The non-interventionist, free-marketing Libertarian Party is spoiling for a fight.

WASHINGTON — The non-interventionist, free-marketing Libertarian Party is spoiling for a fight.

The Libertarian Party is planning to challenge several incumbents in November in a so-called national "spoiler" strategy that could put vulnerable Republicans on more shaky ground and help stir the suspense over whether the GOP can hold a House majority and wrest back the Senate from Democratic control.

"We recognize there is a window of opportunity that did not exist up to this point," said Ron Crickenberger, political director for the Libertarian Party, which has about 30,000 members and contributors in the United States.

Crickenberger doesn't like to use the term "spoiler", but said the Libertarians see an opportunity to siphon off votes in critical districts as part of a national strategy to turn over the House and change domestic policy. All but one of the five districts targeted are Republican-run, and the incumbents are all on the hit list because of their heavy-handed support for the war on drugs and against the legalization of marijuana, a key issue for the Libertarians, whose bedrock beliefs are less government and personal freedoms.

"In this country, what we’ve looked at is how out of touch the drug policy is with the public polling," Crickenberger said, noting that so far eight states have passed medical marijuana laws despite a federal ban. A Pew Research Center/Gallup poll conducted in March showed 73 percent of voters support the medical use of marijuana with a doctor's prescription.

Among the candidates targeted for defeat are Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Tex., and Rep. Tim Hutchinson, R-Ark.

Also on the list is Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., who is locked in a tight primary race with Rep. John Linder. Whoever wins the primary is a surefire winner in this heavily Republican conservative 7th District, though Crickenberger would like to see both of them go.

"If we can take out, or help to take out a few of the drug war leaders in the course of the general election, we feel we will have a big impact on the issue in Congress," he said.

In a recent statement, Barr said he didn’t have the time to worry about the Libertarians, with whom he doesn’t agree on many issues.

"The centerpieces of the Libertarian agenda include legalizing drugs, gambling, prostitution and pornography, as well as halting all restrictions on immigration," he said.

"These issues do not represent 7th District values, and I ask that all our candidates clearly and publicly distance themselves from these issues, and demand an end to involvement in our primary by the Libertarian Party."

Cleland, although taking "every candidate seriously," according to press secretary Jamal Simmons, is undeterred by his Libertarian opponent. He is in a tough re-election fight with whoever wins the much-anticipated Republican primary between Rep. C. Saxby Chambliss and State Rep. Robert Irvin.

"Max Cleland is ready to campaign against any candidate from any party in the fall," said Simmons. "He’s ready to take his 20-year record in national and state office and take it to the voters and win."

Libertarian candidates, who serve in 301 elected offices throughout the country, have acted as spoilers before. In 2000, Libertarian candidate Jeff Jared collected 64,000 votes in the Washington state Senate race that led to a recount and a 3,000-vote upset win by Democrat Maria Cantwell over Republican incumbent Sen. Slade Gorton.

And since the 2000 presidential election that saw Green Party candidate Ralph Nader strake off enough votes for former Vice President Al Gore to lose Florida, and thus the election, the impact of third parties is apparent.

"It isn’t a focused strategy of ours to target incumbents for defeat," said Green Party political director Dean Myerson. "But when you run strong, people lose"

Analysts say they doubt that the Libertarians will be able to pull off the spoiler strategy based on the drug issue alone.

"If I were a candidate I wouldn’t exactly shudder, but if I were the Libertarians I would give it a go," said Thomas Mann, co-editor of The Permanent Campaign and Its Future, who added that while the third party might not topple the incumbent, it might rattle some cages.

"You should be running to educate the people," said Stephen Hess, a political analyst with the Brookings Institution, who called the spoiler strategy "despicable and beneath the Libertarians.

"If everybody tried this trick it would be a country of multi parties in the worst sense," he said.

But Crickenberger said the founding fathers envisioned a "rotating process" that allowed for fresh ideas and new faces in Congress, and Myerson agreed, saying without a full multi-party process, smaller groups will continue to play the spoilers.

"It doesn’t have to be the this way, but as long as it does were going to run candidates," Myerson said.

Read an interesting story yesterday about the skyrocketing number of child-abuse cases in Missouri. It closely coincides with the HUGE increase in Meth use and production....No surprise that child-abuse is linked to this increased drug use...

This may be true. However, before there was a War on Drugs there were no meth labs and little child abuse resulting from increased drug use. When you see meth labs and drug dealers springing up all over the place it is the criminal black-market moving in to meet the demand instead of pharmaceutical companies and drug stores.

Also, there are other factors involved with regard to child abuse than just drugs. 50 years ago it was commonplace for one parent to work to support the family and one parent to remain at home to rear the children. Today it is commonplace for both parents to work and for MTV and Nintendo to raise the children. One has to ask why.

Alan my friend, you seem to have an explanation for everything. Most Libertarians do.

Do not Republicans, Democrats, and others also have an explanation for everything? Or, is this a uniquely Libertarian phenomenon?

This really digresses from the discussion and isn't an argument.

...this recent wave of increased meth use stems from individual users who cook meth to support their habit and not to increase their net worth. Again, hardly "victimless" crime.

Perhaps they wouldn't cook meth in homemade labs to support their habit if they were able to 1) get drugs by prescription from pharmacies under the supervision of a physician and 2) seek rehabilitation without fear of incarceration for revealing their habit.

We seem to be going around in circles with regard to what constitutes a victimless crime. I stand by my initial assertion that without an unwilling party which has sustained harm, and a perpetrator to inflict the harm, there is no crime and thus no victim.

Your definition of victim could be construed to include alcoholics. One could argue that they are victims because they can't control their urge to intoxicate themselves.

When the state decides to make crimes out of activities which are not crimes then abuse, waste, and corruption are the inevitable results. We've seen it with the WOD and alcohol prohibition.

The spiking numbers of late,are hardly indicative of MTV, Nintendo. Rather, increased use of a debilitating, expensive and incapacitating drug and corresponding spike in rate of child abuse.

But, the spiking numbers coincide with the WOD. Before the WOD there were no meth labs and child abuse as a result of meth. Before alcohol prohibition there was no such thing as "Bathtub Gin." People didn't have homemade distilleries.

Not sure who told you no one made hootch before Prohibition. Ever heard of the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania? Corn squeezins' were an Ozarks tradition prior to Prohibition. Prohibition merely caused the a$$et$ from production to pyramid. Guys with the ties got involved.

War on Drugs began LONG ago. I was in FL in the early 80s. Recent spike in meth production and some of the consequences thereof (i.e. child abuse) has only been documented so positively, fairly recently.

No, Republicans nor Dems do not have an explanation for everything. Would we be in this current mess?Libertarians seem to (have an explanation), at least those I have encountered. Unfortunately, it seems to be rather sophomoric. Drug problem? Legalize them. Immigration problem? Open borders. etc.etc. Sadly, we will never know if the LP "solutions" will ever work, as they have yet to be implimented after 31 years of existance. Perhaps someday?

Alan, seriously now, do you think ALL physicians would be willing to prescibe crack? Meth?,etc? Certainly not the ones I have met over the years.

Simply because there has been no crime committed does not necessarily mean there is no victim. And simply because someone is a victim, does not mean they are in such a state as a result of crime. Nothing is absolute. Innocents suffer. Always have, always will, unfortunately.

I did not make the claim that alcohol doesn't cause violent/deviate behavior in some individuals. I saw my share of that. But drugs like crack, meth? No comparison. Ever "wrestled" anyone on the old PSP? Not fun. Drunks? Unpleasant. Repulsive and on occasion dangerous, but the numbers of such (extremely violent)are minimal compared to hard drug users. Again, I have the advantage of experience as well as theory. Experience is a better teacher, I have the scars to prove it...

Although marijuana has been illegal since 1934 what we know today as the War on Drugs began in the early 1960's during the Kennedy administration and has been expanded by each successive administration.

My dad grew up during the 1940's and my mother during the 1950's. There was no drug-related gang warfare, crack babies, meth labs, or rising child abuse.

The proper response to child abuse is to remove the children from the abusive parents and possibly incarcerate the parents. But, this is the case with any child abuse. The circumstances which may have contributed to the child abuse are not the crime. The child abuse is.

No, Republicans nor Dems do not have an explanation for everything.

Really? Then why do we have hundreds of thousands of laws with thousands more being added every year?

Unfortunately, it seems to be rather sophomoric.

This isn't an argument. It is your personal opinion about ideas with which you disagree.

Immigration problem? Open borders

While the LP supports open immigration as a policy, it is not a solution. The Libertarian solution to the "immigration problem" (assuming for the sake of argument that there is one) is an end to the welfare state so that government handouts will no longer entice people to immigrate here for that reason.

Sadly, we will never know if the LP "solutions" will ever work, as they have yet to be implimented after 31 years of existance...

Actually, we do know if they work even when they're not implemented by Libertarians. We also know that when other solutions are tried, which Libertarians do not support, that they almost inevitably result in failure or the costs exceed the benefits. We don't have to look at just the policies of the last hundred years to know this. We can look back even further and in other countries as well.

...do you think ALL physicians would be willing to prescibe crack? Meth?,etc?

ALL physicians don't need to prescribe it. Only some. Do ALL physicians prescribe Ritalin and Prozac?

This line of reasoning is often used to curtail rights and violate property. Gun-control, environmental laws, anti-trust, anti-discrimination, minimum-wage, rent-control, price-control, labor laws, and sin taxes are all laws meant to protect "victims."

I did not make the claim that alcohol doesn't cause violent/deviate behavior in some individuals.

I didn't say you said that. But, you credited some child abuse with behavior caused by another intoxicant. I want consistency. Is child abuse resulting from meth ingestion worse than child abuse resulting from alcoholism? Or are they equally repulsive deserving equally harsh consequences?

...drugs like crack, meth? No comparison...Drunks? Unpleasant. Repulsive and on occasion dangerous, but the numbers of such (extremely violent)are minimal compared to hard drug users.

Not everyone who intoxicates resorts to violence. Some have more of an inclination toward violence than others. When they act on it, while intoxicated or otherwise, they belong in prison.

The cost of the War on Drugs has produced far worse consequences than the good it has supposedly accomplished. That's what's important. Gun-control advocates often herald the success of gun-control by pointing to an instance where a life was supposedly saved. But, they neglect to acknowledge a dozen other deaths that also occured as a result (like the Lubby's cafeteria incident in Texas in 1991).

You would be unsuccessful in getting ALL physicians to prescribe hard rugs. Do you ask for volunteers? Unfair to compare such drugs to Ritalin etal. Psychotropic drugs.

You do not have evidence that things would be better had we not implimented WOD. Mere conjecture.

Welfare state may entice some immigrants to USA. Abolish welfare and immigrants will stop coming en masse? Sorry, I have been in more than one Third World shithole. People there would kill their own mother's to get to America! Welfare or no. Just another Libertarian quick-fix. Sounds good. Just not reality.

Laws are being added by you guessed it-LAWYERS! That is what they do. Some laws initially were positive, then morphed into much more deadly areas, as well as unconstitutional areas. Reagan started out siezing property of drug kingpins. USA TODAY used to publish lists of governemtn auctions where one could buy Porsches, Vettes, mansions,etc. Then it evolved into the monster we all know-rusted out Chevy pickups, trailer homes,etc began appearing in the auction section. Indicating of course that "Bubba" was being adversely affected.

And what do Libertarians offer? Legalize drugs? Ya, right. Sounds like a Bono solution to Third World debt. "Just forget about it."

The thing about hard drugs is, if they in and of themselves do not ruin you, the government will...While I do not favor incarceration for mere drug use, I do favor some sort of forced re-hab. Methadone clinics did not stop heroin use and prescribing hard drugs will not stop their usage either. Another example of libertarian dreaming. But then, everyone must have a dream.

Reality, what a concept...

You would be unsuccessful in getting ALL physicians to prescribe hard rugs.

Not all restaurants serve alcohol. But, this is really irrelevant.

Do you ask for volunteers?

In a free society that's the only legitimate method of doing things which is compatible with rights and property.

Unfair to compare such drugs to Ritalin etal. Psychotropic drugs.

Not if the drugs have intoxicating effects and/or can impare judgement. Benzodiazepines are legally prescribed anti-depressants which cause the same effects as heroin. Ritalin is basically Speed.

You do not have evidence that things would be better had we not implimented WOD.

Sure I do. I have alcohol prohibition to submit as evidence. When it ended so did the gang warfare, law enforcement corruption, drive-by shootings, backyard distilleries, exortion, bribes, and rampant alcoholism that occured as a result of it.

Welfare state may entice some immigrants to USA. Abolish welfare and immigrants will stop coming en masse?

I never said they'd stop coming en masse but neither did you identify this as a problem. What I did say is that immigrants would not come here to get government handouts under the Libertarian solution to the "immigration problem."

I have been in more than one Third World shithole. People there would kill their own mother's to get to America! Welfare or no. Just another Libertarian quick-fix. Sounds good. Just not reality.

This is an argument to prove what exactly?

Laws are being added by you guessed it-LAWYERS!

They're being added by politicians who do not respect individual rights and property.

And what do Libertarians offer? Legalize drugs? Ya, right. Sounds like a Bono solution to Third World debt. "Just forget about it."

This isn't an argument.

Methadone clinics did not stop heroin use and prescribing hard drugs will not stop their usage either.

When it was legal to purchase heroin over the counter there was no epidemic of heroin addicts. How else is one to ween a drug addict off hard drugs without being able to prescribe drugs? Sure, they could try and quit cold-turkey. But, even people addicted to nicotine use patches with varying degrees of potency to ween themselves off the drug.

Where heroin is concerned, you are comparing present day America to a begone era. It isn't the same country.

Haitians tear down their homes and lash boards together for a raft so they can float to America and get welfare?

Alcoholism ended when Prohibition ended? Foolishness. Ending Prohibition merely re-directed profit$ to the guys with the ties. Granted, they cleaned up the product. Made it safe-unless one drinks to much. Provided millions of "legal" jobs, etc. Instead of "Bubba" getting a slice of the pie, Adolph Coors, Augie Busch,etc got insanely rich. Legalization of drugs would have same result.

Ending Prohibition merely directed the misery elsewhere as well. Primarily the poor. However, the rich do suffer as well. But they can afford it. Would they still be rich with a drug habit? Legal or otherwise? I could present evidence con-you could present evidence pro.

Ending Prohibition ended back yard stills? Been to the Ozarks lately? BATF issues many permits for "home distilleries." In the Ozarks, both kinds exist, permitted and unpermitted. Not that I am aware of any.

Again Alan, your arguements are good. But they are laboratory arguements. Untested for the most part. Conjecture. Theory.

Many pharmaceuticals are basically this or that. Still not the same thing.

So you want "volunteer" doctors to be the only ones who prescribe hard drugs? That is a new one to me! Thanks for the heads up. I'll probably run into a medical pro. friend of mine this weekend and run it by him. Is this a Libertarian proposal or one of yours truely? Curiosity-not sarcasm.

Again, if the LP is willing to toss men like Bob Barr aside for the arguements you have presented here, they will no doubt remain "one-percenters." Not exactly sure how much of your statements would be backed by the LP itself. If so, well, they apparently are falling on deaf ears. Or perhaps they have been and will continue to be resoundingly rejected?

Where heroin is concerned, you are comparing present day America to a begone era. It isn't the same country.

Gun-control advocates make the same argument with respect to guns.

What "era" we are in is hardly a compelling argument to support the abridgement of rights and expansion of police powers. If government focuses itself on doing its proper job, which is to protect people and property, then what "era" we're in doesn't matter.

Haitians tear down their homes and lash boards together for a raft so they can float to America and get welfare?

This is relevant how?

Alcoholism ended when Prohibition ended? Foolishness.

I didn't say alcoholism ended when Prohibition ended. I said rampant alcoholism ended. Per capita consumption of alcohol was already on the decline before Prohibition. When Prohibition was enacted consumption increased substantially. [source: Clark Warburton, The Economic Results of Prohibition (1932)]

Ending Prohibition merely directed the misery elsewhere as well.

People have a choice wether or not to behave responsibly. Because some won't behave responsibly is no justification to abridge the rights of everyone.

...your arguements are good. But they are laboratory arguements. Untested for the most part. Conjecture. Theory.

Your arguments consist of strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, and outright falsehoods. I've been patient with you because I know others are watching and learning. But, I'm growing weary of it. Don't call me names. Don't belittle my arguments. Either make your case or be done with it.

Huh?

...if the LP is willing to toss men like Bob Barr aside for the arguements you have presented here, they will no doubt remain "one-percenters."...perhaps they have been and will continue to be resoundingly rejected?

This really has no bearing on the discussion and is your personal opinion. You just got through accusing me of conjecture too.

I called you names? Where?

So you are using gun grabbers to buttress your shopworn position? Nonsensical.

It was you that said immigrants would stop coming here or at least slow down if the welfare magnet was turned off. Some (Haitians, etal) will come anyway. Have been for years.

You cite one text from 70 years ago for source of "rampant alcoholism." Fine. Is he the same guy that told you booze production ended when Prohibition ended? Ever heard of Junior Johnson? Lee Petty? Check out the car in Steve Earl's Video. A Roaring 20s model? Hardly. Again, REALITY!

Our original discussion began with Bob Barr being tossed aside by LP. Remember? That is after all, what the article was about (along with others).

I have made my case. You have been patient with me? What is THAT supposed to mean? You're a funny guy.

It was you that said doctors would voluntarily prescribe these hard drugs, not be compelled to do so (or words to that effect). Hence, my Q. about "volunteer doctors" being an LP idea or yours alone.

Now go ahead and rebut this with 70 year-old texts and LP policy statements. And please don't get impatient with me cause I'am really, REALLY scared!

I called you names? Where?

On one occassion you said, "...you seem to have an explanation for everything. Most Libertarians do." On another you said, "Libertarians seem to (have an explanation)...it seems to be rather sophomoric." Then you went on to refer to my ideas as, "...laboratory arguements. Untested for the most part. Conjecture. Theory." Ridicule and name-calling. Surely you can do better than that.

So you are using gun grabbers to buttress your shopworn position? Nonsensical.

No, you are using it. The arguments gun-control advocates use to support gun-control are the same arguments you're using for drug-prohibition -- that we must curtail the freedom of all because of the irresponsibility of a few.

It was you that said immigrants would stop coming here or at least slow down if the welfare magnet was turned off. Some (Haitians, etal) will come anyway. Have been for years.

I didn't say immigrants would stop coming here. I said they'd stop coming here for government handouts. Immigrants often risk death to immigrate to America because of the living conditions in the country in which they live. Did you have a point to make?

You cite one text from 70 years ago for source of "rampant alcoholism."...

This isn't an argument. It doesn't refute my statement. The age of the text has what bearing on it's truthfullness?

Is he the same guy that told you booze production ended when Prohibition ended?

I didn't say booze production ended when Prohibition ended.

Ever heard of Junior Johnson? Lee Petty? Check out the car in Steve Earl's Video. A Roaring 20s model?

This is relevant how?

I have made my case.

Ridicule and strawman arguments do not constitute a case. Stick with reason and facts.

You have been patient with me? What is THAT supposed to mean? You're a funny guy.

It means that I have chosen not to call you on your personal attacks and strawman arguments until now. But, since they've been a recourse of yours for several posts I thought I'd bring it to your attention that I don't like it.

If you can construct a logical argument, and then support it with reason and facts, then there is no need to resort to ridicule and strawman arguments.

It was you that said doctors would voluntarily prescribe these hard drugs, not be compelled to do so (or words to that effect). Hence, my Q. about "volunteer doctors" being an LP idea or yours alone.

In a free society and in a free-market people ought not be forced to provide goods and services that they might otherwise not provide. This is my position and probably the position of the LP.

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.