Posted on 05/13/2002 8:24:05 AM PDT by sheltonmac
America's third parties tend to be regarded by political insiders as something of a joke. No candidate from the Libertarian or Green parties has won a high-profile state or national election — or even come close. That significant failure aside, representatives from these third parties insist that they are poised to make an impact this November. In fact, this time around they might have a few candidates with enough money and support to make things interesting. Establishment politicians who recall the contentious outcome of the 2000 presidential election and the bizarre shift in Senate power last spring regard this possibility as no laughing matter.
Just ask former vice president Al Gore. Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader shaved a critical margin away from Gore — most notably in Florida, where Nader grabbed more than 97,000 votes, most of which probably would have gone to Gore in an election decided by approximately 500 votes. In a less-publicized political fracas, the Libertarian Party (LP) played a critical role in tossing control of the Senate to Democrats and now Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.). The Senate was evenly divided (and ripe for Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont to defect from the GOP) at least in part because in 2000 incumbent senator Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) lost to Democrat Maria Cantwell by fewer than 3,000 votes. In that race, the LP candidate received more than 64,000 votes, most of which probably would have gone to Gorton. A similar fate had befallen Republican challenger John Ensign in his 1998 bid to unseat incumbent Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). In March 2001, National Review referred to "The GOP's Libertarian Problem" as "what may be the most underreported political phenomenon of the last two election cycles."
The Greens and the Libertarians still itch for the role of spoiler. One of the most interesting races this year will be in Georgia, where redistricting has paired two incumbent Republicans — conservative Reps. John Linder and Bob Barr — in the GOP primary. Ron Crickenberger, political director of the LP, tells Insight that the party plans to spend as much as $100,000 in the race to attack Barr's hard-line position against medical marijuana and give the primary to Linder. An LP position paper entitled "Spoiler Targets for 2002" presents the case in stark terms: "Bob Barr is target No. 1, both in terms of time criticality and in overall importance. To the medical-marijuana movement, Barr is the equivalent of the Antichrist."
Linder does not support medical marijuana, according to his office, but he has a much lower profile on the issue than Barr. A spokesman for Linder tells Insight that the LP has not contacted the congressman about these expenditures, but adds that Linder has a good working relationship with them because of his support for tax reform.
A spokesman for Barr says he, too, is unaware of the LP strategy, but in a written statement to Insight the congressman does not shrink from the challenge: "I'm proud to be the antidrug candidate in this race. … I have been a leader in the war against [illegal] drugs and if the pro-drug folks want to target me with negative ads then that tells me I've been doing a good job in that effort."
In preparing to resist the Libertarian push, Barr might consider consulting with the other vocally antidrug incumbents the LP has targeted. They include Sens. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.), Max Cleland (D-Ga.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas). Crickenberger says Americans are ready to move away from drug prohibition, and his party is focusing resources accordingly. "We believe this is a substantial opportunity to move public policy in a Libertarian direction," he says.
Asked for races in which their candidate has a legitimate chance to win, LP officials point to Wisconsin. The Libertarian candidate for governor there is Ed Thompson, a former meat-cutter, prison guard and boxer who currently owns a bar/restaurant called Mr. Ed's Tee-Pee Supper Club and serves as mayor of tiny Tomah. He is polling between 7 and 11 percent, depending on which Democrat wins the primary.
Thompson reportedly was arrested in 1997 for operating illegal video-poker machines out of his bar and charged in 1998 for refusing to cooperate with police after being stabbed in the stomach by a friend. On the surface, he appears about as likely to win as shock-jock Howard Stern, who once toyed with the idea of running for governor of New York on the Libertarian ticket. But Thompson's brother is Tommy Thompson — probably the most popular politician in the state — who resigned as governor of Wisconsin to become President George W. Bush's secretary of health and human services. In an interview with Insight, Ed Thompson says his family name has given him added exposure and insists he is a serious candidate. "I am going to win," Thompson says. "There's no doubt about it."
Acting Gov. Scott McCallum is a Republican who was appointed when Tommy Thompson left for Washington, and he appears vulnerable. The Democrats will not hold primaries until later this summer and, in the meantime, Ed Thompson has been lapping up media attention and increasing his name recognition. He already has appeared on the Today show and was featured in a lengthy piece in the Style section of the Washington Post. In his interview with Insight, he pointed out that he is doing much better in the polls at this stage than another "hopeless" gubernatorial candidate who eventually went on to victory: Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura.
Since strange circumstances sometimes yield unexpected results, another gubernatorial race for Libertarians to watch might be in Massachusetts. Republican Gov. Jane Swift, the once-popular incumbent who gave birth in office to twins, earlier this year decided not to run when it became clear that Republican Mitt Romney, head of the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee, was throwing his hat in the ring. Several Democrats still are battling for the primary nod.
In the midst of it all sits Libertarian Carla Howell. A management consultant who now is campaigning full time, she collected more than 300,000 votes (11.8 percent) in her 2000 bid for the Senate seat of Democrat Edward M. Kennedy; she fell fewer than 26,000 votes short of the Republican candidate. It is impossible to know whether she will control those votes this fall or if they will move to Romney in a close race because none of the polls conducted so far have included her as an option — a snub she dismisses as "absurd" given her showing in 2000.
Howell remains confident, however. She tells Insight that her campaign will spend approximately $1 million by Election Day — an astronomical war chest by Libertarian standards and one that will allow her to buy precious time on television. "I certainly have a chance," she says. "I'm a dark horse, but we'll see."
Howell says her campaign will get a boost from a possible ballot measure that would give voters the chance to eliminate the state's notoriously high income tax. She is cofounder and chairwoman of the ballot initiative — a measure none of the other candidates supports. Asked if she fears her candidacy might "spoil" the election for Romney and give it to a big-spending Democrat, Howell argues that neither Democrats nor Republicans advocate smaller government. "You can't spoil tainted meat," she says.
Dean Myerson, political director for the Green Party, also dismisses criticism that his party spoils elections. "The whole concept with spoilers is that we have a responsibility to protect Democrats when they run bad candidates," Myerson tells Insight. "We're running candidates because that's what our supporters want."
According to Myerson, the Green Party's best chance this year also is in a gubernatorial race, this one in Maine. He says Green candidate Jonathan Carter and his supporters slogged through the Maine winter to get 20 percent of party members to sign a petition supporting the campaign. Myerson says the signatures put Carter on the ballot and made him eligible for public funds. The political director says the campaign eventually should receive "close to $1 million. He's going to have the funds to run a serious campaign."
Opposing Carter will be a Republican, an independent and Rep. John Baldacci (D-Maine), according to Myerson. He says he is unaware of any polls so far, but adds that the crowded field might favor a dark horse. "It's a four-way race," he notes, "so you can win with 30-some percent."
Optimistic predictions aside, these third-party candidates are all long shots — just like Ventura. But Chuck Muth, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC), is one political operative who takes the third-party threat seriously. The RLC derides as RINOs (Republicans in name only) those GOP officials who stray from their small-government promises and it urges the party to stick to fundamentals such as tax cuts. Muth has worked in Nevada to find common ground between Libertarian and Republican candidates for the state Assembly, cobbling deals so the two parties compete in as few districts as possible. "I wish someone at the national level would do it," he says, noting that more and more elections are coming down to the wire, and that tenuous majorities in both the House and the Senate are on the line. "Two or 3 percent is the spoiler level in a lot of these races," he warns.
A strong third party that does have an effect when it has a very charismatic candidate. Thus d Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 had real impact.
But the logic that if A were not in the race, A's voters would vote for B is just not true. It is more likely that they don't vote at all. From the perspective of the right it appears that Gore is nearly as good for the Greens as Nader. But the Greens don't see that way. The left believes that Bush is nearly as attractive to the Libertarians as the Libertarian candidate. To the Libertarians there is zero difference between Bush and Gore. To the Naderites there was zero difference between Gore and Bush.
Third parties have an effect when they are able to paint both major parties as being identical. The true third party members really believe they are identical. Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 claimed that there was no difference between Wilson and Taft. So did Wallace and Thurmond in their third party attempts. Perot claimed that there was no difference between Bush Sr. and Clinton. Third parties never attract significant followers when the two major parties are in disagreement on their issues. Thus the conflict between Dubya and Daschle does not speak well for third party chances. All third parties disagree with the two major parties. But the issues upon which they disagree, must be one where the major parties agree, and a significant number of Americans disagree with the major parties. There is currently no such issue.
Most in the mainstream media have concluded that the Libertarians did not hurt Bush, but that Nader hurt Gore. It is not true but they believe it. As a result the MEDIA has decided NOT to cover 3rd party activities in 2002 and 2004. It will be very hard for a Green Party or Libertarian candidate to get a seconds worth of air time. You will find that all major media ignores third party activities this election cycle. They will continue to do so until the memory of the 2000 election fades.
There is no major issue to make a 3rd party popular. Third parties have to represent an attractive view neither main party accepts and they must have a very charismatic personality. Right now they have neither.
Only on the local and State stages. Federally? Fuhgedaboudit.
Reality check: A principled loser is still a loser.
It's just that simple.
Voting Libertarian won't do the trick for getting what you want.
Go ahead and call us losers. By all means continue to elect candidates that violate the Constitution.
I'm not telling you not to. I'm not trying to influence your party, it's beyond redemption. You can have it.
But don't whine when your party loses a close election because you don't have our votes. Lost control of the Senate? Tough. You make your decision at the primary where R's nominate police-state candidates. Decisions have consequences. Deal with it. If calling us losers makes you feel better, have at it. Just don't expect votes.
It's true that there's now a run on the Treasury.
By the way, I'm NOT a Republican.
You have a better idea? Don't keep the big secret. Let us in on the big plan to reclaim constitutional government.
Listen, I'm not calling anyone out of their names. But the point still stands. Your refutation to what I said is not really a refutation at all.
The fact of the matter is that, at the end of the day, a principled loser is still a loser. What's so hard to understand about that?
What good is a loser to the game? If you are not in office, it doesn't matter what you believe.
If you think that's calling you and yours out of your name, I can't help that. It's not my intention, but I still can't help it.
A principled loser is still a loser.
There's no secret. But, face it. Libertarians are unelectable.
No matter how good and sound their beliefs, they WON'T get elected.
That's all I'm saying here. It's the truth, and you know it.
You mean Constitutional issues like the free and copious flow of mind-altering drugs?
Yep, that'll work.
Look at it the other way:
What good is it to get "your guy" elected, if all he does is damage? Think about it. Winning elections is great. But holding office is but a means to an end. If your 'end' is limited, constitutional government, even if "your guy" wins, you still have lost, every bit as much I have.
I'm thinking more along the lines of less spending for federal education programs, adherence to the Constitution when passing bills (CFR), and something less than an 80% increase in farm subsidies. But if you want to mischaracterize my positions so that you can demonize me and others like me, go right ahead.
The problem, here, is getting elected. Outside of a true revolution, things will remain the same if the right people aren't sitting in office.
Just plain winning isn't the answer. Who wins is of utmost importance. Therefore, doesn't it make more sense to place the right candidates into a position where they have a better shot at winning versus one where you know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell? I think so.
That's the way I see it too. Who would want to vote for a bunch of second rate imitation Democrats?
How about a little personal integrity?
Problem is, he's persona non-grata in the Republican party. He's making them look bad by comparison and they want him out.
The problem is that Republican party power brokers decide who gets the nomination before the primary. Instead of a place for debate and decision making, the primary then is reduced to a cheerleading session, and people like me are completely excluded from the process.
So what do we do? We make our own party. If our party causes damage to the R's and they lose elections, maybe they'll decide to open up the primaries. Until then, there's not much else to be done. I don't like it either, but that's reality.
Either way, I'll be damned if I'll vote for police state candidates. I just don't have it in me.
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.