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."
So aren't you going to explain how your candidate, who would never compromise his beliefs, would end abortion on his first day in the oval office?
Go look up those election totals, then retract your statement.
And in exchange, we got Senator Maria Cantwell. Now go look up her voting record when it comes to defending this nation and supporting our troops. Now you might thing that is a "good thing" but rationale people would not agree.
Libertarian Party = conservatives on crack...
So let me explain the truth about your uncompromising candidate and why you can't answer how he would end abortion is first day in the oval office. Because it's all BS.
Proutka can promise you absolutely anything and everything, because he knows that's all it is...the empty promise of a huckster.
And by the way, your so called Constitution Party candidate sure doesn't know much about the Constitution...otherwise he wouldn't have made that ridiculous claim about ending abortion. Or perhaps he just counts on people not thinking his empty promises through.
You didn't vote for a man of principles, you voted for a platform without real substance.
FairOpinion, I am sorry to see that you are pissed off the fact that I didn't vote for a pro-amnesty candidate like Bush. I deeply regreted that Pres. Bush lost my vote when blantly decided to agree that the US should participate in the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) or the fact that Pres. Bush wanted to give amnesty to 15 million illegal aliens or the fact that Pres. Bush appointed a homosexual named Michael Guest, as ambassador to Romania.
I am not in the business of compromising my conservative belief on something that I don't want to trade in. I vote according to strict conservative beliefs.
Michael Anthony Peroutka and his running mate Pastor Chuck Baldwin are individuals that stand on Judeo-Christian principles and beliefs and I do deeply share my belief in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.
Michael Anthony Peroutka will solve the abortion problem by providing a strict litmus test when it comes to judicial nominations to the Supreme Court or the Appelette Court. Michael Peroutka will do whatever he believes he will do to put an end to the genocidial practice of abortions by overturning Roe Vs. Wade.
Psssssst. Peroutka could promise you that Christianity would become the official religion in America...and it would mean as much as his other promises. Nothing.
Is it starting to dawn on you that your "candidate" is nothing more then smoke and mirrors?
I'm not so sure if you really know my intentions of voting for Peroutka but here in good old Southern California, conservative Republicans like myself are really pissed the fact that Pres. Bush are not doing a damn thing to protect our borders and John Kerry on the other hand wanted to give a fast-forward amnesty to illegal aliens in his first 100 days in office.
I have to make a conscious decision on whether to support a presidential candidate who wanted a slow-motion amnesty like Bush compared to a fast-forward amnesty like Kerry. So, I decided that Peroutka is the "man" to put an end to the illegal alien problem in his first year in office by authorizing Congress to put the National Guard near the borders of Canada and Mexico. According to the Pew Research Poll conducted early this year, 82% of Republicans want to end illegal immigration and 75% of Democrats also wanted to end illegal immigration once and for all.
So if the pollsters say that the majority of Americans wanted to end illegal immigration then why on Earth are both open-border politicans like Pres. Bush and liberal Sen. John F. Kerry aren't talking about this important issue.
You have great people on TV like Lou Dobbs who constantly say to viewers like me that both Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry are ignoring the issue of immigration.
In fact, here in Southern California, you have the John and Ken Show on KFI 640AM who constantly criticized both Kerry and Bush as being too "wishy-washy" on illegal immigration.
Of course I do, you posted them in your #55 and #66. Of course now your claiming something else entirely different.
Strange...are you sure what your intentions are for voting for Peroutka?
Don't you get it? If you didn't vote for Bush, YOU VOTED FOR KERRY.
DO YOU PREFER KERRY?
Do your fellow Republicans know that?
Oh, it almost slipped by, let's not forget your answer 52 as well.
CWOJackson, I am deeply sorry if I made you mad. I mean, I am very honest of who I voted for a couple of days ago. I had a verbal argument with my friend, Walter who happened to be the President of a local College Republican Club at Mt. San Jacinto Community College. He was pissed off at me and I explained to my friend the same way I explained to everybody else that I always voted according to 'strict' conservative ideology.
LOL! You voted for empty promises...nothing more. There's nothing ideology about voting for the tooth fairy.
McClintock voters could have given the election to Bustamante, fortunately most conservative acted sensibly and voted for Arnold.
You say you are young, but you are not a child anymore.
Adults supposed to consider the consequences of their actions, not just do something "because if feels good.", and you want to throw a temper tantrum to "show them".
The consequence of voting for McClintock could have given us Bustamante, the consequence of voting for a third party candidate in this election may give us 8 years of Kerry.
Is THAT what you want? What kind of conservative would prefer Kerry to Bush?
YOU CAN NOT "CHANGE YOUR VOTE" NOW,HAVING ALREADY VOTED;UNLESS YOU ARE A LIAR.
You are a prime example of just why the voting age should be changed and adjusted to a higher age......say at least 30.
Then WHY are you or claim to be a registered Republican, even treasurer of your Republican club, if you hate Republicans?
Error
Error
Error
Error
This poor child has less than no clue.And doesn't belong on FR either;for that matter.
FairOpinion, McClintock voters would rather vote with their upheld conservative beliefs than vote for a RINO like Arnold who is pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, anti-gun, and wishy-washy on key conservative issues.
Tom McClintock is the most qualified and the most favored conservative to win in the Governor's office right before Arnold decided to run for Governor due to pressures from his wife Maria Shriver, a Kennedy.
Besides, I voted for Tom McClintock last year for the first time in voting in an election and I will vote for Tom McClintock again in his 2006 primary race for Lt. Governor and his campaign to be California's next Lt. Governor.
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.