Third Party? No.

From Frank J:

The problem with third parties is that they always take from the extreme ends, weakening just one of the parties and leaving the party with the opposite views of the third party the strongest. Just listen to liberals whine about Ralph Nader for his part in the 2000 election. Also, third parties attract all the crazies — all the people who give up on the social niceties (read: “sanity”) — needed to be a member of one of the major parties. For instance, libertarians have seemingly rational stances of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, but who does the Libertarian Party nominate? Candidates who dye themselves blue and like to have their promotional pictures taken with ferrets. The only real way a third party could be viable would be to steal the moderates out of both parties, which would basically be a repeat of Obama promising some ephemeral hope and change and no specifics (specifics and principled stances scare moderates).

But the tea party is popular and has regular Americans behind it, right? Maybe, but how is it supposed to do anything other than sap support away from the Republicans, thus leaving the Democrats in power? Besides, it’s called the “tea party.” I know that’s a reference to the Boston Tea Party, but nowadays a tea party is something a little girl has with her dolls. Plus, we’re a coffee nation.

His solution? A fourth party of course. Very funny stuff.