Third Parties on Right Could Be Problem for Bush

Reuters ^ | 6/21/04 | Rolando Garcia

[freedom44]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Moses Murphy was as Republican as they come. The 27-year-old former Marine always voted a straight ticket and his Jeep Cherokee sported three "Bush-Cheney '04" bumper stickers.

But two months ago as the Boardsman, Ohio, resident was surfing the Internet, he came across the Web site for the Constitution Party, a small, conservative group still struggling to be on the ballot in every state.

Off came the Bush paraphernalia and now Murphy's Jeep is plastered with stickers for Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party's little-known presidential nominee.

Media attention has focused on Ralph Nader as a potential spoiler to presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry, but President Bush could face a similar threat from third party candidates on the right.

The Constitution and Libertarian parties believe they could siphon away enough disenchanted conservatives to tip a close election.

For Murphy, Bush's proposal to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants living in the United States was the final straw.

"We can't keep letting illegals come in; we need troops on the border," Murphy said in a telephone interview. "(Bush's) views no longer reflect my views, and I need to vote my principles."

The party occupying the White House is typically more prone to disgruntled ideologues bolting for a third party, said Lawrence Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota.

And hardline conservatives have no shortage of gripes with the president they helped elect. Topping the list is the dramatic increase in federal spending, especially the $500 billion new Medicare entitlement for prescription drugs Bush pushed through Congress, said Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation and a leading conservative activist.

Weyrich said grassroots conservatives "have a real problem with this administration's out of control spending."

TIPPING THE BALANCE

But it is unclear whether this grumbling on the right will translate into votes for the Libertarian or Constitution party nominees. In 2000, the Libertarian nominee received only about 385,000 votes or 0.36 percent, and conservative commentator Pat Buchanan won about 450,000 or 0.42 percent. By contrast, Nader, running from the left, took almost 3 million votes or 2.74 percent and possibly swung the election to Bush with a strong Florida showing.

Any defections from Bush's base would be "minuscule" said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, and the policy gripes of Washington political elites do not necessarily resonate among the Republican rank-and-file.

"Spokesman for the conservative movement see it as their job to grumble" when politicians on the right begin to stray, Rothenberg said.

However, even a handful of defections in key states could tip the balance. For Bush to have a hope of winning, Rothenberg said, his support among Republicans cannot dip much below 90 percent.

Unlike Nader, who was on 43 state ballots in 2000 as the Green Party nominee and is struggling to match that this year, the Libertarian nominee is typically on the ballot in all 50 states, Jacobs said.

The Constitution Party was on the presidential ballot in 42 states in 2000.

Libertarians have already proven they can decide the outcome of close elections. In the 2002 South Dakota Senate race, the Republican challenger lost by about 500 votes, with the Libertarian candidate receiving more than 3,000.

That same year, Libertarian candidates in the Wisconsin and Oregon gubernatorial races received 11 and 5 percent respectively, far exceeding the Democrat's margin of victory.

Bush lost both Oregon and Wisconsin by less than a percentage point in 2000, and both will be in play this year.

Swing states like New Hampshire and Nevada may also be fertile ground for Libertarians, Jacobs said.

But the Libertarian and Constitution party platforms could be an obstacle in peeling away conservative votes from Bush.

Both sound familiar conservative themes of slashing government and lowering taxes, but they also advocate the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and the Libertarians are socially liberal, supporting abortion rights and drug legalization. A general rule of thumb, Rothenberg said, is that about half of the voters who support third parties are outsiders who would not vote if their candidate was not running.

But if his candidacy does siphon away enough conservatives from Bush to put Kerry in the White House, Libertarian presidential nominee Michael Badnarik says that is fine with him. There is little difference between the major parties, he said, and playing the spoiler in a presidential election would greatly enhance Libertarians' national profile.

Peroutka, the Constitution nominee, said a Kerry victory could even help the conservative cause by prompting Republicans in Congress, who have approved Bush's spending increases, to oppose similar measures proposed by Kerry.

[jmc813]

Third Party voting only works in the primaries. This is how it works. Say that the Democrats get 35% of the vote, the Communists get 2% of the vote, the Socialist Worker's Party gets 3% of the vote, the Greens get 6% of the vote, and the Libertarians get 2% of the vote. Then, in the general election, the Democratic candidate can look at the primary election results and say: "Gee. 13% of my important constituents feel really strongly about moral-liberal issues, so therefore I will alter my message accordingly in the general election!"

That entire post made no sense whatsoever.

[freeeee]

The time for "sending a message" to the Republican party is over - that was the primary.

The primary is an infomercial and the candidate is already picked by powerful party insiders before the door opens.

Protest outside, and get beaten and arrested.

This leaves only one effective method for conveying a message...

[WhiteGuy]

1. The author has a point.
2. Consider the "fed-up" voters who will stay home.
3. Consider the Howard Stern factor.

Apply all of the above to half a dozen "battleground states" and 2004 becomes a little too close to call........

[WhiteGuy]

"...there won't be constitution to tear down, it will be shredded by a Chief Justice Mario Cuomo first and then the islamofascists who Kerry will coddle."

I've got to ask,

If the democrats (the minority party) can prevent bush's federal court nominees from being confirmed, why couldn't the republicans do the same to a democrat president's nominees?

I think you're exaggerating.

[Dane]

If the democrats (the minority party) can prevent bush's federal court nominees from being confirmed, why couldn't the republicans do the same to a democrat president's nominees?

I think you're exaggerating

The Pubbies don't have a sycophant media behind them, but you already knew that, and still you asked the question that you already knew the answer to.

You should really apply to the John Edwards school of law.

JMO, you would do very well there.

[WhiteGuy]

Seriously,

What would prevent the republicans from blocking a democrat's nominees?



I guess I DO indeed know the answer.

Nothing

[Dane]

Seriously,

What would prevent the republicans from blocking a democrat's nominees?

Well actually the precedant hasn't been set yet towards SCOTUS nominees.

Every SCOTUS nominee for the last 217 years has had a vote in the full Senate. The minority party(on each side) haven't tried that yet, but why don't you help the majority(Currently Pubbies) so that doesn't have to happen, instead of focusing on minutae that only basically concerns you.

[jmc813]

And THE worst RINO,in S.C.,is Ron Paul

Errrr, Ron Paul's from Texas, darling.

[Frohickey]

You're pretty arrogant to assume that YOU are the principled one and everyone who votes for Bush is unprincipled.

You can vote for your principles. No one is teling you to vote otherwise. I'm not the one saying that conservatives ought to vote for Bush, or else they are voting for Kerry.

Don't get on your high horse trying to tell me the ramifications of my vote. :(

[WhiteGuy]

Actually, I was only focusing on your prediction of mario cooomo as chief justice. A little bit over the top, JMO.

But, it appears that we DO agree that a majority gop senate could in fact prevent the appointment of liberal judges and justices.

[NonValueAdded]

And the message "President Kerry" means what?

[freeeee]

And the message "President Kerry" means what?

1. We're done playing "good cop/bad cop".

2. If you'd like to keep your job, you'll clean up your act.

I'm not wild about any Democrats winning office, but if you have any better ideas I'd like to hear them.

[anonymous86]

I met Michael Peroutka! I was an usher and ticket-taker at "America's Call to Honor God," where he campaigned. He's a great man, and if he did take office, America would be back to the way it was founded, like that! We'd roll back nearly a CENTURY of government largesse. The Constitution Party is, indeed, nearly identical to the freerepublic.com platform. I think Bush and Kerry are nearly two peas in a pod, so I'm voting for Michael.