Libertarians are big time spoilers in Gov races

ma-firearms@world.std.com ^ | 11/6/02 | Ioffe

[pabianice]

* means NRA endorsment. Grade is the NRA grade.

Alabama:

*(D) Siegelman 674,052 A+

(R) Riley 670,913 A

(L) Sophocleus 23,242

Oregon:

(D) Kulongoski 493,385 C+

(R) Mannix 490,745 A

(L) Cox 47,444

Wisconsin:

(D) Doyle 800,958 F

*(R) McCallum 732,781 A

(L) Thompson 185,085

Wyoming:

(D) Freudenthal 89,407 A-

*(R) Bebout 85,556 A+

(L) Dawson 3,800

Not to mention that Thune will probably lose South Dakota Senate seat by a smaller margin that the Libertarian in that race got...

(D) Johnson 167,481 C+

*(R) Thune 166,954 A

(L) Evans 3,071

So basically Libertarians brought 2 anti-gun governors, and possibly kept Daschle's clone in power. My question is why Libertarians run against good pro-gun candidates? I realize that there are other issues besides guns. Meanwhile people of Wisconsin have to wait another 4 years for gun licenses...

[pabianice]

Food for thought.

[tdadams]

Here we go again...

[anniegetyourgun]

Stupidity, pig-headedness, political kamikaziism, silly notions of 'sending a message', etc., etc., etc.....

[EggsAckley]

BIG BUMP

[Only1choice____Freedom]

Go Green Party!!!

[BikerNYC]

And voting one's conscience....stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Skibane]

My question is why Libertarians run against good pro-gun candidates?

You already have your answer:

... there are other issues besides guns.

[jlogajan]

Excellent. Message to Republicans -- stop selling out to lilberal leftist big government programs. If Republicans were really for small government, low taxes, low regulation -- then Libertarians wouldn't be able to run against them.

[gore_sux]

Libertarians are Democrats who can't bring themselves to vote for Democrats. Their votes have the same effect nonetheless.

[anniegetyourgun]

That's exactly what's lacking.

[AdamSelene235]

Libertarians are Democrats who can't bring themselves to vote for Democrats.

Not quite. I despise democrats and was thrilled at the Republican victory. Go forth and smite the Socialists !!

[BikerNYC]

Perhaps in some cases, but in most it is exactly what is happening. People vote for the Right-To-Life candidate, for example, because that issue is very, very important to them and their conscience compels them to cast their vote that way.

I begrudge no one who votes for the candidate they would most like to see in office. Those are the people who feel best about their votes, as opposed to the rest of us who perhaps voted for "the lesser of two evils."

[Drango]

Libertarians are getting to be worse than the French.

[AdamSelene235]

Stupidity, pig-headedness, political kamikaziism, silly notions of 'sending a message', etc., etc., etc.....

You say it like its a bad thing.

More than half of the Libs I know defected to the R's in the Senate race here in Co.

Gov. races are the *perfect* place to send a message. Or as my backstabbing anti-gun Republican Gov. Bill Owens likes to say to gun owners: "What are going to do, vote Democrat?"

[jlogajan]

Libertarians are Democrats who can't bring themselves to vote for Democrats. Their votes have the same effect nonetheless.

Bullsh*t! I've been a Libertarian for over 20 years. There were no Libertarians on the ballot in my location this year so I voted a straight Republican ticket. Stop lying.

[Mark17]

Go forth and smite the Socialists !!

Roger that.

[BlackRazor]

Steve Largent also lost the OK governor's race due to a third-party candidate (though not a Libertarian).

Here's a question for all to ponder. Should conservatives be in favor of Instant Runoff Voting, in which voters list their voting preferences in order? If no candidate breaks 50% in the first pass, then the lowest vote-getter is dropped, and their votes are transferred to the voters' second-choices. This continues until one candidate breaks 50%.

Granted, this method probably would have meant Al Gore would have won the 2000 Presidential election. But on the whole, I think Republicans are hurt more by Libertarians than Democrats are by Green Party candidates.

I have yet to make up my mind on this issue, and have yet to see a comprehensive discussion of the pros and cons.

What are people's thoughts on this issue?

[Jason_b]

This could be easily fixed if when I vote, I can specify which #2 guy gets my vote if my #1 guy loses. In this information age, there is no excuse for not having that ability. Then if I want to vote for Constitution Party as #1, no one could yell at me for throwing my vote away, a vote many could argue should go Republican. Well, it would if I could specify the Republican candidate as my #2. The losing #1 minority parties would also have a better chance at competing with the #2 victorious parties which is why this will never be allowed to happen.

[Monitor]

<>Message to Republicans -- stop selling out to lilberal leftist big government programs.

Which "lilberal leftist big government programs" is Governor McCallum guilty of "selling out to"?

Maybe that info will comfort me while I suffer under an anti-Gun "lilberal leftist big government" DEMOCRAT governor for four years without any chance of concealed carry legislation missing his veto pen, but I highly doubt it.

[Congressman Billybob]

I don't know the source you used, but the Alabama numbers you show are wrong. On the official count, the Republican won narrowly, and the Democrat has already demanded a statewide recount.

The Alabama story is posted elsewhere on FR, now. Don't feel badly that you got it wrong. CNN has it wrong also on its wrap-up pages, as of this morning.

Congressman Billybob

Click for preview: "to Restore Trust in America" which predicted in August the theme of President Bush' press conference, yesterday.