Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The non-interventionist, free-marketing Libertarian Party is spoiling for a fight.
Fox News Website | Tuesday, May 28, 2002 | Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2002election; libertarianparty; libertarians; spoilers; warondrugs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-151 next last
To: Alan Chapman
Once again, Dane, how does that have anything to do with complaing about the free-market?

You are a lost cause Alan(just like most Lp'ers). In your reply #63 you were complaining about Perot spending his own money to further his political campaign.

Sheesh sometimes you all(Lp'ers) sound more strident than McCain. You all reveal your motives with your posts.

Nuff stated.

81 posted on 05/31/2002 5:07:42 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Here's a thought: Why doesn't the GOP actually do something about shrinking the size of government rather than just talking about it? Or perhaps really reduce taxes rather than just talk about it? Or maybe really get behind free trade rather than steel tariffs? Who knows... Perhaps they could steal a few votes away from the Libertarians!
82 posted on 05/31/2002 5:10:56 PM PDT by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
Ahhhhh yes, dear old rotter Woodrow Wilson. He's now a GOPer and a Conservative ? Far worse than his activities, were those of the French !

So, prostitution is a " victimless " crime, is it ? What about the girls and women who are forced into it ? What about the whores who use it as a way towards theft ; or worse ? What about the streewalkers who help to ruin a neighborhood ? As to " fraud "... what about the he/ shes , who pretend to be female ?

Finding it difficult to even bother to try to stand up for the LP's position on being Dem helpers, are you ? LOL

83 posted on 05/31/2002 5:15:55 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
I once thought I agreed with some of the principles of the Libertarians and actually gave them some money to build up the party, but that's OVER! Being in San Antonio, I listen to Carl Wigglesworth's on KTSA on my drive home. He's a total libertarian, but after hearing him DISTORT the truth so many times, I now think he's a total JERK! Further, the libertarians on FreeRepublic are right in there with him in my opinion. The Libertarian Party will never get another dime of my money!

I'm disgusted!

84 posted on 05/31/2002 5:22:40 PM PDT by Alissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
Prostitution belongs indoors, not on the streets. It is on the streets precisely because it is illegal to operate a brothel.

It is just as illegal to sell it on the street. Tougher law enforcement at least forces it off the street.

"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.

Even casual harassment, not rising to the level of assault, is enough to persuade people to avoid blighted areas.

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.

Theoretical distinctions between coercive and voluntary don't apply so cleanly to vices like prostitution.

As for children, anyone having sex with children should be brought up on rape and molestation charges and put in prison.

Sure. Prevention is even better.

BTW, welcome to FR.

Thanks.

85 posted on 05/31/2002 5:29:37 PM PDT by faintpraise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Dane
In your reply #63 you were complaining about Perot spending his own money to further his political campaign.

Not complaining. Making an observation.

Listen, why don't you run along and play now so the grown-ups can talk.

86 posted on 05/31/2002 6:00:34 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
So, prostitution is a " victimless " crime, is it ? What about the girls and women who are forced into it ?

The crime is the forced participation and not the prostitution itself.

What about the streewalkers who help to ruin a neighborhood ?

If they're on private property without consent then they've committed tresspass.

As to " fraud "... what about the he/ shes , who pretend to be female ?

You tell me. What about it?

...Finding it difficult to even bother to try to stand up for the LP's position on being Dem helpers...

Up until this point I haven't been challenged on that one. But, since you brought it up it really makes no difference to me if R's or D's win. They're both taking us in the wrong direction.

87 posted on 05/31/2002 6:11:44 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: faintpraise
It is just as illegal to sell it on the street.

A moment ago you expressed your concern that prostitution..., "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."

This occurs because the criminalization of prostitution has created a criminal black-market which has nowhere to go but the streets. It belongs indoors. I realize that it is also illegal on the streets but exactly how much success do you think somebody would have opening a brothel or advertising in the phonebook while it's illegal?

Even casual harassment, not rising to the level of assault, is enough to persuade people to avoid blighted areas.

Well, I'm afraid there isn't much that can be done to completely eliminate casual harrassment wether it's from a street vendor, pedestrian, beggar, somebody passing out flyers, petition worker, city employee, or somebody else.

Theoretical distinctions between coercive and voluntary don't apply so cleanly to vices like prostitution.

Either somebody voluntarily participates in something or they are forced/defrauded into participating. There's nothing theoretical about it. One is a crime. The other is not.

Prevention is even better.

It depends on what the prevention is. Surely you wouldn't want to prevent movie-goers from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater by taping their mouths shut when they buy a ticket. Nor would you want to prevent cavities by forcing people to display their teeth to government oral hygiene inspectors to make sure they're brushing.

That kind of prevention is called prior-restraint which is incompatible with freedom.

88 posted on 05/31/2002 6:30:43 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Please reread carefull (sic), what I said about prostitution being a quality of life issue, akin to broken windows. Married or unmarried, " Johns " aid and abet a criminal activity.

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. : - )

I agree that prosties should not sell their wares on the street, any more than I believe porn mags should be hustled there.

Having said that, Nevada has some counties that have legal prostitution, and I'll bet the "quality of life" and divorce rates are no worse than your average American county.

As to having to go back to the state of the nation at its inception, my best friend would respectfully disagree - for he has an acute aversion to picking cotton without remuneration.

89 posted on 05/31/2002 6:33:58 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
Hmmmm ...am I to then exptrapolate, from your post, that anything goes, as long as it is done on " public " property ?

Thank you for admitting that you don't care a whit, if Dems get to run everything . That honesty isn't as comendable as you wanted it to be however. LOL Sooooooooo , Having Clinton as president, was no worse or better,for you, than having Reagan in office. As long as the president and all high elected officals aren't Libertaraians, it doesn't matter at all to you which party they belong to, nor what they stand for. Very enlightening admission. : - )

You are quite a good example of political niavete and DOG IN THE MANGER politics. Add to that , that you know even less about crime, what actually ( unlike Libertarian UTOPIANISM ) works and doesn't work to stop it, and basic human nature, and it is little wonder that your posts are simply robotic repitions of preprogramed Libertarian rhetorical propaganda; absent of common sense, thought, and intellect. Ya know what ? Socialism looks good on paper too. LOL

90 posted on 05/31/2002 7:09:07 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
...am I to then exptrapolate, from your post, that anything goes, as long as it is done on " public " property ?

Your extrapolation is wrong.

...your posts are simply robotic repitions of preprogramed Libertarian rhetorical propaganda...

My views are my own which I've formed after hundreds of hours of reading and conversing with others. While they may mimic those of the LP they are no less valid because of it. I vote Libertarian because Libertarian candidates hold the same views as myself.

The rest of your post is simply a personal attack againt me -- ridiculing my style and such. It refutes nothing I've said and presents no case one way or another.

91 posted on 05/31/2002 7:24:03 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
At any one time, there are thousands of felons walking around. Call your local Sheriff's office. You'd be surprised how many wants/warrants are out-standing for felons. Read America's Most Wanted web site. US Marshal Service is busy in all areas of the country. Unfortunately, many still on the loose.

As for "non-violent drug offenders?" Non-violent perhaps. But that does not mean their behavior is cost free. Burglary, larceny, car theft, theft of CD receivers, wheels,etc. All ads up. In the hundreds of millions of dollars. Much of it to support their drug habits. Cocaine/Meth,Crack, etc. very expensive. I too would be homeless if I had to spend thousands a month to support my drug habit. Consequently, many turn to drug dealing, theft, prostitution,etc. Drugs are hardly "victimless."

I'll agree that many NON-violent offenders do not merit incarceration, tax offenders come to mind. Pot farmers with 6 plants? Hardly merit concern. Efforts should be focused on VIOLENT offenders. 70% of cops are killed by people who cannot legally possess firearms in the first place, i.e. felons. They are everywhere!

92 posted on 06/01/2002 6:06:32 AM PDT by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
#3: "Freedom should be fought for within the Republican party.

But that's exactly what Buchanan tried to do in '92 and '96.

After he beat 'Boner' Bob Dole in New Hampshire in '96, the Republican establishment attacked him (and us) in the most vile of ways.

I'll never forgive Pat for remaining with the R's in '96 and I haven't voted Republican since.

Considering this, your lofty statement about fighting within the party is just so much political garbage....

93 posted on 06/01/2002 6:16:36 AM PDT by Jethro Tull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
#33: When the L's decide to drop their absurd and deadly open border platform, I'll considering voting for them.

And this is coming from a former NYPD 'narc'...

94 posted on 06/01/2002 6:25:34 AM PDT by Jethro Tull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Jethro Tull
I'll never forgive Pat for remaining with the R's in '96 and I haven't voted Republican since.

Then you're a Gore voter, IMHO. You and the (big-L) Libertarians.

95 posted on 06/01/2002 8:04:32 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: donozark
As for "non-violent drug offenders?"...that does not mean their behavior is cost free. Burglary, larceny, car theft, theft of CD receivers, wheels,etc.

Burglary, larceny, car theft, etc., are crimes in which there is a perpetrator and victim. They should be prosecuted. If they are a threat to others, and have an inclination toward violence and mischief, then wether or not they were intoxicated is irrelevant. Not everyone who intoxicates himself is a threat to others.

Drugs are hardly "victimless."

If there is no unwilling party which has sustained damages then there is no victim. Thus, no crime.

I too would be homeless if I had to spend thousands a month to support my drug habit.

The consequences would be yours alone to bear.

96 posted on 06/01/2002 11:41:19 AM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
Again, your responses are mostly Libertarian theory. Not reality. You obviously have had little exposure to druggies and/or the criminal justice system. Again, reality bites.

People on drugs like meth,crack,etc. oft times cannot control their behavior. They (in most cases) do not mean to claw themselves. They do mean to prostitute themselves. They do not mean to break into homes,etc. Rather, they are COMPELLED to do so by the intensity of these drugs. The stuff out there nowadays is not "60s reefer." Far more deadly to those who use it, and those around them.

In StCharles,MO yesterday a third suspect was bound over for trial for the drug-related murder of a disabled woman. The disabled woman's former roomate went to her apartment with two others to borrow money to buy crack. Instead they killed her and robbed her. Happens all the time. Again, did they "mean" to do it? Or were they compelled by the need these drugs force upon people?

Few Libertarians have been present during a "child removal" from Family Services. Few have seen kids screaming and clinging to their worthless, drug addicted parents. Even fewer Libertarians have ever been in the "Big House." Wasted lives. Wasted resources. Yet, for some addicts, the only place they can "function."

As for homelessness? You state the Libertarian position of "the consequnces are yours alone." Again, not reality. Churches, helping organizations (Sallys, Red Cross,etc) rose to meet the demands of the indigent, regardless of etiology of their plight. It simply is not reality (in America) to see mass numbers of people living in the woods or on the streets with inadequate food, medical care, etc. as happened during the Great Depression.

It is fine for Libertarians to say "they brought it on themselves, so screw 'em!" But that isn't and doubtful will ever be the way things are done. Not in America. People such as the above, when left in an unattended condition can breed diseases such as pneumonia,TB. Airborne illnesses know no boundaries. "Victimless?" Hardly.

97 posted on 06/01/2002 12:40:28 PM PDT by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
#95: "Then you're a Gore voter, IMHO. You and the (big-L) Libertarians."

IMHO, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I never voted for Gore and I never would.

And again, I tried to stand and fight it out in the Republican party, but was rejected when we won in NH....

98 posted on 06/01/2002 1:02:12 PM PDT by Jethro Tull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: donozark
...your responses are mostly Libertarian theory. Not reality.

My ideas are based on common sense. If there is no unwilling party which has sustained harm from another then there can be no crime.

"It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another." - Lysander Spooner, Vices are not Crimes, 1875

You obviously have had little exposure to druggies and/or the criminal justice system.

Your assessment of my exposure really has no bearing on the discussion.

The [murdered] disabled woman's former roomate went to her apartment with two others to borrow money to buy crack. Instead they killed her and robbed her. Happens all the time. Again, did they "mean" to do it?

Well, I seriously doubt they killed her in self-defense. Wether it was murder or manslaughter is up to a jury to decide.

Few Libertarians have been present during a "child removal" from Family Services. Few have seen kids screaming and clinging to their worthless, drug addicted parents. Even fewer Libertarians have ever been in the "Big House." Wasted lives. Wasted resources. Yet, for some addicts, the only place they can "function."

Do you support alcohol prohibition? Some parents are alcoholics. Some parents are abusive and just all around bad parents even without drugs or alcohol. Some parents don't brush their childrens' teeth or change their diapers.

If by "Big House" you mean prison I don't believe drug addicts belong there. Neither do alcoholics or gluttons.

You state the Libertarian position of "the consequnces are yours alone." Again, not reality.

It is immoral for the state to coercively force the redistribution of wealth for "noble" causes. It is by individual choice that people decide to breed children that they cannot feed, clothe, house, and educate. It is by individual choice that people decide to intoxicate themselves or gamble their money away on lottery tickets. But, because some make irresponsible choices in life just not morally justify forcing others to lend assistance, financial or otherwise. Help rendered must be given voluntarily or it is theft.

It is fine for Libertarians to say "they brought it on themselves, so screw 'em!"

That isn't what Libertarians say.

But that isn't and doubtful will ever be the way things are done. Not in America.

This isn't an argument.

99 posted on 06/01/2002 3:43:55 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
The Libertarians can only "spoil" Republican victories if the GOP deserves it.

The LP can only siphon off GOP votes if the GOP betrays its small govt mandate.

100 posted on 06/01/2002 10:13:05 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-151 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson