Michael Medved Shits Himself Again...

Nick Gillespie | November 9, 2006

Really, it seems to happen almost every time the suspiciously mustachioed, self-confessed soap stealer rushes into print. But here he is railing against not only the "kooks and crazies" and "fringies and fanatics" who run for office as "Losertarians," "Green weenies," and members of the "Constipation Party" (haw haw haw) but the equally deranged fucktards who vote for such enemies of the Republican Party's congressional majority.

That's the real issue here, of course, for GOP enthusiast Medved: That third party candidates--such as Libertarian Stan "Blue Man" Jones, who is certainly at least as deranged as, say, Jim Bunning and considerably less deranged than, say, Mark Foley --get in the way of Republican power.

As with all Medvediana, this recent fulmination is best experienced as an immersive event. But here are some snippets:

In Virginia, Democrat Jim Webb appeared to beat Republican Incumbent George Allen by a tiny margin of less than 7.000 votes. Meanwhile, 26,000 votes went to the “Common Sense Conservative” candidate of the mighty Grass Roots Party, who identified herself as Gail “For Rail” Parker. If two-out-of-three of the votes that went to this devoutly Christian, retired Air Force Officer (whose big issue was building more train lines) would otherwise have gone to George Allen, then her utterly meaningless candidacy handed control of the Senate to Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, and Barbara Boxer...

The egomaniacs who get their jollies by running oddball campaigns for high office have a right to their dreams and their obsessions, but the rest of us have a right to a sane political selection process that’s free (in its final, all important stages) from distortion, distraction and destruction by self-indulgent fools with no real support.

Whole thing here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|11.9.06 @ 6:15PM|#

So 2/3rds of the people who voted for the senatorial candidate from the Independent Green Party of Virginia would have otherwise voted for Allen? Uh, is today "crackheads for Allen day," or did I read that incorrectly?

Jesse Walker|11.9.06 @ 6:15PM|#

Parker, though a self-proclaimed conservative, was on the ballot as an "Independent Green." (I don't know where Medved got this "Grass Roots Party" business.) It's entirely possible that she took more votes from Webb than from Allen.

Classic egomaniac bullshit: If we want third candidates, it's our problem. If it fucks with his candidates, it's our problem. Nothing in there about instant runoff or anything that might indicate that it's his fucking problem, not ours.

|11.9.06 @ 6:22PM|#

Er...the rest of us have a right to ban third parties because we don't want to vote for them? Or we don't want others to vote for them? Who's "us," white boy?

Everyone that voted for Parker had just as much opportunity to vote for Allen-more so, as a matter of fact, because of ballot-access laws. The fact is, they didn't give a damn about Medved's GOP majority. That's a vote, too.

I, personally, wanted to vote against Tim Pawlenty, but not enough to vote FOR Mike Hatch. My brother, a very liberal liberal, made the same decision and, like me, cast his vote for Hutchinson. After Pawlenty won, we were both satisfied with the outcome. The Independence Party keeps its ballot access and Hatch becomes the only Democrat to lose a statewide race in this cycle. I wouldn't change a note. A lefty whiner made the same point as Medved and I shrugged it off. Hatch lost because he's a prick. Allen lost because HE'S a prick. They both had the option of not being pricks. They got as many votes as they earned, and not one vote less.

Gene Berkman|11.9.06 @ 6:23PM|#

The Republicans lost the elections because people didn't want to vote for them. In some cases, the people rejecting the Big Government Republicans split their votes between the Dems and the Libertarians, but people in Montana who voted Libertarian were clearly rejecting the incumbent Senator.

From what I saw, I think Libertarians in Montana would have preferred Tester to Burns in a two-way contest.

Anyway, Medved belongs to the "Sore-Losertarian" Party.

Ramathorn|11.9.06 @ 6:24PM|#

Who wants a mustache ride?

Homer Simpson|11.9.06 @ 6:27PM|#

Has anyone ever seen Michael Medved and Ned Flanders together, Reason-o-roonies?

|11.9.06 @ 6:27PM|#

I do! I vant one!

Jeff P|11.9.06 @ 6:38PM|#

I await the day when a conservative pundit declares that libertarianism is a psychological disorder. Medved has come the closest so far.

|11.9.06 @ 6:41PM|#

"The egomaniacs who get their jollies by running oddball campaigns for high office"

What a great description of Allen himsefl!

Was there a worse campaign this season than his?

|11.9.06 @ 6:44PM|#

I await the day when a conservative pundit declares that libertarianism is a psychological disorder. Medved has come the closest so far.

Good thing no one takes him seriously, then. To me, he looks just a leetle bit like Freddie Mercury, if I squint, and I enjoy the irony of that.

Libertarians! Everyone can hate on them! Put 'em on the register with sex offenders and disenfranchise 'em!

|11.9.06 @ 6:47PM|#

I remember when Medved wrote almost exactly the same column about how Nader handed the 2000 election to Bush.

Oh, wait, scratch that. That never happened/

|11.9.06 @ 6:51PM|#

If they're all "kooks and crazies" with "no real support," I wonder why they keep managing to steal elections from Medved's butt-buddies in the GOP.

|11.9.06 @ 7:08PM|#

I have a hard time believing that putting up with spolier parties and kooks is worse than disenfranchising some percentage of the electorate.

...and if it wasn't for the Libertarian Party, I wouldn't have voted in the last Presidential election. I wouldn't have had a voice in it all.

|11.9.06 @ 7:30PM|#

I think if most people in a district don't vote it should be a vote against the office itself and no one should fill it.

|11.9.06 @ 7:35PM|#

It appears Mikey doesn't like us to have too many of those confusing choices so we don't screw up.

Thanks for looking out for us...

Some activists complain that we already make it too hard for third and fourth and ninth party candidates, but actually the current system discriminates against the major party contenders.

Wow, Medved can actually say this? When the big candidates get tax money kickbacks for their campaigns, but anyone under 5% of the vote gets squat?

Repubs AND Dems: All your votes are belong to us.

The Libertarian Guy|11.9.06 @ 7:43PM|#

One wonders what Medved's problem is, exactly, with the Constitution Party. They want what HE wants... why does he have his panties bunched up over them?

|11.9.06 @ 7:54PM|#

Wow, Medved can actually say this?

Black is White. Up is Down. (repeat until subject's mind is applesauce mush)

That's a great question about the Constitution party. I've wondered if they would bleed theocrats out of the major parties. Meh, maybe Medved's in love with big government. More likely, he's in love with the money and influence reflected onto a shill for one of the Big Two parties.

|11.9.06 @ 8:12PM|#

In the conservative pundit world, how seriously is he taken? Is he seen as Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin - clinically insane, Bill O'Reilly - cranky high horse moralist, Mark Steyn - instigator, or Sean Hannity - toe the line? Nutjob, dickhead, asshole, or pawn?

|11.9.06 @ 8:25PM|#

Nutjob, dickhead, asshole, or pawn?

Oh, my God! Those are the exact choices my dominatrix gave me yesterday! Amazing!

|11.9.06 @ 8:35PM|#

Finally, a Ten-Minute Hate on H&R which I can actually get behind!

Medved starts off by conceding his entire case: "The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for their stinging electoral setbacks on Tuesday, and it's neither honorable nor conservative to explain our own failures by criticizing the folly of others."

Then he basically retracts that concession -- he spends the rest of the column blaming the minor parties for the Republicans' disaster.

I can get down with requiring a fee to get on the ballot -- after all, space on the ballot is basically advertising space. Naturally, I would charge the same scale of fees to major parties, minor parties, and independents, and I would keep a write-in line for those who can't or won't buy the free advertising (or who announce at the very last minute).

But space on the ballot shouldn't be a prize the government awards to favored parties, as is the case now, with unreasonable hurdles placed in the way of those who aren't in the two-party cartel.

Medved's rant reminds me of the Berchtold Brecht joke about the government dissolving the people and electing a new one. We, the government, get to decide which candidates are important enough to be listed. We have revolutions over this kind of thing, you know.

|11.9.06 @ 8:45PM|#

"One wonders what Medved's problem is, exactly, with the Constitution Party. They want what HE wants... why does he have his panties bunched up over them?"

I may not be the nation's foremost expert on the Constitution Party, but I'm fairly certain that they do not want to make sure that people Michael Medved has professional relationships with hold most of the positions of power in the government.

Finally, a Ten-Minute Hate on H&R which I can actually get behind!

Hey, I resent that! When we get a good Hate going, it goes all day, babee! (Just wait for the next post that mentions the former senator from PA...)

Paul|11.9.06 @ 8:49PM|#

but the rest of us have a right to a sane political selection process that's free (in its final, all important stages) from distortion, distraction and destruction by self-indulgent fools with no real support

Wait just a fuckin minute. Nick Gillespie's dickin' around and accidentally cut a Washington Post editorial supporting McCain-Feingold.

brian423|11.9.06 @ 8:53PM|#

(haw haw haw)

Nick Gillespie is channeling Jack T. Chick.

|11.9.06 @ 9:08PM|#

To paraphrase a certain former vice president: I wear Medved's scorn like a badge of honor.

|11.9.06 @ 9:09PM|#

While all those so-called foreign policy experts barely had time for a hello with the president, Michael Medved garnered a full 90 minutes.

While Michael Medved has the ear of world leaders, others are berated with the mouth of O'Really?

Who's sorry now, Mr. Gillespie?

|11.9.06 @ 9:19PM|#

"When we get a good Hate going, it goes all day, babee!"

Ah, I hadn't anticipated that my George Orwell reference (10 minute hate) would lead to this sort of smutty innuendo. But I must accept the challenge on the terms on which it is offered.

Show your Love for Big Brother! Send your Thoughtcrimes into the Memory Hole (huh, huh, he said Hole)!

|11.9.06 @ 10:08PM|#

We also do smutty innuendo all day long, by the way...

|11.9.06 @ 10:43PM|#

With all this damned foul language here the first priority for the newly enlightened Congress ought to be an FCC for H&R.

Mad Max:

"Naturally, I would charge the same scale of fees to major parties, minor parties, and independents..."

Get with the program dude, the times they've changed. A progressive scale is what's needed, say base rate +150% for the smallest to base rate -90% for the established big ones.
You seem to think they want their new power threatened by some pesky newcomers, do you? After all, progressive scales are in the fine tradition of the ruling party.

|11.9.06 @ 10:58PM|#

Martin,

Well, maybe if, instead of putting the money straight into the treasury (where it would end up getting wasted anyway), candidates could just put the money into the bank account of the elections officials' mistresses. Would that work?

thoreau|11.9.06 @ 11:06PM|#

The egomaniacs who get their jollies by running oddball campaigns for high office have a right to their dreams and their obsessions, but the rest of us have a right to a sane political selection process that's free (in its final, all important stages) from distortion, distraction and destruction by self-indulgent fools with no real support.

What does it say about the major parties when there are actually people who would prefer to vote for the Blue Guy rather than the major party candidates?

Medved should be happy with me, though. This year I abandoned my custom of voting LP, and instead voted for Democrats.

|11.9.06 @ 11:31PM|#

Wait a minute. I was just flipping back through some of the links in Nick's post and...Medved's NOT gay?

The Libertarian Guy|11.9.06 @ 11:47PM|#

If Medved isn't gay, he's probably one of those tightly-clenched types who has never seen his own wife naked, for fear of "sinning"... he reminds me of a Dennis Miller line:

"John Ashcroft makes Billy Graham look like Freddy Mercury."

|11.10.06 @ 12:03AM|#

Somehow, thoreau, I don't think what you did would have made him happy.

So, off to the gulags with you, too.

|11.10.06 @ 10:37AM|#

Before we get too excited, I saw a link to the Nevada results that showed "none of these candidates" winning over the Libertarian candidate this morning.
I can't seem to find the link now though. It seems to have fallen off Reddit

|11.10.06 @ 11:42AM|#

I heard that John Stossel was going to gay marry Medved.

I wonder who is top and who is bottom.

|11.10.06 @ 2:57PM|#

I suggest Medved's moustache fight Stossel's to death in a cage match.

|11.12.06 @ 1:40PM|#

Awww... poor little thing. He has to live in a democracy where the people are still free to choose the person they vote for instead of an establishement-approved party hack.

If he's that upset about it, perhaps he should move to China, North Korea, or one of the many other countries that don't tolerate such whimsical notions as dissent, freedom, and the right to vote your conscious.

Or he could tell his party connections that as long as they stand for big government, war without end, and being intrusive nannys in our lives, they'll keep losing elections as more of us crazy libertarians, Goldwater conservatives, and old liberals vote our beliefs.

|11.12.06 @ 7:57PM|#

It is really sad that Medved doesn't realize that the of third party votes he just assumes would be Republican would otherwise just stay home or do absurd write-ins.

People aren't voting for Stan Jones because they think he'd win, or because they think he'd make a fine senator. They're doing so to protest a process that yields many candidates to vote against and few to vote for.

|11.12.06 @ 9:01PM|#

Ah, I hadn't anticipated that my George Orwell reference (10 minute hate)

In the spirit of pedantry, I'd like to point out that it's a "Two-Minutes Hate," not a "10 minute hate."

lostinwilderness|11.12.06 @ 10:45PM|#

The only libertarian on my ballot was governor, so I had to add several hopefully not so absurd write-ins.

The people entrenched in the two party system really don't realize how anti-American they are, and despite the evidence of voter turnout, they don't realize they're out of the mainstream.

Eric Dondero|11.13.06 @ 12:30PM|#

Michael Medved is entirely correct. Libertarians in Montana are to blame for the fact that we now have a US Senate controlled by big government Democrats. Worse, Republicans in the State will no doubt react adversly blaming Libertarians for the loss, which means we're going to have a tougher time doing libertarian outreach to the GOP there.

I spent 6 months of this year in MT, petitioning all over the State for Property Rights.

I can tell you 95% of that Stan Jones vote came straight out of the Conrad Burns column.

Not only is John Tester bad, he's absolutely evil. He and his buddy Gov. Brian Schweitzer were the ones who got our libertarian initiatives for Property Rights, Voter Recall, and Spending Limits kicked off the ballot. This after they blocked our libertarian petitioners in front of grocery stores, post offices and on college campuses, trying to keep us from gathering the required sigs. We got twice as many as we needed. Still Schweitzer, Tester & Co. got their liberal pals in the Judiciary to kick our Howie Rich/Paul Jacob backed Initiatives off.

I fail to see how electing John Tester, a confirmed diehard libertarian-hater, to the US Senate is any sort of victory for liberty.

Eric Dondero|11.13.06 @ 12:36PM|#

In Montana this year, it was the Republican Party, specifically Fergus County GOP Chairman Trevis Butcher, who convinced the GOP not to tun a Republican for the Constitution Party's Rick Jore seat. Jore, as you all know, won election to the State House as a CPer.

Wouldn't it make a bit more sense to have more of this cooperation on the Right, even for the Libertarian Party?

If the LP has a good shot of electing a candidate, the GOP should step aside, ala the Rick Jore seat.

And, if the GOP has a better shot of winning for those of us on the Right, the Libertarian Party should step aside.

Failing this, all we do is hand over a victory to our enemies; the Democrats.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements