Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will Wisconsin Be Red or Blue in 2004?(Badnarik Supporting Kerry?)
Badnarik Campaign ^ | Badnarik Campaign

Posted on 10/16/2004 11:17:59 AM PDT by K1avg

Will Wisconsin Be Red or Blue in 2004?

Many conservatives are unhappy with Bush's massive spending and his attacks on civil liberties. While these unhappy conservatives are probably not prepared to switch their vote to Kerry, many, if asked properly, would seriously consider switching their vote to Libertarian Michael Badnarik. So by helping Badnarik get more visibility, you can hurt Bush chances of winning battleground states like Wisconsin!

We will use 100% of your donations to run television and radio commercials (listed below) that specifically target conservative voters who might otherwise vote for Bush. We don't want Bush to win in Wisconsin anymore than you do. As a Kerry supporter, you may disagree with our message, but you win and we win when you donate to this project and get your friends to do likewise.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: badnarik; libertarianparty; lp; sorelosertarians
This appears to me to be a thinly veiled attempt to hand Wisconsin to Kerry.

I'm sure I'll be massively flamed for this, but isn't it quite stupid for Libertarians to be so outrightly supporting the unabashedly big-government candidate, or has their social agenda taken that much precedence over their economic platform?

Either way, I doubt Badnarik will gain many votes by suggesting a vote for him is a vote for Kerry. Hell, I'd rather vote for Nader than Badnarik.

1 posted on 10/16/2004 11:17:59 AM PDT by K1avg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: K1avg
If I remember right, in the 2002 Gov. race the Libertarian candidate (Tommy Thompson's brother) got around 10% of the vote which gave the election to the Dem. candidate. So it is not something to scoff at.
2 posted on 10/16/2004 11:20:51 AM PDT by Dr Snide (vis pacem, para bellum - Prepare for war if you want peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K1avg

Badnarik will get about 0.4% of the vote so I am not concerned.


3 posted on 10/16/2004 11:21:40 AM PDT by RockinRight (John Kerry is the wrong candidate, for the wrong country, at the wrong time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K1avg

Thinly veiled? It is pretty right in your face obvious.

It pretty much confirms a lot of people's suspicions about the true motives of Libertarians as well.


4 posted on 10/16/2004 11:22:40 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K1avg
Bednarik was looking for a job when he won the Libertarian nomination. Momma said he could stay out past eleven, and even let him overnight a time or two.

The Losertarians are trying to make headlines, a splash or two on election day. They're hoping to get some traction by claiming they're the factor that beat Bush somewhere. Anywhere.

5 posted on 10/16/2004 11:23:31 AM PDT by sinkspur ("I swim with the alligators in the fevered swamps of traditionalism. " Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K1avg

Who the hell is Badnarik ? This clown couldn't throw the election to anyone, what does he have, 40 supporters ?


6 posted on 10/16/2004 11:25:09 AM PDT by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K1avg
Libertarian principles are good. The Libertarian Party is stupid.


 
 
Click for the entire CouNTeRPuNcH Collection

Political Parodies and more
www.counterpunch.us

7 posted on 10/16/2004 11:25:18 AM PDT by counterpunch (The CouNTeRPuNcH Collection - www.counterpunch.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K1avg; OrthodoxPresbyterian

It's not a thinly veiled attempt....it isn't veiled at all. He flat out says that he wants to hurt Bush in Wisconsin and throw it to Kerry.

What is thinly veiled is that these are thinly veiled LIBERALS.

I had no idea. Libertarians are nothing more than liberals.


8 posted on 10/16/2004 11:33:38 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Proudly Supporting BUSH/CHENEY 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
I've seen a Libertarian Party debate before.
It was for the 2004 presidential candidate.

maybe my memory is clouded, but I swear it was held in a barn with picnic tables, bales of hay, and torches...
Anyways, it was the same sort of nonsense as the Democrat debates, but rather than being a competition for who can bash Bush the most, it was a competition for who was the most primitive.

On gay marriage, the various candidates took their turns supporting gay marriage to various levels, until the Alpha Libertarian, Badnarik himself I believe, approached the microphone (or bullhorn?) brimming with confidence to declare that government should get out of the marriage business completely, neither recognizing nor regulating them at all. The crowd went wild. I believe they even began throwing their own feces. Once again, my memory may be slightly distorted from the passage of time...
9 posted on 10/16/2004 11:35:26 AM PDT by counterpunch (The CouNTeRPuNcH Collection - www.counterpunch.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: K1avg; Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
This is the second decently-newsworthy topic (the first is now here) I've had moved to Bloggers & Personal.

No complaints, as I'm sure there's some decent reason for the move, but I am wondering what it is. What gives?

Why should a decent topic like this be moved when garbage one-line vanities are still allowed to propagate in News/Activism?

Response requested. TIA.

10 posted on 10/16/2004 11:36:33 AM PDT by K1avg (A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
Commies are red,
Libertarians are blue,
D-rats are orange,
I'll stick with you.
11 posted on 10/16/2004 11:36:33 AM PDT by zygoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: K1avg

LOL, this tells you all you need to know. The guy is a Kerry supporter, has been all along, and has made a mockery of the principles he was supposed to be supporting.


12 posted on 10/16/2004 11:40:43 AM PDT by McGavin999 (If Kerry can't deal with the "Republican Attack Machine" how is he going to deal with Al Qaeda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

they can support whomever they wish, we have the most powerful liberterian supporting BUSH.... Bortz...and he has a mircophone!!!


13 posted on 10/16/2004 11:42:22 AM PDT by wvromania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: K1avg
So by helping Badnarik get more visibility, you can hurt Bush chances of winning battleground states like Wisconsin!

Amazing. ....they're not even try to hide it anymore.

14 posted on 10/16/2004 11:48:07 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K1avg
I'm sure there's some decent reason for the move, but I am wondering what it is.

I'll be waiting for that same answer.

15 posted on 10/16/2004 11:49:05 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: K1avg

True libertarians (objectivists) are indeed more in line with conservative/Republican philosophy.

But big-L Libertarians are nothing like that... they're just pot smoking anti-war hippies who have a liberal stand on everything else. They're closer to anarchists (who support the abolishment of military and police forces).


16 posted on 10/16/2004 12:22:17 PM PDT by Nataku X (Live near a liberal college? Want to demoralize Dems? FRmail me to join in Operation Reverse Moby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K1avg
I'm sure I'll be massively flamed for this, but isn't it quite stupid for Libertarians to be so outrightly supporting the unabashedly big-government candidate, or has their social agenda taken that much precedence over their economic platform?

It's new of them to say so outright, but Libertarians votes come moreso at the expense of Bush than Kerry.  This is nothing surprising.   As far as big government candidates, one says he is, the other governs as one.  What's the difference?
17 posted on 10/16/2004 1:25:35 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; counterpunch
Burn down the village in order to save it. Lovely, just lovely.

I have no other comment.... counterpunch already summed it up nicely in #7.

18 posted on 10/16/2004 2:11:28 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: K1avg
Many conservatives are unhappy with Bush's massive spending and his attacks on civil liberties.

By voting for even MORE massive spending, and MORE attacks on civil liberties??? Good grief! Wonder if Badnarik and the Wisconsinites ever read anything about libertarianism besides the legalization of drugs.

There is a libertarian wing to the Republican party, like Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) http://www.house.gov/paul/index.shtml who ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988.

And there are the "Volvo Republicans" of the Northeast. There can not, by definition, ever be a libertarian wing to the Democrat party.

But trying to throw the election to the Democrat-Socialists because the Republicans aren't conservative enough would be, IMO completely and totally insane!

IMO all the third party candidates including Nader will total about 2-3% total this cycle. I don't see Badnarik getting even close to 1% nationally.

19 posted on 10/16/2004 2:36:36 PM PDT by Sooth2222
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: K1avg
isn't it quite stupid for Libertarians to be so outrightly supporting the unabashedly big-government candidate, or has their social agenda taken that much precedence over their economic platform?

It may be tactical. Punish the Republicans for being the party of HUGE GOVT SOCIALISM. Then hopefully, the GOP will learn their lesson and go back to opposing huge govt.

And there's no downside, because Kerry couldn't support bigger govt if he tired. The GOP is SOOO PRO-HUGE GOVT, I don't see how even the Democrats could top them.

Get real, people. The GOP are SOCIALISTS! Bush is a SOCIALIST!

If the Libertarians can't win, then at least they might be able to punish the GOP SOCIALISTS.

21 posted on 10/16/2004 8:44:14 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nakatu X
True libertarians (objectivists) are indeed more in line with conservative/Republican philosophy.

I don't see how you can say that Objectivists are any kind of libertarians, seeing as how Ayn Rand denouced libertarians right from the start.

Organized Objectivism is a crazy cult sponging off of Rand's royalties.

22 posted on 10/16/2004 8:47:41 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: K1avg

Capital L libertarians have been co-opted by daddy Weedbucks Soros.


23 posted on 10/16/2004 9:03:05 PM PDT by hlmencken3 (Ben Yishai Chai Vekaiyam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher; nmh; xzins; counterpunch; MarMema; jb6
It may be tactical. Punish the Republicans for being the party of HUGE GOVT SOCIALISM. Then hopefully, the GOP will learn their lesson and go back to opposing huge govt.

In essence... you're advocating that the Anti-Big-Government "Hard Right" (i.e., Libertarians and Constitutionalists) *punish* the equivocating, mealy-mouthed GOP "Soft Right" for their treasonous abdication of Constitutional principles -- and by this application of "tough love", you hope to remind the GOP of their founding ideals and restore their commitment to Minimal Government, States' Rights, Individual Liberties, and all the good, Libertarian ideals that the GOP supposedly advocates (and in which they have admittedly failed, in MANY, MANY circumstances).

It's an interesting Theory.

The problem is -- it's already been tried (albeit from the opposite end of the political spectrum, but the example is instructive).
And it doesn't work.


Now, as regards the following example, please know that I do understand that, being by and large Former Monarchies, the Nations of Europe do not possess a Republicanist Founding Tradition of libertarian-individualism as does America, and so "Hard Left" and "Hard Right" in European Politics simply represent different Theories of Totalitarianism. However, I still think that the example is instructive.

In 1920's and 1930's Germany, the "Hard Left" German Communists (the ideological opposites of today's hard-core Libertarians and Constitutionalists), acting on Stalin's orders, concentrated their Political attacks on the "Soft Left" Social Democrats, hoping to destroy the "Soft Left" and thereby force ordinary Germans to make an intellectually-honest choice between the Nazi "Hard Right" and the Communist "Hard Left".

Since the Communist "Hard Left" assumed, as a given, that Civilized Germans would never vote the insane racist-ideologue Nazis into Power, it appeared to them that the destruction of the "Soft Left" was the logical course of action to force a final winner-takes-all battle between the "Hard Right" and the "Hard Left".

Well, they succeeded in hurting the Social Democrats. In that much, they succeeded.

But at that point, the assumptions of "Theory" and "Practice" went right into the crapper. With the "Soft Left" Social Democrats marginalized and discredited, the Nazis succeeded in gaining power -- and the Theory turned out to be very much different from the Practice, indeed. And when the Nazis gained Power, the Communists were the first ones to be sent to the Concentration Camps.

It all made sense, in theory! Yeah, but Stalin's Theory worked out rather badly in Practice, and 30 Million Russians died for his mistake.


At the end of the day -- as bad as the "Soft Right" GOP Republican Party is, as much as they FAIL, as much as they COMPROMISE, as much as they GIVE AWAY THE STORE and tell Pro-Lifers and Constitutionalists and States-Righters to "Lie Back and try to enjoy Being Raped" -- it DOES NOT WORK to give any support whatsoever to the Demonic-Socialist Opposition Party.

That theory was already tried, by the "Hard Left" German Communists in 1930's Germany, and it DOES NOT WORK. Their "Tough Love" only succeeded in producing a nightmare.

And I say this as a Registered Florida Libertarian (I asked the DMV girl about the Constitution Party, but apparently they did not qualify for the Lists); Admittedly, I have cast more Republican Votes than I have Libertarian Votes, but I do whole-heartedly vote Libertarian whenever I can honestly support the LP candidate.

I can understand Voting Libertarian, on principle. I can understand Voting Constitution, on principle. I will never condemn a man who is trying to obey the Conscience that God gave him.

But voting Kerry, or seeking or advocating his election in any way, in order to "punish Bush", is just counter-productive.

It is a Theory that the Communists tried, Commie-Basher... and it does not work.

Best, OP

24 posted on 10/17/2004 1:45:03 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

OP, not meaning to be rude or disagreeable, but....


WHATEVER it is that you are, they ain't.

Whatever they are, you ain't.

I suspect you and they have a far different understanding of the definition of libertarian.


25 posted on 10/17/2004 10:50:44 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Proudly Supporting BUSH/CHENEY 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Interesting analogy, but not the only one.

Rather than look to Germany, a nation with different demographics and culture, let's look to America.

From the period between the Civil War and New Deal, there were several fairly strong socialist parties, including the Progressives and Socialists and Socialist Workers. Sometimes their presidential candidates would take huge bites out of the Dems and GOP. In time, both the Dems and GOP edged closer to the socialists in order to gain their millions.

Today, the socialist third parties are weak shadows of their former selves, but both major parties have implemented the socialists' programs.

Should the Libertarians or Constitutionalists ever reach millions of votes, you can bet the GOP will take heed. So far, the GOP both mocks libertarian ideology and ignores the Constitution in practice.

26 posted on 10/17/2004 8:29:38 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: K1avg

Dubya will win Wisconsin in 2004.


27 posted on 10/17/2004 8:30:55 PM PDT by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin

Well, there's 40 on my campus, so including him and his mother, there are at least 42. You do the math.


28 posted on 10/17/2004 9:13:58 PM PDT by Constitution Scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: K1avg

Fellow Libertarians should not vote with the party this year. "Libertarian" Michael Badnarik is a dangerous fraud. Badnarik--who is Lebanese and has taken tons of cash from the American Muslim Alliance (the group from which even Hillary returned the contributions!) has disturbing ties to supporters of Islamic terrorism. The Muslims are using the "Libertarian" label to hurt Bush. Badnarik is a total phony. Libertarians should not be fooled by this Wahhabist stooge!


29 posted on 10/31/2004 4:26:49 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson