Replies

And you're right, it is their approach. Not since Newt Gingrich in 1994 have we seen politicians willing to take a risk. He did and he was stabbed in the back by the GOP and the losertarians

And don't forget the media. In 1994 the media still had a grip as the information gatekeepers and they skewered Gingrich.

The media is whom I see as the biggest "enemy", the Libertarians, IMHO, are impatient, misguided, and naive blowhards who really don't do that much damage except in close races where they help elect the democrat.

We certainly don't do as much damage as you.

Impatient you say? The GOP has been moving in the wrong direction for my entire lifetime. What exactly are they waiting for? If they gain the Senate in 2002 and keep the House, they'll have it all. What will your excuse be then?

The media is whom I see as the biggest "enemy", the Libertarians, IMHO, are impatient, misguided, and naive blowhards who really don't do that much damage except in close races where they help elect the democrat.

I agree with you Dane. Perhaps I give them too much credit. Most of the time they're as harmless as zoo monkeys flinging their dung against the cage walls. Once in a while one escapes and causes some hearburn at the banana factory.

Does a Libertarian only take Republican votes?

No...

EVIDENCE:

In polls run through the summer by political pollsters Ciruli and Associates Strickland and Allard were running neck and neck, just like back in 1996. Both men polled around 40% with approx. 24% remaining undecided.
In a poll conducted for the Denver Post last September, Allard and Strickland were both polling at 42%.
Even though Stanley's name was not mentioned in their polls, - nice and scientifically unbiased, huh? - there was a report of OTHER in July at 1%, in August at 2% and in September 4%.

In late October the Stanley campaign massed a group of volunteers in true grassroots style, and conducted their own scientific, random poll. Out of 2,000 households contacted, slightly over 200 participants were polled. They were asked several very simple questions. The most important of which was this one -

" If the 2002 election for U.S. Senate from Colorado were held today, who would you vote for; Republican Wayne Allard, Democrat Thomas Strickland, or Libertarian Rick Stanley?"
(the names were also rotated during polling).

The results?

Wayne Allard (R) - 34%
Thomas Strickland (D) - 35%
Rick Stanley (L) - 8%
Undecided - 23%

As you can see it is not just the Republican's vote totals that drop when a Libertarian is in a race. At least in this race that is a fact.

As evidenced by this poll, Stanley drew equally from both Allard and Strickland's percentage points. Allard lost approximately 8% of his totals, while Strickland lost 7%. The undecided category stayed roughly the same.

7% of those polled by Ciruli Associates talked of extreme dislike for Wayne Allard. While only 3% felt that way about Tom Strickland.

Why is Allard only getting 34% of the vote as an incumbent? Because, he is a weak candidate, and a man who does not obey his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

The truth is Libertarians would not pose a threat to Republicans if those Republicans were truly interested in limited government and the principles they espouse - instead of being hypocrites.

The unaffiliated, unregistered and pissed off Republicans AND Democrats number way more than the Republicans and Democrats combined. Someone like Rick Stanley will energize the public as they will finally have someone REAL speaking to them about issues important to us all. Unlike Republicans and Democrats who act as our rulers, and not like PUBLIC SERVANTS.

The Republicrats are voting away more of our freedom everyday. Vote Libertarian and Restore Freedom.

Vote Rick Stanley for U.S. Senate 2002 - he's got what it takes to defend America.