Michael Medved Replaced by Alien Pod Creature: Suggests Only Voting Third Party

By far, one of the more entertaining facets of the special election in NY's 23rd has been provided by the long train of duopolist Republican shills falling all over themselves to endorse a no-name third party candidate in a minor congressional election. One of the more recent converts to the Doug Hoffman camp is radio entertainer Michael Medved. In an article for Town Hall, Medved writes:

Doug Hoffman in New Yorks 23rd Congressional District could actually win his race and send a powerful message to the GOP and the country. A political party isnt a family, or a church, or an army, so the strategic support of an independent contender with a real chance of victory isnt a betrayal and may offer a common sense means to advance a conservative agenda.

I was surprised to read this, for, if you recall, not three weeks ago Medved was berating "disgruntled conservatives who irrationally resist the iron logic of electing Republicans as the only counterweight to Obamanism." At the time, I noted that Medved's position would put him in the Scozzafava camp in NY's 23rd, and suggested that, "given both his historical fatalism and his incomprehensible loyalty to party, Medved would have made a fine Bolshevist." The alien pod-creature that has replaced Medved is not a third party activist across the board, however. To prove the fact, he takes a few swipes at the Constitution Party, while arguing that conservatives should not support Chris Daggett's gubernatorial bid in NJ. Given his track record, is it unreasonable to assume that Medved will come out as a Daggett-supporting Constitution Party activist in his next column?

In justifying his decision, Medved tells his readers that, "before supporting a campaign outside the two party system, there are four major questions responsible voters ought to answer." Ostensibly, one would think that these "four major questions" would underscore the exceptional nature of any decision to vote for a third party or independent candidate. Ironically, however, they demonstrate nothing more than the bankruptcy of the two-party system and suggest that "responsible voters" should only support third party and independent candidates for office.

1- Is the independent contender more ideologically forthright and consistent than the major party contenders, or less so?

The prevaricating representatives of the Democratic and Republican Parties are only consistent in their willingness to sell out their constituents in the interests of their corporate donors. Independent and third party candidates do not have institutionalized incentives to lie, cheat or steal.

2- Could the third party contender do a successful job in the office for which hes running?

Arguably, an ape randomly pulling levers in a cage would be a better decision maker than the great majority of Democratic and Republican politicians.

3- Whats the message that the election of an independent candidate would send the country?

The Democratic and Republican Parties represent interests that are diametrically opposed to those of the people of the United States; the two-party system is the form of the people's alienation from a supposedly representative government; political independence is the only cure for the disease that is the two-party system.

4- Is there a legitimate reason to bolt from the major parties in this particular race?

This question must be turned around on the questioner: is there a legitimate reason to continue to support the major parties in any race?