Vin Suprynowicz: Libertarians aim to 'cost Bush the election'

Las Vegas Review Journal ^ | June 20, 2004 | Vin Suprynowicz

[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.

[gcruse]

vote for Kerry and the end of our Republic.

Why wait?  Ashcroft is bringing the end of our Republic as we speak.  His, and by extension, Bush's raping and pillaging of the Tenth Amendment are centralizing authority in Washington DC, destroying the republic as we know it.  You don't even have to vote for Kerry.  Just sit tight and watch the endarkenment.

[Jack Black]

No one man can.

Your right, of course. Still I have seen little in that direction from him. He hasn't done horrible things like the Clinton late term land grabs, the pardons, etc. On the other hand he's done nothing to cut the size of our big fat government. He hasn't used the veto. He hasn't used the bully pulpit. All of his political capital has been spent on the war in Iraq. He has continued to pandor to Mexicans with his immigration policy.

I realize no one man can restore the Republic, but for us to have any chance of that we'll need to have a leader who gets it. Maybe even one who leads. Rereading some of Reagan's speeches one is left not only impressed by his vision, but saddened by the lack of direction of W. on moving us in the right direction.

[blanknoone]

My only point is that libertarianism could become a viable political movement...but only after it convinces a significant number of people of its philosophy. There is nothing inherent in the philosophy that makes it non-viable. Neither the pot focus nor the refusal to cooperate with non-libertarians is inherent in the philosophy itself, those are both dysfunctions of the political party, not the ideology.

I also think it would be worthwhile for Republicans to clarify exactly what their ideology is...or is it really just a collection of diverse special interest groups?

Conservatism had a thriving ideological base, but the ideological end of it is withering before our eyes. But even in that regard...is the R party even really politically conservative?

[Badray]

"Nobody from the US Federal Government will never bother them again."

Josh, that's enough reason to make me want to be a libertarian.

I think that the problem all of you (and at the risk guarantee of being flamed) supposedly smart people are having is that you are like the blind men trying to describe an elephant when each of them are only touching different parts of the animal.

Do you look at Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chaffee and think that they are the GOP? Or do you realize that they are only a part of it?

Do you look at Zell Miller and, and, and, ..... OK, there are no other good Democrats, but do you look at Zell and proclaim that the Dems are finally getting it?

Of course not and you shouldn't. But neither should you focus on the nut cases who have a Kodak moment. Yes there are nut cases in the LP (BTW, I am a registered Republican who doesn't use any drugs and rartely even takes prescribed medications). The GOP had David Duke. So what?

You are doing what the media AND the two major parties wants you to do and that is to focus on drugs to discredit the many good ideas that Libertarians bring to the table. And for all of those who want to do drugs there are probably 10 times as many who never touch drugs but want the government to stay the hell out of their lives. The war on drugs is a bigger problem and a bigger threat to our liberties than any pothead or crack addict will ever be.

[farmfriend]

He hasn't done horrible things like the Clinton late term land grabs, the pardons, etc.

You should see the land grab our wonderful new R governor is pushing through here in CA. Socialism at it's finest. He is pushing a bill, one of his campaign promises that got ignored, that would turn the entire Sierra Nevada mountain range into a conservancy. And to provide those "willing sellers", they are passing an "invasive species" bill. Two huge budget black hole beuracracies and the ultimate in land grabs.

[farmfriend]

Conservatism had a thriving ideological base, but the ideological end of it is withering before our eyes.

Here in CA it is because of the mistaken belief that conservatives can't get elected and the party leadership pushes "moderates" on us.

But even in that regard...is the R party even really politically conservative?

Not here in CA it isn't. If our new governor is an example, they seem to be more socialist than the Dems.

[Hank Rearden]

Republicans, especially, are scared to death to debate Libertarians because it's so easy to expose the R's as just another Big Stupid Government party.

Now that they control everything, they're out of excuses about why they won't deliver on promises of limited government. Record and accellerating spending, record deficits and vote-buying scams like "free" pills for greedy geezers aren't exactly limiting government. Nor is the assault on the First Amendment and continuing subsidies for everything from tobacco to mohair.

[Dane]

The war on drugs is a bigger problem and a bigger threat to our liberties than any pothead or crack addict will ever be

Well to test out your theory, would you mind the house next door to you or even your neighborhood be declared a "do any drug you want to" zone.

Surely you wouldn't mind.

[Dane]

The GOP had David Duke. So what?

Psst Ray, david duke was never welcomed and kicked out.

[Mulder]

A vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for Kerry and the end of our Republic.

Get real. How is voting for candidate "C" instead of "A" or "B", automatically a vote for candidate "B"?

And regardless of who wins, it's not going to be the "end of the Republic". One guy is just going to accelerate the decline a little faster than the other.

[Josh in PA]

Badray..

We focus on the Drug issue when we think about Libertarians, because thats ALL LIBERTARIANS TALK ABOUT

That's #1 on their list.

They talk about legalizing marijuana before they talk about eliminating taxes, private rights, and individual responsibility.

They are not representing themselves very well when that's there #1 issue, when they have many very good ideas that aren't focused on.

It's their fault they are still a minnow compared to even the Green Party. They are picking the battles they can't win, when they should be trying to win over the population with battles that they CAN WIN. Such as the ones I just mentioned.

[farmfriend]

I have to agree with your assessment.

[Badray]

It's already going on in many of the nicest neighborhoods and finest houses in the country. I don't know which house and I really don't care.

If they violate no one, it's no one's business. If they come into my home uninvited to try to finance their activity, they will run into my own version of Homeland Security.

[rdb3]

Rereading some of Reagan's speeches one is left not only impressed by his vision, but saddened by the lack of direction of W. on moving us in the right direction.

With all due respect, this is a fatal flaw among many conservatives/Republicans. No, George Walker Bush is not Ronald Wilson Reagan. Jack Black is not Reagan. rdb3 is not Reagan with a tan. Only Reagan was Reagan.

Sure. We can all get together and beat up on GW for what he has not done. But I for one give him a standing ovation for what he has done in the War on Terror. This war must be fought and it must be won. Period. End of story. And in this effort, I believe GW to be the right man at the right time. His not being Reagan-like does not take away from the credit he deserves on this one issue, and I believe that on this issue he is leading us in the right direction.

GW is in no way perfect, but the good is not the enemy of the perfect.

$710.96.. The price of freedom.

[Dane]

It's already going on in many of the nicest neighborhoods and finest houses in the country. I don't know which house and I really don't care.

And you know this how?

If they violate no one, it's no one's business. If they come into my home uninvited to try to finance their activity, they will run into my own version of Homeland Security

Fine then go to your neighbors and ask them to make your neighborhood a "do any drug you want zone". Obviously since you are insinuating that evrybody in your neighborhood is doing illicit drugs, you should get a good response, IMO.

I knda of doubt it though.

[ServesURight]

If they would focus their party around no federal taxes, personal liberty, private land ownership, etc.. they could make great inroads and become a minor player in U.S. politics.

I've been saying this for years on FR before Boortz ever mentioned it. The LP needs to get away from the Drug War, prostitution, homosexuals, and focus on the meat-and-potato issues that resonate with the majority of people. But noooo....people have a right to get high, you know. And the borders need to be free and open.

They they wonder why they get less than 1/10th of 1% of the vote in elections. Oh sure, they're the "biggest" third-party out there, but look who hold what positions - Village clerk, town water board, a city council member here and a municipal judge there....no senators, reps, governors, not even at the state level.

[MarkL]

Libertarians seem to be mostly ex-democrats

Not all of us... I was a conservative republican, but moved strongly to the (small l, now AKA boortz wing) libertarian point of view.

My problem was directly due to the war on drugs. No, I don't really give a darn about marijuana. My problem was with the way that republican administrations dealt with issues related to the WOD, like the "asset forfeiture" laws. And of course, I was excited that President Reagan might actually be able to shrink government, but the congress managed to defeat him on that. And unfortunately, the republican presidents following him didn't even give lip service to reducing the size of government. Even during the Gingritch days, congress just kept increasing the size of government.

This libertarian looks at the following, in this order, when making a vote:

The Constitutionality of any legislation

National Security

Second Amendment Rights

First Amendment Rights (Specifically, freedom of speech, not this crap about "the wall between church and state!")

Taxes and property rights

Personal Freedom and liberty (and yes, this includes laws regarding drugs on the federal level. I believe it's a states' rights issue)

Go ahead, and attack me for my views! Like President Reagan and the democratic party, I didn't leave the republican party: They left me.

Mark

[Badray]

I guess that we run in different circles.

I agree that I have run into that type a few times, but in my area -- Pittsburgh, PA -- we have a very (yikes) conservative party. It's predominantly pro life, adamantly pro-gun, vocally in favor of lower taxes and smaller government. They are not the long haired, maggot infested, doobie doing hippies you are seeing.

I take strong issue with their anti-war stance, but domesticly I'm more in line with them than I am with the GOP. Unless Bush DOES something (not just talks about it) dramatic to demonstrate more respect for the Constitution, Michael Badnarik will get my vote in November. I think that Bush will lose by as big a margin in PA this year as he did in 2000, so my vote is really a protest against his domestic policies and really will not effect the outcome of the race.

[Dane]

Not attacking you but like Boortz, I notice that you too are silent on abortion.

[Dane]

Michael Badnarik will get my vote in November

Then you are admitting that you are pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage.

Not very conservative, IMO.