Replies

The two party cartel must be crushed. Two party? What am I saying? It's one party - the Incumbent Party, with two big patriotic hullabaloo parties every four years during the summer (not enough hotel rooms in any American city to fit in all of the delegates and the lobbyists at once,) issuing two manifestoes that are virtually indistinguishable from each other (they're both "for the chilrun",) and selecting presidential candidates who spend the Fall trying their best to convince the electorate that they are as different from each other as all the brands of white bread in this country (they're "for the chilrun", ya know?!) Hurray for the focus group political system!

Gimme the wackiest political party there is - it's got views, positions, stands that are better than the milquetoast persona of Trent Lott and this week's newly milquetoast persona of that Pelosi woman.

To quote our illustrious hero Orrin Hatch: "My great friend Ted Kennedy!" 'Nuff said!

Question:

why do third parties run candidates for positions they KNOW they can't win?

Answer: No good reason.

It isn't to make a statement. How many people on the street know who Howard Phillips is? I can't remember who ran on the Libertarian ticket. The only presidental third party candidates that people might remember would be Ralph Nader, Pat Buchannan, and Ross Perot.

Buchannan didn't do much except fool some stupid voters in Florida (which any candidate in that ballot position could do). Ralph Nader helped cause the defeat of Al Gore by taking the envirowacko vote. Perot is known for taking enough votes from Bush in 1992 to put in power our hero bILL cLINTON.

The bottom line is if your going to run for office as a candidate for the Constitutional, Reform, Libertarian, other less government third parties, don't run against a republican. Even if he is a rino, he can give the majority to the many in the party that are not. Don't shoot the "less government movement" in the foot. There's several positions from state to federal level that you can find an unoppossed Dem to harrass. You might cost them a little money, and if you win, you can join the conservative repubs that you helped get elected in cutting down government. Also, if you can, try to run for a position that you can win. Lets say that Howard Phillips had enough money to run for US Congress and there wasn't a republican in his district already. Instead of blowing it on a useless presidential race, he could have given a demoncrat a run for his money! If he wins, he would decrease the "D" power in congress and be in a position to make and vote on legistlation. In addition, he would gain more popularity for himself and his party regardless of win/lose!

On the flip side, we should encourage the greens to run! They can take away enviromental/other wacko votes away from the party that can do the most damage to this nation, the socialist in disguise Dems. I hope to see Nader in 2004!

If you hear of some saying their sick of the Dem party, try to have them switch sides, but if you can't, have them join a third party, even the greens.

Whatever disagreements Repubs, Constitutionalist, Reform, Libertarian, etc. have with each other; is not worth letting the Dems win!

Unfortunately, South Dakota wasn't the only state where the self-indulgent madness of Libertarian jokesters interfered with the serious business of politics. In the Alabama governor's race, another virtual tie between Republicans and Democrats, the Libertarian nominee drew 23,242 lost souls (2 percent) to his campaign--more than seven times the margin between the two serious candidates.

In Alabama the LP got $100,000 from the Dems during the election. Right now, the Libertarian loser is calling for an extra-legal recount so that the Democrats will have another chance to steal the election.

It's telling that the libertarian highwater mark in a presidential election was 1.06% against Ronald Reagan. If Reagan wasn't attractive enough and anti-government enough for these people, there's no way they'd be voting Republican on a regular basis.

Someone should do a study, though, to see how many would seep back and vote Republican if a libertarian didn't run. My entirely random and uninformed guess is maybe 30%. Some might even back the Democrat.

More libertarian successes will probably come about through "Fabian tactics," that is by convincing public officials outside the party of the wisdom, practicality, and necessity of their ideas than by the actions of the LP. A generation ago small "l" libertarians had great successes influencing members of both parties to get rid of price regulation in transport and to lower federal tax rates. When such victories can be won, the result is far better than the endless chatter about the libertarian's maximalist program, which will never be achieved.

Possibly one of the most assinine and arrogant political dissertations I've read in a while.

I disagree with Medved. Civil libertarians are the only thing standing between an erstwhile free republic and a police state under Gestapo leader Ashcroft.

Everything Republicans feared would occur under Clinton - the erection of a totalitarian police state - is well under way, yet because Bush (R) is in the White House they are cheerleaders for the loss of their own freedoms and rights.

Libertarians, whatever one thinks of them, will continue to attract (a few) votes, will continue to act as spoilers to the two major parties incumbent shell game. It's amazing that commentators as intelligent as Medved keep missing the essence of the phenomenon. People are attracted to the Libertarians (and to Ross Perot and to other minor parties,) because, as Medved himself would admit (since it is one of conservative cliches), ideas do matter.

Unfortunately, the two major parties do not present ideas, they present "messages". There is a difference. Already, commentators are saying, and many FReepers are nodding, that the RAT party didn't have a "message" last week, or that it had a wrong "message", and that it needs to develop a "message". Botox Pelosi appears to agree, judging from her latest statements. No ideas, mind you, just "messages", developed with the help of focus groups, consultants and such. Beware, because the RATS will do it, and it will work as it worked for Bubba in 1992!

Message. An article in yesterday's paper celebrates a "legendary adman", one Hal Riney, who developed successful campaigns, i.e. messages, for Gallo Wines (the Bartles & Jaymes campaign), and General Motors (the Saturn campaign.) The message man, an intellectual hero of our times.

The movies shown inside our multiplexes no longer concern themselves with ideas as they once did, they present "messages" developed with the help of focus groups. Throw all the insults you want at the sincere goofball Libertarians; they'll be here and they'll continue spoiling your petty gamesmanship.

The LP will probably not go away as long as the Republican party keeps giving it openings by shifting to the left through its support of a big government agenda including its embrace of the Departments of Education and Energy, support for agriculure and transporation budget busting plans, support for socialization of prescription drugs, etc. Unfortunately, conservatives have completely dropped the ball on the fight against big government....so the LP moves to fill in the gap on the political spectrum.

As to vote totals, you might be right....but people have been saying this for thirty years. Please note that the LP has more elected officials than ever before and won 10 percent of the vote in highly liberal Wisconsin for governor. The upshot is that the problem arises from conservative abandonment of their principles. Unfortunately, conservatives are not self-critical enough to realize this.