Posted on 05/28/2002 4:07:09 PM PDT by Dave S
Tuesday, May 28, 2002 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
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.
Assuming that's true, so what? The WOD is a freedom and limited government issue. That's why it's important to Libertarians.
You made many accusations. I'll try to address a few.
Legalization of ALL illegal substances, the legalization / decriminalization of prostitution...
No, not all illegal substances. Illegal drugs and prostitution, yes.
...abortion for anyone at any time ... even partial birth abortion is okay...
There is no consensus in the Republican party on abortion one way or the other. They party claims to be pro-life but does little or nothing to enact criminal penalties for abortion. In fact, Republican legislators routinely vote in favor of Welfare State programs. So, you're hardly in a position to paint the LP as pro-abortion. Not all Libertarians support abortion.
...KIFFIE porn...
You and others see fit to perpetuate the lie that the LP supports child porn. You have been called on that lie on several occassions in the past but you persist in spreading it.
ALL " nonvilolent " criminals should be set free.
No, not ALL non-violent criminals. Although fraud and embezzlement are non-violent crimes, persons convicted of said crimes would not qualify for pardon. Persons convicted of victimless crimes (like drugs and prostitution) would.
We would lose far more FREEDOM , of dope was legal. The socalled " nonviolent " criminals, whom you and the LP want greed from jail, are whores , dope dealers, and people who have committed horrible crimes, who wind up copping pleas for dope possesion , because of Liberal lawyers and judges, who hamstring police efforts at every point of trial. It's like Capone being sent up on tax evasion.
Fetting bak to the thread's topic, the LP has now been tottally expoused for what so many FREEPERS already knew they were : DOGS IN THE MANGER ; just " spoilers " , whose bogus claims to the contrary, woud rather have this counry run by the Dem , since Libertarians shall NEVER become a majority party !
I find it interesting that so many claiming to be Christian make it a point to inform others that they're Christian. As though doing so automatically places oneself on the moral high ground, or somehow lends legitimacy to one's position, or proves the correctness of it. Perhaps it's just a way of absolving oneself of having to construct a logical argument to defend one's position. With respect to being Christian, all that really matters in the end is wether or not God thinks you're a Christian.
We ARE our brother's keeper.
You are the keeper of the one called Malcolm and no other.
To support legalized drugs, by itself alone, is anti-Christian.
According to who?
Recognition and respect for rights and private property is not advocacy of a secular sinless lifestyle.
A truly Marxist anarchist view of things.
How can something be Marxist and also anarchist? Two philosophies on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Deliver unto Caesar what is Caesar's, etc...
If you want to preach from the pulpit, or get in the face of drug users and chastise them for their sinful ways, go door-to-door trying to convert sinners or set up a Christian drug rehab center I will support your right to do so with my very last breath.
If you think that having jack-booted thugs kicking down the doors of dopers, murdering or incarcerating them is your right, that's where we part ways.
In other words, please quote to me from the Bible where it gives you the authority to murder someone for drug use and I'll be willing to support your position. (Version of bible, chapter and verse, please. Vague interpretations will be summarily rejected.)
Since you can't, I'll assume that you are just another person that wants to meddle in everyone else's business.
This has been debated and refuted ad nauseam.
I just got through explaining to you that the Libertarian position on crime is that only people who harm others belong in prison. Now you state that Libertarians want to free from jail, "people who have committed horrible crimes." You make no distinction between acts which harm others (fraud, murder, rape, theft) and acts which do not (prostitution, drugs). I just got through explaining to you that persons convicted of fraud and embezzlement would not qualify for pardon. So why do you say that Libertarians want to free people from jail who have committed horrible crimes?
Capone should not have been tried and convicted of income tax evasion because there should not have been an income tax to evade in the first place.
Boy, what a compelling argument! I bet you worked on that all day. Any other wisdom you care to impart?
It's this "We're going to mess things up until we get our way" attitude that really makes me bristle. I guess it's just easier for some individuals to throw a fit and break things.
Over all, Barr is the man. We have no way to judge Libertarians. They never get elected to anything important...And for them to push the dope issue over RKBA? It will cost them dearly.
What means Right of private propery? IF it is right of consumption of private property, you are just as low as when the UN advocates the rights of the poor to feed. Gees, is slavery legal too?
So it is if it does not respect the balance of powers and the needed war against corruption they promote.
How can something be Marxist and also anarchist? Two philosophies on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Can you say picking and chosing from each?
Why, you ask?
Because Libertarians are snotty nosed, all or nothing whiners. Libertarians are lazy. If they can't get their way on EVERY little thing, they would rather attempt to defeat the candidate who is closest to their point of view than defeat the candidate farthest from their viewpoint. Wow, you gotta wonder about people who shoot one of their toes off instead of clipping the nail.
They are idiots. There is no reasoning with their holier than thou attitude. There is no compromise. So they fail again and again and again ad infinitum. Libertarians ought to change their name to the Don Quixote Party. It'd be more descriptive.
Yes, but those votes happen to be important. They are not votes for limited government and freedom. And when a Congressman consistently votes the wrong way on the same issue then we have a problem.
That's great about Bob Barr's rating from GOA and everything. Why did he get a "B" and not an A+? An "A" rating from the NRA doesn't necessarily mean anything. The NRA wants to enforce existing gun laws. Why not repeal them?
We have no way to judge Libertarians...
Sure you do. Examine their voting records.
And for them to push the dope issue over RKBA? It will cost them dearly.
While I don't doubt the WOD issue has cost the LP it is no less important than the RKBA. The WOD issue is about unreasonable search and seizure, violations of private property, the deaths of innocents in botched drug raids, the escalation of gang warfare, government waste, law enforcement corruption, foreign-aid and international interventionism, etc.
So far, LP has proved they can tank Republicans. Other than that? Leadville City Council is now under their control. Progress? 31 years and this is all? Ross Perot blew them out of the water in '92.
These votes were not that important or Barr would not have gotten an A- from GOA.
Sorry, I am not willing to toss a strong supporter of RKBA over the side because some want to legalize hemp.
As for the WOD? In Missouri we have exploding meth labs. Autos are being used to transport these labs. I've seen mobile homes with their roofs peeled back like sardine cans. This stuff is more like toxins than drugs. Very destructive to users and those who fall victim to their burglaries, robberies, and assaults. Sorry, "been there, done that as they say." Pointless to argue WOD with me. I've seen the dark side, up close and personal. A bit more involved (at one time) than philosophical discussion.Many of these people are happy that someone took charge of their miserable, pathetic lives and tried to ween them off this poison.
And I find it real strange that you 'christian' types want to be my 'keeper' at the point of a gun. I don't recall Christ ever threatening anyone with a weapon.
L
They are the new Stupid Party.
To be really useful in the cause of liberty, they ought to be running candidates in areas with uncontested seats so as to enable them to get some of the population, at least, thinking about the drift away from the Constitution and even from America's founding ideas over the last few generations. Of course many excellent libertarian people do that now, unfunded mostly; they're good guys!
Instead, for ego reasons I suspect, Libertarian Party dons choose to run in well-funded high-profile races to gain exposure for their personalities, such as they are. Harry Browne, for example, is a world-class stiff. He made Al Gore look like Robin Williams.
It is certainly worthwhile to use the election periods as opportunities to educate the young and to remind the elderly of the decline of American virtue in their own lifetimes. That's wher LP efforts should go...if they want to be useful.
Obviously, Republicans are to be generally preferred to Democrats in these days, but we cannot know if the Republicans will turn out to be guarantors of the Constitution and of the American experiment in self-government and liberty or not. So keeping the 'Libertarian' name alive is a good thing,.;^)
The American 'experiment' is always in the people's hands, I suppose....
Hundreds of Libertarians hold, or have held, public office including Mayors and State Assemblymen.
Ross Perot blew them out of the water in '92.
By spending $20-million of his own money to get his message out.
Al Gore and GWB each took $67-million in taxpayers' money to get out theirs.
These votes were not that important or Barr would not have gotten an A- from GOA.
Unimportant to you perhaps. What of his other votes to continue and increase funding for the Depts. of Agriculture, Education, Labor, HHS, etc.?
As for the WOD? In Missouri we have exploding meth labs...Very destructive to users and those who fall victim to their burglaries, robberies, and assaults.
Yes, all made possible because of the criminal underground created by the WOD.
Why are there no exploding alcohol distilleries in Missouri? Why are there no burglaries, robberies, and assaults by people trying to finance their alcohol habit? Why are there no liquor pushers in schools, on playgrounds, and on street corners? Maybe it's because alcohol can be purchased in stores. Maybe it's because a criminal underground cannot compete with legitimate distilleries.
Ross Perot had more than $ going for him, at that time. Before he "lost it." LP had been around for 20 years when he came on the scene-politically.Left them in the dust.
LPs can TALK a good game, but reality check? No one knows what they can do (at the national level.) Other than of course the Liberty Cmte. Most famous Libertarian, Ron Paul is a Republican. That says quite a bit to me.
Believe it or not, we do on occasion have exploding stills in Missouri. Much crime is still committed by those on alcohol. The $ now goes to a few, i.e. Augie Bush clan, Adolph Coors, Seagrams,etc.
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.