I heard from an inside source that this video is actually where James Earl Jones counts the fingers of all non-senatorial Americans supporting amnesty.

ROTFLMAO, both of you are hilarious.

On a serious, note, CY. Third party time is nice rhetoric, but I don't see it as a viable option without some semblance of explanation offered. Besides, there already is an actual Third Party, along with dozens of others.

For a 'third party' to emerge one needs more than the negative dissatisfaction of the status quo, or the postive preference for better way as a rallying point. For it to remain beyond a glimmering moment in history it has to be intent on addressing more than a few legislative or process faux pas.

Don't misundertand my doubt about it, I agree at bottom a third party is needed, but the last 30 years has given us a plethora of third parties living on in name and few members only. So casually throwing about the third party calls is as scary to the 'denizens of the establishment' as a picture of Rosie's daughter wearing a bandoleer.

I commented over at Ace's place that if a third Party is what many conservatives want, and I do note that Glenn isn't one but holds some common principles (not that I care much for labels myself), then a better approach is to begin by working within the party to establish a sufficent organization, membership and actual elected officials to maintain the party as viable and neccessary when it goes it alone.

Party success is having a stalwart and permanent membership with influence and that means having money to fund the efforts of those we want elected. Setting fundamental principles down in writing for the purpose of identifying and defining a party that wishes to attract both the membership and their efforts is the only guarantee of success. Otherwise, it's just begging to be listed somewhere down the page here:

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

That was the funniest posting I've seen in quite a while. Very nice. I might only add this.

(rimshot)

Leave the jokes to Wonkette.