Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Third Parties on Right Could Be Problem for Bush
Reuters ^ | 6/21/04 | Rolando Garcia

Posted on 06/21/2004 5:41:56 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conservatives; constitutionparty; libertarians; michaelperoutka; peroutka; thirdparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-154 next last
To: gcruse
You know me better than that. I could do without Ashcroft and the oppression that comes with him, though

And I could do without your drag queen like wardrobe of wearing and proclaiming you have a boot behind your neck 24 hours a day as Ashcroft tries to get the islamofacists who want to kill you.

61 posted on 06/21/2004 7:02:51 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

"And a Kerry presidency will just warm the cockles of your heart,I bet. :-)"

Not at all, but congress does tend to spend less with a democrat holding the presidency. I hate Kerry more than Bush, but I wouldn't vote for either of them for president.


62 posted on 06/21/2004 7:04:57 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: MindFire
Would you support Specter in PA who is an adamant abortionist and supporter of homosexual marriage, like Bush does?

I guess you support having daschle as Majority leader in the Senate then.

Oh BTW, Toomey has given his support to Specter, after his primary loss. Are you going to diss Toomey now.

63 posted on 06/21/2004 7:06:01 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Dane
proclaiming you have a boot behind your neck 24 hours a day as Ashcroft tries to get the islamofacists who want to kill you.

Ashcroft's rape and pillaging of the Tenth Amendment is destroying federalism and making a mockery of state rights.  It has nothing to do with the WOT.
64 posted on 06/21/2004 7:08:06 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: monday
Not at all, but congress does tend to spend less with a democrat holding the presidency.

And a democrat as president has a tendency to sell military secrets to the chicoms and do nothing about the spread of islamofascism(i.e clinton).

I surmise you have the warm and fuzzies about those actions by clinton and the demos.

65 posted on 06/21/2004 7:08:51 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Frohickey
"a principled conservative "

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

Usually, when the self-annointed "principled" conservatives are stripped of their "ideological" cloak, they turn out to be nothing but racists, malcontents, losers, potheads, or insecure little mommas' boys.

I'm not implying that you fit any of these categories, I'm just informing you of what most Freepers already know.

66 posted on 06/21/2004 7:09:18 PM PDT by bayourod (Can the 9/11 Commission connect the dots on Iraq or do they require a 3-D picture?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: fatidic
You think you're telling me something I don't know? I live in Texas and am very familiar with his politics. I was his county re-elect chair.

The question is do you want Bush or Kerry? This election is too important to play with.

Bush was more conservtive as governor than president. I think a 2nd term will be different. But he has to get elected first.

67 posted on 06/21/2004 7:10:14 PM PDT by lonestar (Me, too!--Weinie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Ashcroft's rape and pillaging of the Tenth Amendment is destroying federalism and making a mockery of state rights. It has nothing to do with the WOT

Whatever. I guess janet reno and jamie gorelick are your gals.

68 posted on 06/21/2004 7:10:19 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

The major third party candidates on the right, mean very little. Whether its Browne with the Libertarian Party, Philips with the Constitution Party; Hagelin at the Natural Law Party or whoever it might be this time around at the Reform Party, they are of little consequence. Last time around, all major third party candidates garnered roughly 4 million votes out of some 106 million total votes, or 3.7%. And that was with Nadar. Take Nadar out of the mix and the big four had just over one million votes total, or 1.1%. Overall impact? Minimal.


69 posted on 06/21/2004 7:11:00 PM PDT by Reagan Man (.....................................................The Choice is Clear....... Re-elect BUSH-CHENEY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad

The dig in the heels purists/"real" Conservatives either do NOT live in reality,or they really,really,REALLY are masochists,who would far rather have Dems run everything,than get anything at all,from the GOP,that they claim to want.But life and politics ARE made up of compromises and only children have trouble understanding that.


70 posted on 06/21/2004 7:11:37 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
Their primary wedge issue is racism, just like Buchanan's was. They try to legitimize anti-Hispanic bigotry with transparently shallow arguments that they only oppose "ILLEGAL" immigrants, Afterall, everyone should agree that it's OK to hate someone who is "ILLEGAL". Then they go on to criticize ALL Mexican immigrants for lowering wages, littering, using hospitals, diluting our western culture, etc...

Hmm, that's weird, I don't think any of us are saying it's ok to hate people who are illegal immigrants. Are you sure you're not putting words in people's mouths?

I think all I've been saying is that it's not ok that the illegal immigrants are allowed to break the law, just like it's not ok for other people to break the law. It doesn't mean that I don't love my fellow man -- it's just not good for my society if some classes of people are allowed to indiscriminately break the law.

71 posted on 06/21/2004 7:11:55 PM PDT by mhx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad

"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."

Huh? Have you ever voted in the primaries? That isn't how primaries work in America. In America each party votes for it's choice of candidate WITHIN IT'S OWN PARTY, during the primary.

Third party candidates are not welcome on the ballots of either the Republican Primary or Democrat Primary. Perhaps you don't actually live in America?


72 posted on 06/21/2004 7:13:57 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

Ah, but as Uncle Joe Stalin claimed: "Sure, there are contradictions in the Worker's Paradise oppressing workers. But that oppression is a good thing, for it will enhance and exacerbate the contradictions, and the contradictions will force the wonderful Dialectical-Materialist Leap of the worker's revolution, and we will finally arrive at the glorious stateless society! Freedom is slavery! Oppression is freedom!"


73 posted on 06/21/2004 7:16:07 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Whatever. I guess your idea of protecting your kids from Islamofacists is putting FBI agents in front of computers evaluating porn eight hours a day. Or is it, in the weeks following 9/11, devoting agents to investigating whore houses in New Orleans. Do you feel safer, Dane?

I have to admit, though, he sure saved us from the bedridden dopers in Santa Cruz smoking a joint for pain. You must sleep better at night for that.


74 posted on 06/21/2004 7:17:16 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Look at the Supreme Court, a heartbeat away from being severely liberal. The next president may send 3 or 4 there. Kerry's choices will be more prone to site European law than W's would, and a little protest vote could mean lessening on something dear to us like the 2nd amendment redone by judicial caveat or making gay marriage common place.
75 posted on 06/21/2004 7:18:05 PM PDT by Sybeck1 (Kerry: how can we trust him with our money, if Teresa won't trust him with hers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
you said:

"And in answer to your question, I am not Karl Rove, but I've worked with him in several campaigns. You're fortunate not to be discoursing with him. Karl Rove does not suffer fools lightly; in fact he doesn't suffer them at all"

What is that supposed to mean? I'm 'fortunate' not to be 'discoursing' with him? what would he do, cry and run behind his curtains like he did when the liberals went to protest him? LOL the guy has no credibility as a conservative or a Christian. I believe in Christian principles and smaller Constitutional govt and make no apologies for it. I couldn't care less what some obscure elitist advisor thinks.

It has no bearing on my beliefs or principles whatsoever. But that's good if you're buddies with him or am impressed/mesmerized/whatever by him. more power to ya! ;-) Read Ron Pauls speech 'Neo-Conned' for more info on Rove and his ilk.

As far as your notations of numbersusa etc and their founder,.. I actually have not done any extensive reading at any of those sites, nor do i send their faxes.. but i do know of them because many people in the immigration reform movement use those sites and refer to them. These people are supportrs of Tancredo, McClintock, etc. Not liberal in any way.

What is on those sites has not 'convinced' me of anything. But on your point of liberals infiltrating so-called conservative causes, though.. you make a good point. I spoke to George Putnam when he had that woman 'Ling Ling' on his program. She pretends to be against immigration, but in reality she started talking about POPULATION CONTROL and she even criticized the Pope and sneered that "these people (immigrants with lots of kids who don't practice birth control) should go live at the Vatican". Basically she was taking the stance that mirrored the left and its population control/UN agenda. So yes, i am aware of this and have debated it with many people involved in this issue here. So I do see your point and i called her on it personally, over the air. again, it is a matter of principle and not 'following' a website or a man.

76 posted on 06/21/2004 7:18:14 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: monday

The Democratic winner of the primary election sees how many ideologues and True Believer losers there are in the fringed Parties, and tailors his or her message accordingly in order to court these self-marginalized voters.


77 posted on 06/21/2004 7:18:58 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: newberger
The Constitution Party -- helping to elect Democrats since 2000

You got a word wrong in that. It should be "The 'Republican' Party -- helping to elect Democrats since 2000"

78 posted on 06/21/2004 7:19:26 PM PDT by Aarchaeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
Yeah, vote for your principles and elect John Kerry.

Real Smart, Jarhead...Real Smart. Chesty Puller would really be proud of you! NOT!

79 posted on 06/21/2004 7:19:49 PM PDT by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Whatever. I guess your idea of protecting your kids from Islamofacists is putting FBI agents in front of computers evaluating porn eight hours a day. Or is it, in the weeks following 9/11, devoting agents to investigating whore houses in New Orleans. Do you feel safer, Dane?

I have to admit, though, he sure saved us from the bedridden dopers in Santa Cruz smoking a joint for pain. You must sleep better at night for that

You have a burr up your butt about Ashcroft becuase he doesn't tow your ACLU line.

Good for Ashcroft I say.

80 posted on 06/21/2004 7:20:24 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-154 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson