Libertarians could be spoilers in key Senate races

Democratic hopes of maintaining a razor-thin Senate majority may hinge on an unexpected outside force: Libertarians.

In the battlegrounds of Montana, Arizona and Missouri, polls show the Libertarian nominee poised to siphon a fraction of the vote — a small fraction, but potentially enough to tip the outcome in a cliffhanger. And with the battle for the Senate shaping up to be a coin-flip proposition, no factor — not even fringe candidates with little more than a Libertarian label to propel their campaigns — is too insignificant to dismiss.

Given the small-government mantra of Libertarian voters, Democratic officials see the development as a major boon.

It’s not about the quantity of the earmarks, it’s about what they mean. And actually at this point the entire budget is earmarked, that’s why we’ve gone this long without a budget and without having to shut anything down. The whole budget is written with preset adjustments for future years, so if no budget is passed the old budget still holds.

The Republicans pushed hard lately. They went two years without worrying about it. There wasn’t even a debate until last year. That’s not MSM complicity, that’s the sign of how little difference there really is between the parties. They both knew that a budget debate wouldn’t play well to the audience so they didn’t bother to have one. The reason Dems get away with it is because the GOP is complicit, both parties have failed miserably in this regard. Well not really failed, because it’s all about power and they figured out that budget debates and the press they get are bad for the power. So even now when we have “discussion” about the budget it’s all backburner. Nobody wants it to play big, if the GOP wanted it to cost the Dems they could push it as a campaign topic, but they’re staying far away from it.

You are certainly seeing a different reality than I am. The Rinos were cowed by Obama's win and their loss of the Senate in 2008, which was almost entirely engineered by the MSM, who refused to vet Obama in *any* serious matter, and did everything they could to create his win, including working hard to have McCain as his ineffectual opponent. Perhaps you have forgotten McCains foolish statement the "the media is my base".

It took a little bit for the new media to enable the Tea Party to organize and take back the house, and come close to taking the Senate in 2010. The old Rinos still have enough positions of power, and are afraid of the MSM enough, to prevent serious reform, though many Tea Party Republicans are working hard for it.

In the new media, the Republicans are pushing hard for a budget and to cut spending and reform entitlements. It cannot be done in the MSM, because the MSM will not allow it.

I recall when President Clinton shut down the government rather than accept serious Republican attempts to bring the budget under control in 1995. People were screaming for the Republicans to fight back, as the entire MSM blamed the government shutdown on the Republicans. I saw Newt Gingrich on C-Span, giving an incredible speech that likely would have changed the whole image and given the day to the Republicans. The MSM simply refused to cover it.

I talked to an NRA administrator back in the 90's. I asked why they did not go on the offensive, why they did not buy some major media time. The answer was simple. The MSM refused to sell them any time.

I used to think the problem was in the Parties. After 1994, I realized that the MSM sets the agenda, decides what is important, and what will be in the public debate. Politicians live and die by the media, which for decades was the MSM. If you did not have the charisma, genius and talent of Reagan, your career was at the mercy of the MSM. The new media is changing that, which is why the Tea Party is having an effect and why we have a chance to save the Republic.

Obama’s win was guaranteed for over a century. There’s almost always a party change after a president gets 2 terms, because the mushy middle primarily blames who’s in charge, 2 terms of being in charge and the mushy middle has had their fill. It’s also why the vast majority of midterms see losses for the party of the sitting president, the mushy middle knows no love. The MSM wasn’t going to change that. And most presidents come in with coattails, which is why the dems got the Senate. Again, no MSM necessary. And which GOP candidate got the nod wouldn’t have mattered either, for one thing they were ALL ineffectual (ever noticed just how many of them were R versions of recent high profile dems, we had the MA liberal, the wooden ex-senator of TN, the tax and spend AR governor), and again historical precedent says they were doomed.

New media enabled the Tea Party to win their GOP nominations. But it had nothing to do with their performance in the generals. Again, historical precedence and the mushy middle. Midterms are bad for the party of the sitting president. There’d been 2 exceptions in recent history (1996 and 2002) but those were both because the other party so grossly misplayed their hands (GOPs obsession with impeaching Clinton never played well with the middle, and the dems whining about FA annoyed a lot of voters). The GOP didn’t bungle it in 2010 so they made pretty much the standard midterm gains. Meanwhile even with the Tea Party guys in there they didn’t start making a stink about the lack of budget until last summer. That should have been a campaign point.

The GOP is doing exactly DICK about the budget. Where are the votes? Where’s the floor debate? Where are the budgets? Nowhere, nowhere and nowhere. They might be lying through the new media but that’s just lies. Don’t believe their lies.

The problem is still the parties. Outside of election season they have no real differences. What they want is power. That’s why we have both a dem and a rep with socialized medicine bills named after them. They like to tout a bunch of make believe differences during elections, but once the election is over they run down the same path, lots of spending, and lots of increasing government power. The new media might change who the candidates are, but how much has actually changed with Tea Party guys in there? Not a damn thing that’s how much. No matter how the chart divides we still have ever increasing spending, ever increasing deficit, and the government getting more control over the minutia of our lives.

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.