$710.96... The price of freedom.
Posted on 06/20/2004 6:55:30 AM PDT by Undertow
Vin Suprynowicz: Libertarians aim to 'cost Bush the election'
On June 14, the Seattle Times editorialized that the entrance requirements for the tedious, moribund, rigorously stage-managed turn-offs that today pass for our presidential "debates" should be loosened -- but not too much.
The paper's intent was to get Ralph Nader included. The solution? "It's time to reconsider the current format and the lock on presidential debates by the two major parties," the Times recommends.
Right on.
But wait. There still has to be "some cutoff point in voter popularity," the Seattlites immediately added. "Otherwise, George Bush and John Kerry would have to give equal network TV time to Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and Walt Brown of the Socialist Party," warned the Seattlites, evidently palpitating from the effect of too much Starbuck's. "If the debates were opened up to such candidates, there might be dozens of them."
The correct level of perceived public support for admission into the debates? Fifteen percent is too high, but 5 percent would be too low, the Times figures. Ten percent would be just right.
"What a bunch of idiots," comments Richard Winger of the San Francisco-based Ballot Access News. "Walt Brown is not gonna be in the ballot in more than three or four states ... the most he can get is six."
Winger is the national expert on this stuff.
"It would be a mistake in my opinion to ever invite Walt Brown," Winger agrees, since "There are four socialist candidates" from the warring branches of the dying movement "and they'll each be on the ballot in a handful of states."
Which means none has even a theoretical mathematical chance of winning the presidency.
If that were the only standard -- ballot status in enough states to theoretically win the White House -- how many candidates would debate?
Five this year, Mr. Winger replies. The Democrat and Republican, Ralph Nader, Libertarian Michael Badnarik, and the nominee of the Constitution Party. "It's conceivable if the Greens are stupid enough to nominate somebody other than Nader, there could conceivably be six, at the outside."
Mind you, if the presence of Walt Brown and David Cobb of the Greens was the price I had to pay for some lively, interesting debates where George Bush and John Kerry had to confront new and common-sense ideas from someone as principled, personable and articulate as Michael Badnarik, an Austin-based computer programmer and freelance lecturer on the Constitution, it's a price I'd gladly pay.
But this "dozens of candidates" stuff is getting to be an awfully geriatric bogeyman.
The Libertarian Party will be on the ballot in at least 46 states, and possibly all 50. Every presidential cycle, the Libertarian Party spends a cool million dollars petitioning for ballot position in enough states to be in position to conceivably win the presidency.
Why don't the handlers of George Bush and John Kerry want to confront someone like Badnarik in a debate? Because he's a personable, intelligent, coherent, philosophically consistent freedom lover.
I don't think George Bush could bat .500 on that list -- though I'll give him "personable." I suspect Sen. Kerry might have a little trouble in the "philosophically consistent" section.
I had dinner with Badnarik and his campaign manager -- City Councilman Fred Collins of the Detroit suburb of Berkley -- last Friday at the historic La Posta restaurant in Mesilla, N.M., just south of Las Cruces.
Fred Collins sets impressively achievable goals for the campaign. He figures if he can raise a few million dollars for TV ads, and place them only in the swing states, he can poll a couple of percentage points for Badnarik and the Libertarians in those states -- and cost George Bush the election.
What's that? Badnarik is just some wing nut who hasn't been proven in the heat of any real political contest?
Actually, Badnarik is a political Cinderella story. A man of modest means, he spent the past year travelling the country, campaigning for the Libertarian nomination, in a '99 Kia Sephia. He and sidekick Jon Airheart, a former University of Texas student impressed with Badnarik's ability to sell the libertarian message, covered 24,000 miles, hitting 36 states. Although Badnarik says there were days when they counted their dollars to see if they could afford a room and a meal and still have enough to gas up and reach the next town, in the process he has gained enormously in poise and confidence as a public speaker.
Badnarik had raised and spent $33,000 as of convention time in Atlanta three weeks ago -- he couldn't afford to stay at the party's upscale convention hotel and instead had to drive in for the candidate debate from a Days Inn across town.
Entering the Libertarian Party convention, Badnarik was running behind late entry Aaron Russo, the former Nevada gubernatorial candidate and producer of the film "Trading Places," who promised to bring a lot more money and drama -- and thus, presumably, press coverage -- to the party's presidential campaign.
Russo was leading after a close first ballot. But if Badnarik campaign manager Collins could persuade radio host Gary Nolan -- running third -- to drop out and throw his support to Badnarik, a coalition of the "Anybody But Russo" forces might just pull off a third-ballot miracle.
Next week: Russo blows the nomination.
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the books "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega." His Web site is www.privacyalert.us.
I'm not a lawyer but I think whichever slate wins the most votes goes to the electoral college, but if a party chose another party's slate, that's tantamount to voting for the candidate that the other party's slate committed to so there isn't really much of a crisis there. In your example it would be a roundabout way of voting for Bush so Bush's total votes (i.e. all votes for a Bush-committed slate) would have to be bigger than Kerry's.
$710.96... The price of freedom.
You are refusing to see the distinction between party and philosophy.
Here's the surprising thing - many people, in principle, agree with the LP or at least with major parts of it. The problem isn't the philosophy - elections in the US aren't about philosophy, they're about issues and there is a great gulf of difference between the two. Libertarians lose on the issues, not on philosophy. This is because people weight issues and the two majors tend to cover the space of issues that people actually weight heavily.
The problem is that most Americans don't care about the Constitution any more.
And most of the blame for that (in my opinion) is because it has been gutted, not by any President or Congress, but by judges, from the local level all the way up to the Supreme Court. They have gutted it and allowed it to be gutted.
People see their representative bodies passing and enacting laws, only to have them negated by the courts, and made-up laws and made-up rights being imposed on them by the courts under the guise of constitutionality.
Note: I am not a Libertarian.
The problem is with a lack of acceptance of the philosophy. If it were widely accepted, libertarians would either heavily influence one of the major parties or be a powerful force on their own.
Third parties do not have to, and in fact cannot, operate on different issues than the major parties. The issues are the issues. The key to a party is a coherent blend of positions on the issues.
I.E. Nader and a greenie doing it with Kerry, though Bush could do it with some conservative 3rd party groups like the constitutional party or something.
No, what I hate is the intrustion into personal rights, as well as the governmental corruption that it causes...
Are you aware that due to the war on drugs, the state of Missouri had to sue the Kansas City, MO police department for breaking state laws? You see, in MO, there's a law that states that if a state, county, or local LE agency makes a drug bust, any assets that are forfeited go to the state of MO. On the other hand, if the same agency assists the federal authorities in a bust, federal law says that the agency shares in any assets confiscated. Well, the people at the KCPD saw that state law as a hinderance to "good police work." So, what they did was anytime there was going to be a bust with a hefty take, just before the bust went down, the feds were notified about it, they made the bust (along with the assistance of the KCPD), and the KCPD got to share in the loot!
The problem was that on examination of the records, those busts were NOT the work of the feds. And consequently, the KCPD was breaking the law.
There are plenty of other cases like this, where the chances of confiscating lots of loot has LE agencies either ignoring, or outright breaking laws. Now, maybe it doesn't bother you when this sort of thing happens, but when anyone in LE is breaking the law, to me, that indicates serious trouble and needs to be stopped right away.
Mark
They realize that they cannot gain power by any other means.
When you get a chance to pull your head out of rectum-defalde, please review your comments.
Makes sense to me, because we all know Bush is more evil than Kerry. /sarcasm
So if those two Republican Senators had won, would we have seen the repeal of any federal gun laws? The abolition of any federal departments? A reduction in the size of the federal government? A withdrawal from the United Nations?
If the Republicans would actually follow their platform, instead of acting like democrats, then more people would vote for them.
"Those who will not be ruled by God [self-governed], WILL be ruled by tyrants!" -William Pitt as quoted by Matchett-PI.
So because Pitt says so it's true? I don't understand. Although I agree that there is OFTEN a correlation between atheists and those that worship the state, it is not always the case. I want individual liberty. I don't want the government to interfere with my private life regardless of whether it is guided by Christian or Muslim or secular principles. None of that matters to me. The state is growing too oppressive, I'll worship in my own way and live my life as best as I see fit. I'll allow no tyrant or theology to force its view upon my existence...
You win...It's clearly better for conservates to have Senator Maria Cantwell(D)in office...Washington State was the scene of one of the most closely fought U.S. Senate races as Maria Cantwell (D) defeated incumbent Slade Gorton (R) with a plurality of just 2,229. Libertarian Jeff Jared got 65,000 of the vote. Good job Libertarians. Good job.
Those are interesting quotes, and I'll not argue against them.
Whether or not you believe our rights are granted by God or by "natural law", often the overall objectives are the same. It is those that believe our rights are derived from the State that frighten me. That's when we start losing rights.
So is this pointed at me?
And I as well. However, because I want a severe reduction in the government (non-defense), I consider myself libertarian. I believe that a strong military, police, and courts are the only moral activities of the government. I think you'll meet up with many that consider themselves "l"ibertarians that feel the same way, regardless of what the LP is saying at the moment.
I'd call myself a full conservative, but unfortunately there are only a handful of actions by conservatives in the last 60 years where it can be proven that they are indeed for a reduction in government. Those are just the facts. It's not a condemnation of any member of this forum in particular, I just think that the leadership of the GOP right now is out of touch with the individualistic mind of the majority of the people they represent.
ServesURight wrote:
I don't know why the LP just can't become a wing of the GOP. The GOP has a RINO wing and a Christian wing, surely there's room for a Libertarian wing.
REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts
Please allow me my moment of gloom and doom.
So, where is the morality of the GOP? We control both chambers of Congress, the White House, and 7 of the 9 current SCOTUS justices are Republican appointees.
So why is abortion on demand still A-OK?
Where is the morality in stealing from workers to subsidize the idle?
Where is the morality in repeatedly urinating on the Constitution they all swore to uphold?
I see your point, but Republicans need to give people a reason to vote for them instead of against another guy.
Running as the 'lesser of two evils' is a certain ticket for the GOP back to the days of Nixon/Ford/Dole mediocrity.
A few years back, some "unelectable" conservative with libertarian leanings ran for office. Not only did he have to run against a democrat, but there was a third party contender. He won in a landslide, and there aren't many people that can even remember the name of the 3rd party candidate.
A decade or so after that, a statist RINO ran for the same office. Once again, not only did he run against a democrat (an "unelectable" one at that) but also a third party contender. He lost big time, and the third party candidate is still blamed.
That tells me that the problem isn't with the Libertarian Party, or third parties in general.
If the Republicans would simply follow their platform and their campaign promises, their 'third party' problem would not be much of a problem.
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.