I just finished writing a list of the Top 20 Satirical Candidates of All Time, which I've now added to the site. It seemed an appropriate time for it. I chose "Nobody" as the #1 satirical candidate. I thought it was an obvious choice. After all, how can Anyone top Nobody?
Comments
Oh wait...what? They're serious about it?
"Am I elected yet?"
"Put a REAL pinhead in the White House."
$2500 to file as a democrat and
$35000 to file as republican
Whatever happened to being a free country where anyone could stand (well any 35 year old native)
Now it would seem that only those with enough money or powerful enough friends can really stand
No wonder we keep getting stuck with losers as candidates. Loser who in most cases only got where they did by owing other favours.
Thanks Alex you've helped explain one of the biggest mysteries in politics.
http://www.doctorsteel.com
http://www.specialfarm.net/macgyver2008.html
TSU!
More like a visionary than a satirist . . . Then again, what is the difference?
We also had the Blokes Liberation Front (yay!) which advocated giving all the top jobs in the country top women. This was just for fun,through a series of unexpected events this actually happened for a time.
Going back to the 70/s we had the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, led by Mickey Mouse (no, not the real one, just a fellow wearing the ears).
Of course, the funniest bit about McGillicuddy Serious is that they were a coalition of minor groups ( Much as the sort of politics we now have in this country ), and some of their Waikato Uni members included Sue Bradford, Jeannette Fitzsimmons, James Anderton and Nandor Taczos . . . All of whom wound up as Members of Parliament mostly through the New Zealand Green Party. ( Which, as some people realise, is NOT a renaming of Values, which dissolved a year before the Greens incorporated. 😊 )
Also, the McGSP wasn't a coalition of smaller political groups.
Seriously, John, I think yoiu will find that when the first Mixed Member Proportional governement was elected here in the 1990s, the McGSP was bragging about how it had always been a coalition of such groups as Alf's Imperial Army, the Vegan Party, the Legalise Marijuana Party and the Greens for some time; They even had Jim Anderton on about how he copied their structure for the early version of the Progressives.
As for membership . . . I stand by that claim, as McGSP has been in existence for a long time, at least as long as I have been around which dates well before the internet and therefore have knowledge that is not available upon the web. I note you don't challenge me on Taczos's membership; You will find that most of the senior Greens were members of McGSP, and practically none are ex-Values Party members.
I would give references to Web-based information sources . . . However, as certain encounters have proven, it is a waste of time as most people never look them up, and those who do try to work around the information to prove themsleves correct. No insult intended; That's just the way things are.
As a member of the McGillicuddy Serious Party from 1985 to 1999, a candidate from 1987 to 1993, and Wellington Co-ordinator from 1989 to 1994,(since it seems necessary that I give my credentials in order to fully refute your claims) I can assure you that what I wrote above is completely true. Those people I mentioned in my previous post were NEVER members of the McGSP or the Clan McGillicuddy.
As for Nandor Tanczos, I didn't deny that he was a member for the simple reason that that is true.
As for your claim about McGSP being comprised of several smaller groups, that is also not true (although like many Internet rumours it has a grain of truth). Various members of the groups you mention (*or more accurately, of those social scenes) were members of the McGSP, however, those groups themselves were never part of the McGSP. The McGSP was not an amalgam of any smaller groups at all. Secondly, you should also take into account that the veracity of McGSP policies/claims while on the election trial was not 100% true: we always aimed to say what ever was funniest or would most likely annoy our particualr target...and in addition, we always claimed to be just like the other politicans only moreso.
As for your initial quote in reply to me above, I'd suggest that could perhaps be rephrased:
Love the Internet; Years of truth can be obscured by just by one person posting a half-remembered rumour about something that happened years ago.
I recieved that information from someone who was a member of Clan McGillicuddy from 1972 to about 1980 and who is or was the CFO of a little outfit called Livestock Improvement. True,, he was not the most relieable of sources, but I did believe him on this note.
However, why should I believeyour claims either, since anyone who claims proudly "(Our) veracity . . . was never 100% true;We always aimed to say whatever was funniest or would most likely annoy our particular target" is hardly the most reliable witness, the Cretan paradox notwithstanding. The other thing about the Internet is that anyone can crap on a cracker and *say* it's peanut butter, until someone sctually tastes it.
Then again, maybe my view of this whole matter is coloured by a long hard struggle in the sciences at university ( Made more so by injuries sustaine dwhen I failed to be part of the Unanimous Nuclear-Free NZ movement ) and now being paid less than average wage building roads and making food for the people who spent their lecture time at protests, rallies and mass dope-smoking parties in the name of freedom, who are now the well-paid rulers of this country expecting me to bow and scrape when they deign to speak to as lowly a worm as myself while banning aall the science I could perform in the name of "The People".
Don't bother replying: I won't believe it and it will make no difference to the way things are.
Why should you believe my claims? I already stated my position. You should also do well to note that my personal "veracity" (which you seem to be vaguely impugning) in passing on the above factual information, has little connection with the "veracity" of what we said on the campaign trail, because on the electoral campaign trail we were tricksters/anarchists/jokers/storytellers/politicians/satirists - call us what you will - ie: it was all a big joke, and as I suggested you should not take it seriously.
I stand by my facts, and will add another one: the Clan McGillicuddy was founded in 1977. Your source could not have been a member in 1972. Your source was also (based on your dates) never a member of the party, since it was founded in 1983.
Once again:
Love the Internet; Years of truth can be obscured by just by one person posting a half-remembered rumour about something that happened years ago.