Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This website is a joke, right?
Yes, we can vote for George W. Bush in 2008. We have the right to write in the name of our chosen candidate, regardless of whether or not he is officially on the ballot.We know that George Bush was God's Candidate in 2000. We know that George Bush was God's candidate again in 2004. And George Bush has been God's president for the last 8 years.
Trust in God and vote your faith. Keep America safe. Write-in George W. Bush for President in 2008.
Please soothe my soul and tell me this is satire.
Politics
Comments
I doubt it's satire. But it's profoundly ignorant. Bush couldn't serve a third term even if he were elected.
Of course, that's assume the constitution has *any* meaning anymore.
Posted by: Russell Miller | July 2, 2008 9:23 AM
It's pure satire. One of the bumper stickers says "Write in George W. Bush: Third Term's a Charm". I ordered 10.
Posted by: Jesse | July 2, 2008 9:28 AM
Actually, I really hope it's not satire, and that they peel off some right wing votes that can then be tossed out.
Posted by: Boo | July 2, 2008 9:31 AM
It's satire. Claiming the 22nd Amendment was passed by an "activist Congress" is a tipoff.
Posted by: mooglar | July 2, 2008 9:39 AM
From the blog there -
2. To trust in God and the US Supreme Court that if Bush gets the popular vote, term limits will be set assunder.
3. To give Bush one more chance, now that he's just getting the hang of it.
Yes, satire. But a bunch of folks here in Texas would swallow it, hook, line, sinker, and boat with motor.
Posted by: Coragyps | July 2, 2008 9:44 AM
I'm voting satire as well. The bumper stickers and all the declarations about god's law and god taking care of all the details seem a little too much. Plus they're using a domain registrar proxy to hide who they really are, and I can't see a serious fundie going to that trouble.
I'm going to go out on a limb, however, and suggest that the recent wave of all these fundie satire sites in the last year or so is actually the work of some clever people doing experiments to more precisely characterize Poe's Law.
Posted by: Kevin S | July 2, 2008 9:52 AM
Maybe it's also a clever ploy to leech votes away from Maverick McCain?
Posted by: Vic | July 2, 2008 9:58 AM
I think the important question is whether we ought to have term limits for Prez. We've only had one who served more than 8 years and, in the end, I think the prohibition on more than 2 terms (I know, plus up to 2 years of the predecessors) is anti-democratic. I think GW is among the worst presidents evah, but I think he ought to be able to run again.
Dave
Posted by: David Worthington | July 2, 2008 10:00 AM
Well look who its registered to:
Domain Discreet
ATTN: writeinbush.com
Avenida do Infante 50
Funchal, Madeira 9004-521
PT
Phone: 1-902-7495331
And the 902 area code is in Canada. I vote its a way to make some money and sell bumper stickers.
Posted by: yoshi | July 2, 2008 10:02 AM
Are you telling me this isn't pure awesomeness? Evangelicals get to feel like their voting for God's candidate, but in reality, they're just throwing their votes away. It would be even better if this weren't satire and were completely serious. It would be a great way to eliminate the votes of the 20-30% of the population who thinks Bush is doing a fine job (which makes me wonder if these people are really competent enough to be trusted to have a vote).
Posted by: foole | July 2, 2008 10:07 AM
@david
I think its an important question but I am on the opposite side of the coin. We should have term limits for senators, representatives, governors, and presidents and everyone in between. Seriously - Kennedy has been Senator since 1962 and Stevens since 1970. They are so cluelessly out of touch its laughable.
Posted by: yoshi | July 2, 2008 10:08 AM
Oh! they have a blog!
http://www.writeinbush.com/blog/
Posted by: yoshi | July 2, 2008 10:13 AM
You've already probably had your soul soothed by the others, but I'll add my own - satire. Good satire. In fact, it could almost be a "Poe's Law" moment except for just a couple of winks at the audience that I imagine the site-owner just couldn't help himself with. "Activist Congress", "Man's Law not God's", "Third Term's the Charm", "Stay the Course".
But the real wink that made me sure it's satire is in the first blog post, where he enumerates the reasons to write-in Bush and wraps up with #3:
3. To give Bush one more chance, now that he's just getting the hang of it.
Classic.
Posted by: NonyNony | July 2, 2008 10:23 AM
Rejoice for we live in the Age of Poe!
Posted by: NoAstronomer | July 2, 2008 10:24 AM
@yoshi:
How is Kennedy out of touch? He's one of the most progressive senators in the building. You can disagree with that agenda, but considering its source, "out of touch" isn't a phrase that can be attributed to it in any way, shape, or form.
Posted by: Brock | July 2, 2008 10:28 AM
Vote JESUS 2008!
Posted by: jpf | July 2, 2008 10:29 AM
Oh and yoshi -
Term limits are something that I used to think were a great idea - until the state of Ohio implemented them. They're awful. Our representatives now have ZERO incentive to do anything but chalk up points with lobbying firms so that they can get good jobs once their time in office is up. The only folks who actually take the job seriously are people who are attempting to use it as a stepping stone to a higher office. There's no way to punish a representative who steps out of line in their second term, and there's no incentive for a representative to govern well in their second term. And on top of THAT - they have no real time to learn how to do their damn jobs. Even the ones who WANT to be effective legislators don't really figure out how to make the system work until their second term - at which point they're looking for a new job and, if they get elected to a different position, basically have to start over completely.
The same thing happens at the Presidential level - the only redeeming thing that saves second term Presidents from being horrible abusers of their office for personal gain is their egos and the desire to leave a "legacy" that they'll be remembered by. That's not a very effective "check" on the system.
Given how lousy term limits have been for Ohio I've done a complete 180 on them - I'd rather see representatives be able to keep their jobs and be working to keep votes in their district than to be constantly using their time in office to setup their next job. There has to be a more effective check on "out-of-touchedness" than term limits.
Posted by: NonyNony | July 2, 2008 10:29 AM
CNN: Evangelical movement touts 'Jesus for president'
Granted they're liberal Evangelicals driving around in a vegetable-oil-powered hippy bus, but still!
Posted by: jpf | July 2, 2008 10:32 AM
I just about lost my oatmeal thinking about the ramifications of this one! Sad thing is that there are wingnuts who think this is the truth-yikes!
And Jesus would be the last person who would want to be president.
What if God's choice is Barack Hussein Obama?!? What then;-)
Posted by: Rev. AJB | July 2, 2008 11:06 AM
I think I like those liberal evangelicals, even if they do sound like the kind of people who carry tambourines and acoustic guitars everywhere. The best quote for me is
"We've profaned the blood at the foot of the cross and turned it into Kool-Aid"
Posted by: Matt | July 2, 2008 11:18 AM
I prefer this bumper sticker: "REPEAL THE 22ND! We Want Bartlett Back!"
Posted by: Joe Shelby | July 2, 2008 11:31 AM
Jesus doesn't have American parent(s), he was not born in US teritory, he is not a naturalised US citizen, he has never lived in the US at any time.
Nope, Jesus doesn't even qualify for public office, but thanks for playing, time for you to drink the cool-aid. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 2, 2008 11:35 AM
David Worthington:
It's an odd thing. The public strongly supported Roosevelt's 4th election victory, but within a decade strongly supported the term limits amendment. So is it antidemocratic because it restricts the ability of people to choose the candidate of their choice a third time, or is it uberdemocratic because a supermajority supported the term limiting amendment?I'm with you and NonyNony. I think term limits are an abysmal idea. They've been really harmful at the state level, where entire state legislatures are filled with people who have no experience, no institutional memory, no understanding of how the legislative process works, and no patience (because they must get their goals accomplished now or never). It would be even more destructive at the federal level.
Back when California passed its term limits legislation, in the ' '90s, I had lunch with a lobbyist in the state capital. Her view of term limits was that she'd have to work harder to keep establishing new relationships with the constant turnover of legislators, but since they'd all be legislative neophytes, and she had the experience, she would actually be morem influential than before.
(But the satire site is correct: It is legal to write in George Bush. However it is illegal to write in a fictional character, a silly law that was passed in response to the late 60s/early 70s "Snoopy for president" fad.)
Posted by: James Hanley | July 2, 2008 11:35 AM
Oh forgot the biggest disqualification for Jesus being a candidate for the position of President of the Untied States of America. HE'S IMAGINARY -DJ
Sponge Bob Squarepants for President!
Posted by: DingoJack | July 2, 2008 11:39 AM
And that's the one that scared me the most! See I'm from Jim Jone's hometown. He graduated from my high school. And I went to school with his twin nephews (by his wife's youngest sister-and two nicer guys you wouldn't want to meet). I still remember the media circus when they had the funerals for his wife and children in my hometown; and how the funeral director told the media they could "kiss his ass" when they wanted to be in the parlor while the service was going on. They are buried about a hundred feet from where my folks will someday be buried.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | July 2, 2008 11:43 AM
James - Does that mean I could (if I were American) vote for Pontiac, there is evidence he was NOT imaginary, although he IS dead. Could I vote for Queen Elizabeth, again plenty of evidence she is real and alive, although not an American citizen. Rupert Murdoch is real, alive and an American citzen, but who would wnat to vote for that bastard? -curiously DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 2, 2008 12:07 PM
Re DingoJack
Actually, Repert Murdoch is not eligible to run for president because he is a naturalized US citizen. The Constitution requires a natural born US citizen.
Posted by: SLC | July 2, 2008 12:13 PM
Oh course! Boy am I an idiot or what. I completely forgot about the Governator. Thanks for that SLC. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 2, 2008 12:16 PM
But we could vote for Jesse Ventura;-)
Posted by: Rev. AJB | July 2, 2008 12:28 PM
I have to agree with Nonynony, I was neutral --> mildly in favor of term limits until I moved into a state that has them. It seems like they flip back and forth between lobby related businesses and the state legislature every few years, bumping from state house to lobby group/corporation to state senate, back again. The state is so pro business it is ridiculous, unions are completely neutered, and consumers have a horrific time trying to recover damages from businesses that have cheated them or have been grossly incompetent.
Posted by: dogmeatib | July 2, 2008 1:10 PM
"Reverend Dobson"
He's not a Rev, he's a Dr...
I doubt many people who are evangelical would make that mistake.
Posted by: sly civilian | July 2, 2008 1:11 PM
SLC,
No he's not eligible to serve as president. The constitution is silent on the subject of running for the office. So he could certainly start a write in campaign. What the point would be is beyond me but it's certainly possible.
Posted by: sng | July 2, 2008 1:50 PM
It doesn't really read like satire to me, I think they might actually want Bush for four more years. After reading the blog comments, it certainly appears that there are at least a few people in support who are religious, crazy, and have internet connections.
Posted by: Nick | July 2, 2008 1:58 PM
Speaking of satire, whoever is behind this site is brilliant:
http://www.womenforjohnmccain.com/
Posted by: pensy | July 2, 2008 2:29 PM
Re Rev AJB
Jesse Ventura would be a considerable improvement over the current incumbent. Actually, anyone who has ever heard Mr. Ventura speak or be interviewed will come away with the distinct impression that he's a pretty smart and well read guy.
Posted by: SLC | July 2, 2008 2:44 PM
I wouldn't assume that it must be either serious or satire. I notice the site has an online store for the sale of bumperstickers.
Although there was no internet when I was in college, this is exactly the kind of thing I and two of my friends might have done back then if there had been an internet. We were extremely apolitical and arelgious.
We used to dream things like this up and advertise in the classifieds. This is a few years before Don Lapre came along, when you really could make a few bucks with a small budget and the right classified ads. It wasn't extremely lucrative but we made some spending money (Somewhere in the archives of a state on the east coast, there may still be a record of our "church").
We didn't care whether people bought things from us based upon crackpot ideology or for novelty. We just tried to come up with things we could make very cheaply and sell. The best stuff was the stuff that appealed across markets, to the humor, novelty and crackpot segments alike. I remember the collective rush when three 19-year-olds went to our PO box one day and found that there really were checks in the mail made out to our DBA account.
Posted by: Dr X | July 2, 2008 2:52 PM
Likewise California. The musical chairs the state legislature plays are frightening, and we're reaching the point where the people with the institutional memory to actually get anything done have all become lobbyists. It's every kind of awful.
Posted by: usagi | July 2, 2008 3:10 PM
My wife got to know Jesse Ventura pretty well when we lived in the Twin Cities in the early '90's. He was mayor of either Brooklyn Park or Brooklyn Center at the time. She was a copy editor for some community newspapers and he would come in at least once a month to ask her if she could change the content of what the local reporter was writing about him. My wife had to finally tell him that as much as she disliked Patt (unfortunate name-as the "Here Comes Pat" skit was big on SNL at the time) she wasn't allowed to change how the story was written-but only make sure the grammar and spelling were correct.
My wife's opinion was that he was a smart man.
Guess a better example of a Hollywood person who could legally run for office would be "Gopher" from the "Love Boat!"
Posted by: Rev. AJB | July 2, 2008 3:11 PM
How could you possibly object to those 29%, er 27%, oh 24% of the voters who think that dubya is doing such a great job writing in his name? People voted for precious Ralph Nader. Why not use their vote for an equally good purpose?
Posted by: central texas | July 2, 2008 3:13 PM
Ed, you should be hoping that this is real! ;-)
I'll bet Bob Barr got a laugh out of it...
Posted by: Kristine | July 2, 2008 3:37 PM
OK first I feel I should apologise for bringing in a quote that had such unpleasant personal connotations for Rev AJB. Second I'd like to say I'm not endorsing vote Jesus or anything like that. I just found it refreshing to see a group of self declared evangelical christians prepared to criticise their own side and I saw the cool aid quote as attacking the idea of christianity as a product to be marketed, which was a point well made if more than a little ironic given what they're doing.
Posted by: Matt | July 2, 2008 3:57 PM
James Hanley,
The 1950s were politically a republican period and they were still sensitive about FDR's 4 terms and pushed the term limits amendment. However, they were kicking themselves just a bit when it was evident that DDE could have been elected (probably) to a 3rd term. I think it is anti-democratic because it does not allow the people to choose the candidate they may want. There may have been a supermajority, but it was congress' (state/fed) who were, I believe, motivated more by politics than by the "needs" or advantages of/to the nation.
In Indiana one cannot write in just any name, if somebody voted for me it would be tossed without counting, you must qualify for the ballot in Indiana.
Dave
Posted by: David Worthington | July 2, 2008 3:59 PM
Matt-No offense taken! Just stating the first thought that comes into my mind whenever the words Kool Aid and religion are mixed together.
BTW I'm glad my church chooses to serve lemonade;-)
Posted by: Rev. AJB | July 2, 2008 4:05 PM
Dave,
There goes my vote for you....
Posted by: Rev. AJB | July 2, 2008 4:08 PM
George Washington began the tradition of serving at most two terms. He could have easily been elected to a third term. He knew that we had just thrown off a monarch and had no wish to become one.
It was an unspoken rule until FDR ran for his third term. I think it is a good idea since the presidency concentrates so much power in one person.
Do we really want to open the door to Fidel Castro/Robert Mugabe style life terms?
Posted by: Lance | July 2, 2008 4:58 PM
Lance said:
"Do we really want to open the door to Fidel Castro/Robert Mugabe style life terms?"
Jump to any conclusions lately? Who said anything about a life term? What I'm suggesting is that I ought to be able to vote for the candidate I prefer and that she/he ought not be precluded because politicians fear the "unbeatable" candidate (and I'm sure the republicans were happy the WJC couldn't run again, because I think he'd have mopped up against George II.)
Why was Roosevelt's 3rd term a bad idea? In most history that I've read about it, he is seen as an outstanding war president.
All that said, its about choice. I suspect that most would not run for a 3rd term, but if, after 8 years the people still want 'em, why not?
Rev, I keep thinking that I'll run a guerilla campaign against Brad Ellsworth in 2 years. I just can't stand the guy, I throw up a little bit in my mouth when I see his name on the ballot.
Dave
Posted by: David Worthington | July 2, 2008 7:46 PM
Dingo, I don't know if it's illegal to write in a dead person or not--hmm, I suspect not, unless the imaginary person legislation was written more broadly than I think it was.
David W. I was only thinking about federal law. Certainly for a ballot to count it has to meet state requirements. Certainly to get one's name on the ballot, they must have qualified for the ballot in the particular state, but I suspect there's variety among the states as far as whether or not to count a write-in vote. And then, of course, there's the question of whether a mythical, dead, or non-citizen write-in is a violation of the law in a particular state.
With 50 states and their attendant variations in law, it seems like too much trouble to me to track them all down and create a table of what's legal or not, but I'd love it someone else did.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 2, 2008 7:54 PM
I called Poe on their blog, and c&p the definition from urbandictionary.com
I can prove it's a satire site, not affiliated with any "real" religious movement (of the fungicelical variety at least):
Comments to the blog go right through, they are not modertating, or censoring (same thing, to fundies) their blog.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 2, 2008 8:48 PM
I think it's a combination of satire and a "hey, it couldn't hurt" half-assed attempt at sabotaging McCain.
I mean, if there are actually people stupid enough to vote for Bush a third time, why not let them?
Posted by: Hypatia | July 3, 2008 8:42 AM