<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"      Why is my man Chuck Todd my man Chuck Todd?  Because my man Chuck Todd has Numbers. Lots and lots of Numbers. It is good in this system to have someone who has lots and lots of Numbers, as long as that person is not me. I treat Numbers the way Kennedys treat automobiles. My man Chuck Todd can be the guy with the Numbers. It&amp;#039;s safer that way. Anyway, my man Chuck Todd has some numbers that he suggested today may indicate that we might be in for something of a South Korean election in these United States, with people slugging each other here, too. Or at least that&amp;#039;s what my man Chuck Todd let his men say: My Man Chuck Todd has been down this road before (three, four, many parties \u2014 what fun!), and I&amp;#039;m not sure I agree with him. For example, I don&amp;#039;t think there&amp;#039;s going to be a splinter, anti-Wall Street party of the left. The people most capable of organizing one \u2014 the Occupy movement and its various adjuncts and satellites \u2014 seem most dedicated to keeping their movement alive in dozens of venues pretty far removed from electoral politics. Whatever third-party arises on the right, I would guess, would either be a purely libertarian one centered around Ron Paul, or someone like him (Gary Johnson jumped today), which would not be inclined to make knuckling Wall Street as much of a priority as blowing up the Fed, or a party centered around the notion that whoever gets nominated is insufficiently conservative, which means that the candidate in question must be dedicated to repealing the relatively mild Dodd-Frank regulations already in place. (Needless to say, this latter will also be the position of whoever is the official GOP candidate.) But what my man Chuck and his men seem to be hinting at here is some sort of cross-partisan unity ticket based on opposition to predatory capitalism and what it has done to the country. I&amp;#039;m not seeing it. I hate to keep harping on this, but the Tea Party people really don&amp;#039;t have much in common with the Occupy movement. Certainly, the former hated the bank bailout, but they didn&amp;#039;t get truly frothing about it until they could hang it on Barack Obama. (This is also true about the Tea Party and the deficit. Where in hell were they in 2005?) I have seen very little support for Dodd-Frank from the Tea Party; indeed, it is an article of faith for the candidates most closely allied to the Tea Party, most notably Michele Bachmann, that Dodd-Frank is a job-destroying economic MERSA. The Tea Party&amp;#039;s notion of addressing the country&amp;#039;s staggering inequality of income is to flatten everyone&amp;#039;s federal income tax and make sure that people making $20,000 a year pay the same percentage in federal income tax that Mitt Romney pays. No, the only proposed bipartisan ticket out there is that foolish exercise that the increasingly useless Evan Bayh has been flogging for over a year, and that&amp;#039;s based on ending &amp;quot;the partisan bickering&amp;quot; in Washington and on &amp;quot;coming together&amp;quot; to craft &amp;quot;reasonable solutions&amp;quot; to the problem of demolishing what&amp;#039;s left of the New Deal. This is weak tea, conciliatory to the point of being soporific. My man Chuck seems to be proposing the opposite \u2014 a coalition of the loud and angry and implacable. That&amp;#039;d be fun, but I&amp;#039;m not seeing it. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a12024/third-party-candidates-2012-6617206/>