Combine that with his massive ego, and I don’t think he even comprehends how few people have voted for him in past attempts.

    I think only the worst non-thinkers of the conservative end of the spectrum would actually support another conservative minor party. To do such would guarantee election of the democrat, which would be far worse (in their opinion) than McCain. Some are that stupid. One Mr. Dobson comes to mind.

  2. “he said that all profit should be outlawed and companies should work only for the common good”

    Isn’t that also something that extreme Wahhabists believe?

    But seriously… BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA good one John. :)

  3. Please.

    That puke isn’t going to get the votes that he’s gotten before, because too many people that I knew voted for him have decided to not throw their votes away anymore

    And besides, I’m don’t think the christians would even think about voting for him.

    I’m in the same boat as Chang. Nader can fuck off and die.

  4. Amen, Julia. Even without regard for Nader in any specific way, that was a pretty perfect spot for a Burt joke.

  5. When we had to puke when I was in school, we used to puke out ” RALPH” so our toes would not come out our mouths. Now you want us to think Mr. “foot-in-the-mouth”, “head-in-his-ass” Nader as an allternitive to the 3rd choice for the Christians who also have their “Heads-up-their-asses”… on second thought maybe your CORRECT.

    Good one John :)

  6. Unsafe in any party.
    Thanks to the ascendancy of conservative Christians in the republican party I have been looking at other parties.

  7. I think they’re just making a case for a Huckabee VP nomination.

    I do wish though that they would put a third party together. Think of the entertainment value of their ‘reach out’ campaigns:

    “Conservative values are shared by more Americans than you might know. Why, even (seemingly liberal, godless) science fiction writers – the internationally acclaimed John Scalzi among them – have paid homage to Christian ideals at the Creation Museum…

  8. I have a friend who contends that this sort of splintering is inevitable for both parties. That we’ll end up with at least 3 parties – one which comprises the left wing of the Dems, one which comprises the right wing of the Reps (and possibly 2, one socially conservative and one actually conservative), and a Centrist party which comprises everything that’s left of the Reps and Dems. The interesting thing to see would be if the Centrists can win enough of Congress to legislate, or if we’ll end up in a situation where the Centrists have to compromise (ooo, scary word!) with elements of the left and the right. If the first, we’ll see a return to the “era of good feelings”, when there was, essentially, one party. (between the War of 1812 and the election of Jackson). If the second, we’ll see democracy in action, European style.

  9. I think the GOP and Democrats have invested too much in rigging the system for a two party system to let that happen very easily.

    What might bring that about is a legitimate independent presidential candidate who wins the race. That would point out that the party apparatus is not actually required.

  10. Let’s not forget Saint Ralph’s promise early in the campaign cycle: He would throw his hat in if Hillary was the Democratic nominee. Solely a front for a GOP-funded split-the-Dem vote candidate.

  11. The two-party system is a natural consequence of our federal legislative set-up.

    The quick and easy way to somewhat reverse it is to institute instant run-off elections in as many states as possible. That way you could vote for a third-party candidate knowing that your “second choice” would kick in if no one achieves a majority.

  12. Nader will obviously take more votes from the Democratic nominee than McCain.

    If someone wants to run as a third party and fill the void that McCain leaves with conservatives, someone who is tough on immigration, for example, would be the most appropriate. Lou Dobbs for example (I can hear the gasps already). Not that I believe he’ll run, but if someone who ran on a platform of cutting off illegal immigration, changing trade policy, and maybe actually reaching out to white middle class voters (gasp!) on touchy issues like affirmative action, since so much of the MSM has focused on the importance of the Hispanic and black vote, could do pretty well. There are some pretty big voids to fill among candidates from both parties, so the opportunity is there.

    “I think only the worst non-thinkers of the conservative end of the spectrum would actually support another conservative minor party. To do such would guarantee election of the democrat, which would be far worse (in their opinion) than McCain. Some are that stupid. One Mr. Dobson comes to mind.”

    Believe it or not, some people actually stick to their principles and refuse to hold their nose at the ballot booth. Sometimes it is better to lose and rebuild from the ashes. Carter brought us Reagan, Clinton brought us the Republican Revolution, and so on (I listen to talk radio sometimes…). I don’t agree with that completely but that is what a lot of people are feeling right now about McCain. Of course, they’re probably just non-thinkers, though…

  13. I agree with John at 18 except I would add that a major mess could do it too. No the current situation isn’t that big of a mess. I am talking of something on the scale of the great depression.
    To Chris D. #22
    I think only the worst non-thinkers of the liberal end of the spectrum would actually support another liberal minor party. To do such would guarantee election of the republican, which would be far worse (in their opinion) than Obama or Clinton. Some are that stupid. See? This kind of statement is true for both ends of the spectrum.
    I don’t listen to talk radio, ever. The thing with talk radio is it always one sided. Nobody listens to the other party’s talk radio because who is going to listen to someone espouse idea’s that are counter to their already deeply rooted beliefs? How often do people switch sides? I suspect it is like religious beliefs, they are set early, passed from parent to child and almost never get objectivly examined. Another similarity is that the few that do convert are usually the most fanatical and vocal.
    Oh noes someone on the interweb is wrong! By wrong I mean they don’t agree with ME! I am never wrong, I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.

  14. Nader was on Wolf Blitzer’s Sunday morning show two or three weeks ago and even then was hinting very strongly that he would likely run. He even mentioned his exploratory web site. He also said he was already getting a number of lawyers volunteering to work pro-bono to get him on the various state ballots. My first thought on that statement was that I bet most of the lawyers are Republicans.


  15. If an independent or third-party candidate won the presidency, it would either be a one-off, or that candidate’s movement would become a party that would eventually supplant one of the two current major parties.

    The two-party system isn’t just the result of rigging by the Democratic and Republican parties; the American system is such that it’s hard for more than two parties to exercise any great power, and two parties seem to be the equilibrium state. A two-party system (Federalist vs. Democratic-Republican) emerged almost immediately after the Constitution came into being; after the Federalists faded, the Dem-Reps eventually splintered and there were Democrats and Whigs, then the Whig Party died and the Republicans emerged just before the Civil War.

    (Lincoln actually ran for and won reelection under the “National Union Party” banner, but it was, uh, kind of a special situation. Apparently John Anderson re-used the name in 1980.)

  16. Tudor Lewis @ 21:
    IRV is severely flawed AND requires completely replacing the voting hardware.
    I’d say,
    Approval vote now (existing hardware can do approval votes, so it’s cheap, and its very easy to understand)
    Condorcet later (because this is about as good as a voting system is going to get)

    A quick review can be found at

%d bloggers like this: