Posted on 11/01/2002 10:07:17 AM PST by AdamSelene235
The balance of power on Capitol Hill could rest on the shoulders of a politician who has been censured by his own party and arrested three times this year.
It's a long shot, but that's one scenario spinning out of the poll numbers in Colorado's neck-and-neck U.S. Senate race.
Recent polls suggest the race between Republican Sen. Wayne Allard and Democrat Tom Strickland could be decided by as little as 1 percentage point.
Meanwhile, those same polls show Libertarian renegade Rick Stanley siphoning about 3 percent of the vote - and taking slightly more from Allard than Strickland.
If Stanley did end up hurting Allard, it could cost Republicans a chance of taking over a majority in the U.S. Senate.
Then, at least theoretically, as goes Stanley, so goes the Republican agenda on everything from the war in Iraq to judicial nominations.
"It is theoretically possible," said pollster Paul Talmey. "It ultimately could affect whether Democrats have a majority. Maybe the whole universe tilts on Rick Stanley."
Republican Katy Atkinson agreed that the "Stanley factor" could come into play this year in Colorado - as Green Party candidate Ralph Nader did in the down-to-the-wire presidential contest in 2000.
"In this close a race . . . and with all the toss-up races in the Senate, wilder scenarios than that have proven out," Atkinson said.
"Anytime you have a close election, that's really the only time these third-party candidates are significant. A mainstream Libertarian candidate would probably be drawing from Republicans. Stanley is so far out on the fringe, I'm not sure who he is drawing from," she added.
Stanley is a self-described "attack dog," defender of the U.S. Constitution and the right to bear arms.
Three times this year, he has been arrested for flouting gun control laws by carrying a holstered handgun to public campaign events.
Much of his campaign has been waged over the Internet, and he got into hot water with Colorado Libertarian Party officials after forwarding e-mails suggesting that Allard be put on trial for treason and "hung if found guilty."
Stanley thinks most members of Congress are guilty of violating the U.S. Constitution for pushing laws that threaten civil liberties in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Stanley survived his intraparty challenge with only a censure.
He scoffs at critics who have dismissed him as a "renegade, bomb-throwing, anarchist nut case."
And he takes glee in the comparisons to Nader, who took 97,488 votes of disaffected liberals in the 2000 election in Florida, which Democrat Al Gore lost to George W. Bush by an official tally of 537 votes.
"These people in the Democratic and Republican parties who are incumbents need to have a message sent to them," Stanley said. "We're letting them know that the status quo is not acceptable.
"We may not be able to mount a party that has more than a third of the vote, but we can help decide who's going to be in there."
Allard and Strickland have been taking turns on top of the most recent Rocky Mountain News/News4 polls, conducted by Talmey-Drake Research and Strategy Inc.
A poll released Thursday showed Strickland leading Allard 41 to 39 percent, with Stanley taking 3 percent. Another 11 percent were undecided, and 6 percent of respondents would not answer or were voting for other candidates.
Also in the race are American Constitution Party candidate Douglas "Dayhorse" Campbell and John Heckman of the Concerns of the People Party.
Among people who said they had cast early ballots, Stanley had gotten only 2.1 percent of the vote, compared with 43.7 percent for Allard and 41.9 percent for Strickland.
Allard campaign manager Dick Wadhams points out that because the Libertarian Party calls for legalizing marijuana, its candidates sometimes take votes from Democrats in liberal enclaves.
If Stanley ends up taking more votes from Allard, however, "The reality is there's nothing we can really do about it," Wadhams said. "I don't lose a lot of sleep about it."
Still, as Election Day approaches, Stanley said he has been besieged with e-mails from worried and angry Republicans.
As one missive reads: "If Strickland wins, the blame rests on the rump-sitters, (expletive deleted) moaners and the Bush-bashing, whining, fifth-column Libertarians and third parties promoting divisiveness, dividing and conquering the electorate so the one world, secular global socialists can win."
Stanley fired back: "I am personally taking great satisfaction in bringing you lying, treasonous, sorry excuse for Republicans masquerading as conservatives to your knees. You all deserve it."
Speculation about the Stanley factor fits into the traditional eleventh-hour fire sale in American politics. At the end of hard-fought campaigns, theories by pundits and journalists are a dime a dozen.
Still, it's no secret why the latest scenario is getting attention, Atkinson said. "When it's that close, every little thing can make a huge difference."
Even little ol' Rick Stanley.
You say you don't like government regulations, you don't want more taxes, but your vote will accomplish exactly that.
I spoke with Allard about the fiscal burden of government. He seemed to think it was not that high. I specifically questioned him on tax code simplification. He evaded the question. He didn't seem to have any enthusiam or sense or urgency regarding taxes.
Stanley, on the other hand, while lacking Allard's education and prudence, will jump up and down and scream that taxes are theft. Frankly, I agree.
Over-regulation and high taxes are the source of a Senator's power.It allows them to pick and choose which businesses will succeed. Why would they act against their own interests?
Yes, but both believe it is their right to rob me. Getting robbed is one thing, but groveling at the muggers feet and saying you deserve to be mugged is another.
I always love this. If you remember the actual tally would have been well into the thousands but Algore and democrat vote fraud gave Algore more votes, so the official certified tally is onyl 537 votes.
If Libertarians or any other malcontents, really cared about taxes, they'd vote strategically for the party that has lower taxes as a stated part of their platform, has created legislation eliminating taxes and has actually done it...the GOP.
To vote in a way you know will do nothing but raise taxes (allowing Democrats to win), shows that you are either stupid or lying.
I love it when you guys talk about "principles". That's always my favorite part.
It wasn't a campaign event. But even if it was, why should that effect what he says? I expect Senators to be true to their word and carefully and thoughtfully form their policies. You've already scoffed at the notion of acting on principle, I suppose you're willing cave to the Greens and Dems when "necessary".
Why provide a theif with the illusion of consent? If I am to be robbed and forced to purchase windmills which I know will fail, fine. Don't ask for my consent. Just threaten my life and my property and steal as much as you can. He has the power to dominate and control his subjects financially. He believes it acceptable to buy votes by investing in a fundamentally flawed technology. These things are obvious. Just don't ask for my approval.
I say you're lying.
I say you're lying.
All perfectly legal, mind you. Heck, I'm a shareholder in the company in question. We've already brought our product to market in China, but the US is a regulatory nightmare compared to China. Amusingly, the product was developed with American tax dollars. Ironic,no?
That's illegal.
All perfectly legal, mind you.
That's a second lie. Helping a company "exclude itself from burdensome regulation in exchange for a fund raiser" is illegal.
Pretty ironic that you were attacking his alleged dishonesty, when your own posts are full of them.
If you really cared as much as you claim, you'd be terrified to gamble with the possibility of a Democrat winning, because then your every stated nightmare is sure to come true.
Grow up, these absurd arguments are tiring and make you look silly.
Yeah, right. I suppose all those Senators receive corporate donations because businesses are deeply concerned with the democratic process.
All perfectly legal, mind you.
That's a second lie. Helping a company "exclude itself from burdensome regulation in exchange for a fund raiser" is illegal.
Oh, its not a signed contract or anything. It just kinda works out that way. There are perfectly legal ways of influencing Congress's behavior. The corporate welfare system is quite sophisticated and responsive to the needs of its designers.
Pretty ironic that you were attacking his alleged dishonesty, when your own posts are full of them.
I'm just calling them as I see em. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, right. You've falsely accused him of a crime, and now you're trying to spin your way out of it.
I don't know how honest Mr. Allard is or isn't, but your dishonesty is readily apparent.
The Governor is also a RINO and has predictably caved on gun control among other things. To quote Owens on the subject "What are gun owners going to do, vote Democrat?" Don't stab me in the back like that and expect my future co-operation.
which would have some say in the dreaded windmill threat
Its symptomatic of a larger problem. And he tried to BS me on the subject which didn't improve my view of him.
If you really cared as much as you claim, you'd be terrified to gamble with the possibility of a Democrat winning, because then your every stated nightmare is sure to come true.
The Republicans are 10X better than the Dems but the Good Cop/Bad Cop routine is getting old.
Grow up, these absurd arguments are tiring and make you look silly.
I don't see anything immature or absurd about this line of arguementation. Allard clearly thinks the Greens are more important that the LP. Perhaps he's right. I am simply not interested in compromising with Socialists.
No, I haven't accused him of a crime. I've merely explained how one legally gains political influence in this country.
I don't know how honest Mr. Allard is or isn't, but your dishonesty is readily apparent
Ok. Why don't you try defending windmills or do you find name calling easier?
Electing whom? Socialists? No, in that case I'd vote dem.
Why don't the R's run someone who isn't embarrased to clearly state their beliefs on taxation or socialism.
If not a Goldwater how about at least a Reagan? I haven't heard much talk about limited government out of the R's lately.
I believe that is what I just said.
I see you have also resorted to name calling rather than debate.
Good day.
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.