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.
Prostitution is NOT a " victimless " crime. Let's forget, for the moment, what frequenting whores does to the family members of the " John ". Streetwalkers , just like dope dealers, and yes, carwindow washers, disrupt and harm a community. It's the old " broken window " and graffitti quality of life thingy. I guess that you think that legalizing prostitution would get whores off the street and into posh bordellos. You must live in a parralell universe, where everyone is reasonable, rational, brilliant, and oh so personally responsible. That's not what REAL life is like. Libertarians lack common sense and refuse to ever admit that their assumptions leave out millenial old knowledge of human nature.
The actual topic, BTW, of this thread, is about the now self outing of the true Libertarian position of spoiler. In reality, the LP is nothing more than a group of spoiled little kids, who , since they can't ever be the leader , want the WORST possible , very unConservative goal of Dem hedgemony. They'd have supported Hitler and Nazi goons too, I suppose . Waaaaaa, waaaa, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ... since Libertarians can't ever win a high elected position, then let the worst possible , most antifreedom candidates run everything. With such political geniuses making LP policy, Libertarians more than deserve the sorn and calumny heaped upon them by REAL Conservatives ! : - )
You said, "You can't judge one's voting record if they have none."
But they do have some. What difference does it make if the voting records are that of a State Assemblyman or a Congressman. Either the votes are congruous with individual rights, free-market capitalism, and private property or they're not. That is what's important. People who consistently vote for agriculture subsidies, government education, and gun-control do not belong in office.
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.
Ross Perot used $20-million of his own money to purchase half-hour blocks of TV time to run his infomercials. In addition, he was allowed into the debates and the Libertarian candidate was not despite being on the ballot in all 50 states.
Infidelity where no money is exchanged is often more devastating to a family - shall we throw cheaters in jail? Or if a "John" can prove to a court he's not married, he should be set free?
Only people who harm others belong in prison. I don't care how much damage they inflict on themselves. If they harmed no one they do not belong in prison. If they harmed another then they do. Wether or not they have a drug problem is irrelevant.
Prostitution is NOT a " victimless " crime.
Of course it is. Prostitution takes place between consenting adults. There is no coercive force involved. No fraud. There is no perpetrator and no victim.
They'd have supported Hitler and Nazi goons too, I suppose.
Uh, no. But, since you brought it up, the interventionist foreign policy of the US played a role in Hitler's rise to power.
Difficult to judge someone's voting record on RKBA in many cases. Abscence/prescence of a voting record at the local, state level doesn't mean too much, unless important issues of RKBA came along
As for Barr voting for all that other stuff? It would have passed anyway. He was one of the few that went after Klinton early on. Thus, he earned their hatred and now they are trying to pay him back. First gerrymandering his District so he must face Linder. Then a massive spending campaign. Will it be enough to trash him? Why help the Dems?
As for Perot? Sure $$ can't hurt. However, LP just wasn't connecting in 1992 (still ain't). He came along and BOOM! Perhaps if/when LP gets a strong candidate? Certainly not Harry Browne. He still thinks Ho Chi Minh was a democrat.
IMO? LP should work to gain strength in Republican Party via Liberty Cmte. Mechanism already in place. It is well known that if LP is going to draw additional voters, they will come from the Republican Party in most cases. Does the DNC have a "Liberty Cmte." (Libertarians) in their ranks?
Lastly, back to GA. B. Barr is supported by GOA/NRA and conservatives everywhere. The Georgia militia supports him. I hate to see him get tossed over the side for something we know will never pass (in GEORGIA?HA!) and that is, legalization or even decrease in prosecutions of drug offenses. Just won't happen. We are a nation at war. Such things get put on the back burner in times like these.
Felons on the streets can cost taxpayers up to $400K per annum via their crimes. At $30 per annum to "house" them? We are getting a bargain...
Yes, it has been a long week ; however , my horrible, battery run keyboard often has a will of its own. I also am perfectly abysmal at catching my own typos and as well as the ones I have no control over. I really am quite sorry that my post was so difficult for you to read.
I'm forced to ask what felons are doing on the street and why they're not in prison.
Of course, if you consider felons to include non-violent drug offenders then of course the thing to do is decriminalize drugs so the criminal black-market in drugs and gang warfare will go away. Then it will cost neither $400k or $30k. It will free up hundreds of thousands of prison cells in which to put violent criminals like murderers, rapists, and child molesters.
Of course it is. Prostitution takes place between consenting adults. There is no coercive force involved. No fraud. There is no perpetrator and no victim.
Prostitution is the kind of "victimless" crime that brings neighborhoods down and drives good people away. Drunk stoned men looking for sex harass and come after innocent women while addict hookers pester men. Don't forget the pimp slavemasters or the runaway children who work in this fine Libertarian occupation.
Wow a Libertarian complaining about the free market. Will wonders ever cease?
You know what Alan, your "uber-support" for the LP is a characture of what you are supposedly "against".
You are morphing into Hillary.
Prostitution belongs indoors, not on the streets. It is on the streets precisely because it is illegal to operate a brothel.
"Drunk stoned men looking for sex harass and come after innocent women..."
...and should be arrested and imprisoned for assault and maybe even attempted rape.
Don't forget the pimp slavemasters or the runaway children who work in this fine Libertarian occupation.
Unless somebody has been coercively forced to participate in prostitution your "pimp slavemasters" argument is irrelevant. If somebody voluntarily subjects themselves to that kind of lifestyle then I'm afraid you have no cause to interfere.
As for children, anyone having sex with children should be brought up on rape and molestation charges and put in prison.
BTW, welcome to FR.
Where did I complain about the free-market?
You know what Alan, your "uber-support" for the LP is a characture of what you are supposedly "against".
Huh?
Uh with this quote in your(Alan Chapman's) reply #63,
Ross Perot used $20-million of his own money to purchase half-hour blocks of TV time to run his infomercials. In addition, he was allowed into the debates and the Libertarian candidate was not despite being on the ballot in all 50 states.
Alan acting ignorant is no excuse.
How is that complaining about the free-market? I'm not even certain you're cognitive of the context in which I made that statement.
Once again Alan, here is your quote from reply #63,
Ross Perot used $20-million of his own money to purchase half-hour blocks of TV time to run his infomercials. In addition, he was allowed into the debates and the Libertarian candidate was not despite being on the ballot in all 50 states.
Wow! Alan, you seem to be complaining about Perot buying his way on to the political scene. Yep Perot bought his way on to the scene(with a little help from Larry King).
I will criticize Perot for being an irrational crackpot(who helped elect Clinton), but I won't criticize him for using his own money.
This exchange is amazing. I am being more "Libertaraian" than you are. Alan maybe you should lay off the weed.
Once again, Dane, how does that have anything to do with complaing about the free-market?
Adultery used to be a crime, dear. Anyone who wants to go back to the state of the nation, at the time of its inception, should also , then, logically want to reinsert that law as well. : - )
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.