Because of Ls, we lost Montana.
Because we lost the senate seat in montana, we lost the senate.
Because we lost the senate, we will not regain the Supreme Court.
Becuase we lost the Cournt, there will be lots of dead babies.
Yep, they certainly didn't help.
Because he's an idiot, Conrad Burns took Abramoff's money.
Because of Abramoff's money, Burns gave special favors to Indian tribes.
Because of special favors to Indian tribes, Burns lost the election.
Because Burns lost the election, the GOP lost the Senate.
Therefore...
Because Burns is an idiot, the GOP lost the Senate.
Puts a whole different perspective on things, don't it?
"Because of Ls, we lost Montana"
The assumption being that they wold have voted for Bush if there were no Libertarian Party. And the assumption is incorrect. Had they stayed home to protests W's very LIBERAL fiscal policies as well as some LIBERAL social policies, such as NCLB, the outcome would have been precisely the same.
With regard to Libertarian causing the Republican to lose via "third-party siphoning" ...
1. It happens to both major parties. George W. Bush was elected President in 2000 because Ralph Nader siphoned a lot of votes from Al Gore (many more than Buchanan and the Libertarian siphoned from Bush).
2. Moreso, third-party siphoning happens more to the majority party than to the minority party. Minority parties gain cohesion from knowing what they're against. Majority parties lose cohesion because the different elements within the party bicker over priorities. When the President focused single-mindedly on national security (which maybe he had too), and the Congressional Republicans focused on ear marks and other pork barrel programs, and nothing was done for the small "l" libertarians, guess what ... they felt left out. Conservatives didn't get much more (about the only thing I can think of is the fence).
3. Really good politicians know how to appeal to almost all of the people in their base constituencies and enough swing voters. They do this by advancing policies that unite their part of the political spectrum, and making sure that all their key constituencies get something. In 1992 and subsequently, the Gingrich-Armey-DeLay team had such a mix of policies. Candidate George W. Bush had a good mix of policies in 2000. But, over time, the Republican leadership in the House became increasingly dominated by social conservatives and pork barrell spenders (with the social conervatives getting little more than lip service). And, the President had to turn his attention to national security. Reform, cutting back on government, expanding choice and competition in schooling, social security and health care finance ... the things that unite us ... all put on the back-burner.
4. The truth is, even with the heavy burden of the war in Iraq, Republicans weren't wiped out. The Democrats are only barely in the majority in both chambers. In the lower house, the Democrats have a lot of newbies who were elected as conservatives (but I'm not buying it). In the Senate, at least two were elected with a minority of the vote due to the Libertarian Party candidate siphoning votes from the Republican. I think it is fair to say that if the Republicans can re-dedicate themselves to policies that unite us, they can return to power in 2008. On the other hand, if we are still in Iraq, it's Katie bar the door. Americans will be helicoptered off the embassey in Baghdad, and every nation in the world will begin to develop its own arsenal of nuclear weapons.