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.
2. No, I haven't accused him of a crime.
Another lie.
I heard you the third time.
Political donations essentially buy lobbyists access to a politician, they do not guarantee funding or a line item in favor of your business.
Its legal, and done all the time. This is why many republicans find socialism so intoxicating and have difficulty acting against it.
Some neo-conservatives have written about the subject calling it "corporatism".
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3054
An excerpt.
The economic Left likes corporatism for three reasons:
It satisfies its lust for power.
It makes possible attempts to redistribute income.
It enables them to practice #2 while remaining personally affluent.
The economic Right likes corporatism for three different reasons:
It enables them to realize capitalist profits while unloading some of the costs and risks onto the state.
The ability to intertwine government and business enables them to shape government policy to their liking.
They believe the corporatist state can deliver social peace and minimize costly disruptions.
--------------------- But you're not interested in debating this. You will simply sit there and say the word Liar,Liar,Liar over and over.
2. Its legal, and done all the time.
Another lie. You described an illegal act.
Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.
Welp, we've had the fund raiser. The regulatory obstacles are still present. So I'm not talking quid pro quo. But I do think that certain regulators will find themselve more "educated" when it comes to our needs.
You have deliberately misinterpreted my remarks to describe a crime. I never intended to give that impression. You only want that to be the case because it looks like its a debate you think you can win.
You were before.
He could be a Fed cop of some sort. His lack of original thought and blind allegiance makes him a good candidate. My money says he is just a wanna-be. He may own a police scanner so he can enhance his Walter Mitty existance.
Just don't expect anything like thoughtful discourd from him.
BTW, despite the likes of Roscoe, I voted for Allard today because I really despise Strickland.
Sorry, that was not my intent.
I do think that's how the game is played...within the boundaries of law, naturally.
Care to defend the windfarms now ?
I'm trying to argue in good faith here. We seem to be stuck in rut.
I'm sure we will pop out of it any second now and he will explain why True Conservatives (tm) need to be forced to subsidize windfarms.
I'm also curious to hear his explanation of why corporations spend so much time and money cultivating good Congressional relations when this should be utterly irrelevant in our free market.
Understandable...Most of my libertarian friends are voting Allard out of fear of the Dems.
What did Allard say? Reliable source, please.
Check out http://www.globeusa.org/globeusa/images/AllardStatement.pdf
Where he states " I have been told that 100 square miles covered with photovoltaic units would provide the US with all its energy needs."
What a dolt.
From his homepage.
Allard Earns High Marks for Support of Solar Source
Date Alamosa Valley Courier - Guest Opinion 6/8/2002 On Capitol Hill, it is far better to have a few staunch backers in your corner than an army of the mildly supportive. Fortunately for the U.S. solar industry, it has a solid, committed advocate in Colorado’s U.S. Senator Wayne Allard.
Let’s face it, the solar industry is small. Our $3 billion worldwide industry is dwarfed by giant energy players for whom $3 billion is the size of a single state’s market. Yet, when it comes to a roll call vote, solar power proves popular in our nation’s capital.
One reason the solar message gets heard in Washington comes from the power of opinion polls. Poll after poll across America shows citizens – voters – want increased government support of clean, renewable energy. In the last year, support for solar has ranged from a low of 84% in on poll, to a high of 91% in a pair of polls. When your poll numbers are in the stratosphere, you can often get your calls returned.
Yet even with chart-topping poll numbers, the solar industry has found Washington to be a rather cloudy place. For example, the Administration’s first budget at the Department of Energy and its national labs. Similarly, as tax relief for various industries has been adopted in recent years, the solar industry has not seen a dime of federal support.
Enter Colorado’s junior Senator Wayne Allard. From a state revered more for its snow than its sunlight, Sen. Allard has forged a leadership role in promoting clean, legislation to provide a 15% tax credit for homeowners who purchased solar power for their homes. The last such tax cut expired when Olivia Newton John topped the radio charts. Allard has worked tirelessly to promote his vision, and now the House and Senate have both passed this measure, and President Bush has endorsed it. It should become law later this year.
Senator Allard uses the popularity of solar, wind and other renewable to build support for the Senate Renewable Energy Caucus, which he founded in 1998 and now co-chairs with Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan. The Caucus has managed to corral membership from a highly diverse set of distinguished U.S. Senators, including both Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) and Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC). The Caucus is now one of the largest in the Senate.
But it is one thing to join a Caucus, another to make Caucus policies a priority. When the Administration proposed slashing research and development of solar power, including big cuts at Colorado’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Senator Allard intervened directly with the white House and helped bring about a dramatic turn of events. Virtually all of the proposed cuts were restored, and this year’s White House budget actually proposes a small increase for solar programs, despite the large increases set aside for our nation’s defense and security.
Leading Senators often become identified with signature issues. John McCain is known for his strong defense credentials and support for campaign finance reform, Tom Harkin for his support of the American Farmer. When they write the book on Senator Wayne Allard, there will be a chapter on his leadership on renewable energy issues, and tech jobs, and less dependence on foreign energy sources.
Now if we could only clone Senator Allard 99 times.
You mean Barry Goldwater who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and sided with the Dixiecrats? You mean Reagan who signed the Mulford Act as governor of California? Remember, the Mulford Act was blatant gun-control. And, the Reagan who did not dismantle the Department of Education and offered amnesty to illegal aliens?
Isn't it amazing how we pick, choose, then ignore that which is not expedient?
In the daytime you could't see me with a flashlight.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
I think the Civil Rights act set a dangerous precedent. I don't think the Feds should be able to tell a businessman who he can or can not exclude on his own property. The entire notion of property is based on exclusion.
Sec. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
For example, a Muslim in traditional dress walks into a gun store and asks to purchase an AK-47 and dozens of magazines. The owner refuses to sell and asks him to leave the property. While the owner may be bigoted and misguided, I think it is within the owner's property rights.
A person who is not racist because it is illegal is quite distinct from a person who is not racist because it immoral. Destroying the choice destroys responsibility.
Now we have slid to the point where a businessman can be arrested for smoking in his own bar. What's next, forced inclusion of homosexuals in the church? Why not, we've already established the Feds not the people as the ultimate moral authorities.
You mean Reagan who signed the Mulford Act as governor of California? Remember, the Mulford Act was blatant gun-control. And, the Reagan who did not dismantle the Department of Education and offered amnesty to illegal aliens?
I hadn't even born or been previously aware of this act. Interesting reading though, and blatantly unconstitutional.
You know, I hate to quote others to make a point. But I have to in this case. My late uncle had a saying that I never understood as a child, but boy do I get it now: "You got what you wanted, but you lost what you had." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 perfectly exemplifies this point.
I hadn't even born or been previously aware of this act. Interesting reading though, and blatantly unconstitutional.
What are you talking about? I wasn't on the scene yet until late '71 myself. But I knew about this. I'm not calling you a hypocrite, but I find it amazing how Reagan (as he should be) is lionized, but he did things that people nowadays would crucify Dubya over.
Again, not pointed at you, but I hate hypocrisy.
No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
Good expression similar to: Democracy is the idea the mob knows what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard.
What are you talking about? I wasn't on the scene yet until late '71 myself. But I knew about this. I'm not calling you a hypocrite, but I find it amazing how Reagan (as he should be) is lionized, but he did things that people nowadays would crucify Dubya over. Again, not pointed at you, but I hate hypocrisy.
Its a good point and I will keep it in mind.
I asked for a reliable source, not sourceless invention.
Here's a view of Strickland versus Allard from the "Green Nature" site:
The candidates' environmental records could not be more polar opposite. Strickland is both a founding member and current board member of the Rocky Mountain Advisory Board of Environmental Defense.Allard, on the other hand, could legitimately be called a legislator who never met an environment related piece of legislation that he liked. According to the League of Conservation Voter's Scorecard, Allard received a 0% rating on his environmental record for his votes on environmental legislation during the 1999 and 2000 Congressional sessions. He has made the LCVs dirty dozen list for the midterm elections. Additionally, the Sierra Club has run ads critical of Allard's environmental voting record in their most recent environmental education campaign.
Allard's record, coupled with the Bush administration's pro-oil and natural gas development platform, and their appointment of native daughter Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior, sparks concern among the environment focused electorate.
http://greennature.com/article780.html
And let's not leave Stanley out. Another comment posted at the site:
Don't forget about U.S. Senate candidate Rick Stanley from the Libertarian Party. He's the only candidate who will demand polluters cease their crimes immediately and face judicial penalties (Including restitution which would mean the polluters pay for cleanup - NOT TAXPAYERS). Allard and Strickland both favor the status quo which means giving polluters years and years to stop... in the meantime hurting countless others in the process.
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.