Posted on 10/24/2004 9:58:28 PM PDT by CWOJackson
Badnarik TV ads target conservative voters
WASHINGTON -- The Libertarian Party launches a TV advertising campaign on Thursday that could boot George Bush out of the White House by appealing for votes from disgruntled conservatives.
"Michael Badnarik is going to bring his small-government message right into the living rooms of 96 million households who have a right to be angry at Bush," said Joseph Seehusen, the Libertarian Party's executive director.
"This ad tells Republican voters that the best way to get the party's attention is to patronize the competition -- and that means voting Libertarian."
The television ads, paid for by the Libertarian National Committee, start running Thursday on the No. 1-rated Fox News Channel, which appeals to a largely conservative audience.
The 30-second spots, titled "Send A Message," feature a couple sitting at their kitchen table agonizing over their choice on Election Day. After agreeing that Bush has betrayed his small-government promises, and that they can't vote for Kerry, they resolve to "send a message" by voting Libertarian. The ads can be seen at:
[deleted]
With Bush and Kerry running neck-and-neck, just a few thousand votes for Badnarik in key states could tip the outcome of the election, according to outside analysts.
Recent polls by Rasmussen Research have shown Badnarik drawing 5 percent in New Mexico, where former Vice President Al Gore beat Bush by 366 votes in 2000, and garnering 3 percent in Nevada, which Bush won by 4 percentage points in 2000.
Political science professor Lawrence Jacobs of the University of Minnesota says: "The Libertarians are drawing somewhere between 1 percent and 3 percent -- not big numbers, but in these very close races like the presidential contest, they could well be the margin of difference. They pose a genuine threat to be the kingmaker in several swing states."
Bush is especially vulnerable in swing states where Nader is not on the ballot, such as Oregon, Ohio, Missouri and Arizona. According to Jacobs, Badnarik's presence on the ballot in those states "creates a drain on Republican voters that the Democrats aren't experiencing."
Notes Seehusen: "In 2000, it's likely that Nader cost Gore the election by getting enough votes in one key state -- Florida," he said. "In 2004 Badnarik has the potential to Naderize Bush in several states.
"This ad campaign is designed to teach an important lesson to lying politicians like George Bush: If you don't start keeping your promises, you won't be keeping your job."
Conservative America needs to look at the true goals and motives pushing the LP and CP in the Presidential race and NEVER FORGET.
Like I said they should be factions within the GOP, not outside of it. I have always found third parties fascinating but these guys are not running on principle but simply trying to defeat Bush. They think getting credit for defeating Bush will help their parties. PLEASE.
They succeeded and eventually threw the Senate to the Democrats...and stuck us with a flaming liberal Senator.
When people who had fallen for the LP line woke up in the morning to what they had done the LP lost ever gain it had made in this state over many years of effort.
This is a good thing. I believe that marginal, "conservative" third parties tend to attract more disillusioned Democrats than disillusioned Republicans simply because there are so many more of the former than there are of the latter.
The Democrat Party has become such a sloppy, pandering pack of liberal scumbags that many people who were born and raised in die-hard Democrat families can't bring themselves to vote Democrat anymore. However, because of their upbringing and their inbred distaste for the Republican Party, these "Democrats" cannot bring themselves to vote Republican, either. They just couldn't stomach it.
SO..... these third parties give the disllusioned Democrats an option: they may feel compelled to go to the polls on Tuesday and vote ("civic duty" or whatever) but with third parties available, they don't have to vote for Democrat scumbags.
That's my theory.
It would be much more effective for them to pick their guy early and run him in the GOP primaries. They might even win and set up a Republican-Libertarian (or Constitutional) Congressional Caucus.
Ron Paul understood that SIMPLE fact.
The simple truth: Now is not the time. The Libertarians are crazy if they think they have a serious shot at the presidency. Considering that they ran a smurf for US Senate in Montana two years ago (Blue skin because he ingested Silver Nitratem a toxin), crazy is certainly in the realm of possibility. If Kerry wins, the US will cease to exist as a country.
If the Libertarians, or Constitution Party are serious about becoming a viable alternative poltical party, they are going to have to start at the state and local levels and not even bother with national level candidates until they build an organization and establish a track record. I've not seen any serious effort to work from the ground up in either of them. Even the Communists are more savvy than the Libertarians - they've endorsed Kerry for president. In the meantime, they plan to spend their money on electing loyal communists or sympathizers to school boards, etc.
And thereby install the most anti-libertarian principled President the country has ever seen....
...moron.
That is their stated goal in this election.
I could understand this position ONLY if the voter lived in a hopelessly leftist state like Massachusetts, where Bush doesn't have a prayer. If there is even a chance of it being close, I think Bush is the only choice. I live in Illinois. According to the polls, Kerry is going to win. However, with the Dems' propaganda ministry (more commonly known as the media) behaving as they do, I will still vote for Bush because there is a realistic possibility that he will carry the state from what I can see at ground level. We simply cannot afford to let Bush lose.
I'm reminded of the article by Harry Browne ("blame America first") and it is easy to dismiss these misfits.
More concerned with pot than rational worldview and national defense (Libs favor open borders, too).
I voted for Peroutka because of his hard-line dedicated stance on illegal immigration, outsourcing, and his devoted belief in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.
Peroutka is a conservative that never compromises his beliefs to radical leftiest and pro-abortion politicians.
I understand that there is a huge sense of shock and frustration with the fact that I endorsed and voted for a third-party conservative over Bush. Now, if Bush says right now that he will closed the borders of Mexico and Canada or he says that he will put the National Guard near the borders, I will immediately change my vote for him. But it will never happened since great conservatives like Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo and radio shows like the John and Ken Show KFI 640 AM (Los Angeles) who adamantly says that Pres. Bush is for amnesty that will give up to 15 million illegal aliens here in the US.
I'm a 20 year old conservative that never compromise my beliefs on a stupid philosophy called "winning". Like what California State Senator Tom McClintock said last year during the Recall Race: "If you don't stand for principles, what's the point of winning?" Mr. McClintock urged voters to be true to their own beliefs when they get inside the voting booth.
And I holding my own conservative belief before and after the voting booth. Plus, I voted for both Republicans Bill Jones for US Senate and Assemblyman Benoit in my district.
How would he do it?
I was close to 16 years old when Pres. Bush was running against then Vice Pres. Al Gore and during the 2000 Presidential Election, I was a huge supporter of Pres. Bush even though I prefer Gary Bauer or Steve Forbes to be the Republican nominee for Pres.
I was very excited back then when George W. Bush won in a very close race and I knew that he would turn the tide for Republicans to feel good again and I was very proud of his leadership qualities as Pres. of the US after the horrific event of 9/11.
But since then, he actually didn't do anything to close our pourous borders to illegal aliens, do something to protect our borders, and put an end of illegal aliens coming here in the millions every year. I felt very frustrated my President isn't doing a thing to uphold our immigration laws. That one issue of illegal immigration made me very mad and concerned.
I wished that Pres. Bush will changed his mind on the amnesty topic that he raised this January. Pres. Bush was supposed to represent what true conservativism really means. How can this nation be undefended and unprotected when we have a Homeland Security who could give a rat-ass about our borders and the issues that border states like California cares about.
I could go on and on about why I decided not to vote for both Pres. Bush and Sen. John Kerry. Both guys are for amnesty to illegal aliens and both men could give a rat-ass about California and the rest of the border states. At least, there are local conservative Republican politicans like State Senator Tom McClintock and Rep. Dana Ronabacher who deeply cares about the illegal alien mess that America is in.
Exactly. Saw the ad on Fox this weekend; it's pretty good.
So how would Peroutka end abortion on his first day in office?
It can't be that difficult of a question, he states it very plainly.
Libertarian votes were the deciding factor that tossed Wyche Fowler and Slade Gorton out on their asses. Good thing, in both cases.
LOL! Classic libertarian mindset!
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.