Third Parties on Right Could Be Problem for Bush

Reuters ^ | 6/21/04 | Rolando Garcia

[freedom44]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Moses Murphy was as Republican as they come. The 27-year-old former Marine always voted a straight ticket and his Jeep Cherokee sported three "Bush-Cheney '04" bumper stickers.

But two months ago as the Boardsman, Ohio, resident was surfing the Internet, he came across the Web site for the Constitution Party, a small, conservative group still struggling to be on the ballot in every state.

Off came the Bush paraphernalia and now Murphy's Jeep is plastered with stickers for Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party's little-known presidential nominee.

Media attention has focused on Ralph Nader as a potential spoiler to presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry, but President Bush could face a similar threat from third party candidates on the right.

The Constitution and Libertarian parties believe they could siphon away enough disenchanted conservatives to tip a close election.

For Murphy, Bush's proposal to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants living in the United States was the final straw.

"We can't keep letting illegals come in; we need troops on the border," Murphy said in a telephone interview. "(Bush's) views no longer reflect my views, and I need to vote my principles."

The party occupying the White House is typically more prone to disgruntled ideologues bolting for a third party, said Lawrence Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota.

And hardline conservatives have no shortage of gripes with the president they helped elect. Topping the list is the dramatic increase in federal spending, especially the $500 billion new Medicare entitlement for prescription drugs Bush pushed through Congress, said Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation and a leading conservative activist.

Weyrich said grassroots conservatives "have a real problem with this administration's out of control spending."

TIPPING THE BALANCE

But it is unclear whether this grumbling on the right will translate into votes for the Libertarian or Constitution party nominees. In 2000, the Libertarian nominee received only about 385,000 votes or 0.36 percent, and conservative commentator Pat Buchanan won about 450,000 or 0.42 percent. By contrast, Nader, running from the left, took almost 3 million votes or 2.74 percent and possibly swung the election to Bush with a strong Florida showing.

Any defections from Bush's base would be "minuscule" said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, and the policy gripes of Washington political elites do not necessarily resonate among the Republican rank-and-file.

"Spokesman for the conservative movement see it as their job to grumble" when politicians on the right begin to stray, Rothenberg said.

However, even a handful of defections in key states could tip the balance. For Bush to have a hope of winning, Rothenberg said, his support among Republicans cannot dip much below 90 percent.

Unlike Nader, who was on 43 state ballots in 2000 as the Green Party nominee and is struggling to match that this year, the Libertarian nominee is typically on the ballot in all 50 states, Jacobs said.

The Constitution Party was on the presidential ballot in 42 states in 2000.

Libertarians have already proven they can decide the outcome of close elections. In the 2002 South Dakota Senate race, the Republican challenger lost by about 500 votes, with the Libertarian candidate receiving more than 3,000.

That same year, Libertarian candidates in the Wisconsin and Oregon gubernatorial races received 11 and 5 percent respectively, far exceeding the Democrat's margin of victory.

Bush lost both Oregon and Wisconsin by less than a percentage point in 2000, and both will be in play this year.

Swing states like New Hampshire and Nevada may also be fertile ground for Libertarians, Jacobs said.

But the Libertarian and Constitution party platforms could be an obstacle in peeling away conservative votes from Bush.

Both sound familiar conservative themes of slashing government and lowering taxes, but they also advocate the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and the Libertarians are socially liberal, supporting abortion rights and drug legalization. A general rule of thumb, Rothenberg said, is that about half of the voters who support third parties are outsiders who would not vote if their candidate was not running.

But if his candidacy does siphon away enough conservatives from Bush to put Kerry in the White House, Libertarian presidential nominee Michael Badnarik says that is fine with him. There is little difference between the major parties, he said, and playing the spoiler in a presidential election would greatly enhance Libertarians' national profile.

Peroutka, the Constitution nominee, said a Kerry victory could even help the conservative cause by prompting Republicans in Congress, who have approved Bush's spending increases, to oppose similar measures proposed by Kerry.

[redrock]

It's a simple thing.

Vote for who you want as President...it's not only your Right...it is your responsibility as a citizen. The Founders of this Nation would have it no other way.

Last election I voted for Howard Phillips (Constitution Party)...and am proud for doing so.

This election IS different....as we,as a Nation...as a people...as a culture, are at War. We are at War with a culture..with, perhaps, a deviation of a Religion that would think nothing of putting each and everyone of us to death.

I disagree with many of GWB's domestic policies..but in my lifetime I have seen no other President go after Terrorism as GWB has done. He has taken the fight to THEIR homelands...the battles have NOT been fought here in mine.

If for no other reason than this...I will vote for GWB.

After we have survived the War against the Jihadist idiots...then we can all argue about how to fix our Nation...and argue about which direction we must take.

redrock

[gcruse]

That's mighty white of you, Dane. You're not such a bad lumpen, after all.

[nopardons]

And THE worst RINO,in S.C.,is Ron Paul,who couldn't get elected dog catcher,running as a Libertarian,so he now runs under GOP colors,takes GOP money,but votes with the Dems.

[Reagan Man]

Well said redrock.

[Dane]

You're not such a bad lumpen, after all

When you have dinner with your hero michael moore some advice based on moore's girth.

Keep your food close and don't look away for even a moment.

[sarasmom]

Specifically, please cite an example of the oppression you personally have experienced as a direct result of an actions by AG John Ashcroft.
Please.
I really am interested in why so much venom exists against John Ashcroft, with no actual and factual specific examples ever cited by anyone.

[gcruse]

Okay, I sure won't. And you be sure and thank Ashcroft when you see him for devoting all that DOJ time to icky porn and pot. Because if grownups can do that stuff, then the terrorists have already won.

[Dane]

Because if grownups can do that stuff, then the terrorists have already won.

I'll thank him as he tries to protect you from people who want to kill you and your friends such as the ACLU who wish to release and coddle them.

[monday]

"And you are the roadkill in the middle of road."

I assume you mean metaphorically? If by "middle of the road" you mean politically, then you couldn't be further from the truth. In fact I don't even rate on your traditional left vs. right scale.

If you mean I am disenfranchised, then yes, you are correct. I am not roadkill though. More like a spectator. Watching the stupidity of the two major political parties is entertaining in a morbid way. Sort of like watching a train wreck.

One can only hope that others will someday come to realize the damage the Republicans and Democrats are doing to the Constitution before it is too late. Sadly I fear that the majority of Americans don't care. It seems Freedom isn't that important a priority until it is gone.

[Amelia]

And hardline conservatives have no shortage of gripes with the president they helped elect. Topping the list is the dramatic increase in federal spending

Reagan redux.

[Dane]

Well you are going to the perpetually bitter disenfranchised since you don't understand the way the American electoral system is set up. It is a two party system and nobody will staisfied 100%.

But you keep on dreaming and btw, when you reach your destination called perfect political world could you send me a postcard. I have a notion that it will be a very very long time before it is recevied in my mailbox.

[gcruse]

You have freepmail.

[monday]

"By voting for a fringe candidate for president,in the hopes that both Houses would keep a Kerry presidency in check,is palpably foolish and delusional!"

Bush should have thought of that before he spent all that money. I am not voting for Bush because he does stupid things while in office. So if you want to blame someone for my vote, blame Bush. He is the reason I am not voting for him this time.

[NCPAC]

Mindfire, the definition of RINO is changing - right here, right now, on this very board (not that the big government social-cons ever had a monopoly on its meaning in the first place). And you are one of those who are changing the definition. A "conservative," you MAY be, but you are also proving yourself a RINO of the first degree.

For the record, I supported (with time and money) Pat Buchanan's primary campaign in '92 (I've known him peripherally since '82 but could never back him these days, now that he's become Dick Gephardt). However, when GHWB won the primary, I was with Prez 41 in the General. A Republican battles within the parameters of the party to try to elect the (conservative) Republican of his choice. However, when the choice is eventually made - a Republican supports the Republican. A RINO, on the other hand, takes his toys and goes home because he doesn't like the way the game ended - or, in this case, votes Constitution Party. Again, to espouse or believe anything else is arrogant, politically dishonest, and anti-conservative.

As for your boy Peroutka on '04 - well, he's a moron, a horrid candidate (Howie Phillips was at least legit), and - how shall we say - "questionable" as concerns his political contribution history. He'll turn the Constitution Party (and his/its supporters) into a laughingstock faster than you can say "John Ashcroft."

[sarasmom]

So do you.

[nopardons]

Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh...that's like saying " the devil made me do it" and just as pathetic!

President Bush,though not perfect,is THE best person running for the office and that you can't see that,proves what a political naif you are.And that you have the unmitigated gall to claim that President Bush has done "stupid" things,by someone who neither understand politics,nor REAL LIFE, is hysterically funny.

Are YOU perfect? I bet that YOU do lots of stupid things and shall continue to.The stupidest thing you're in the process of doing,is posting your drivel here.LOL

This country has a two party system,third/fringe parties can ONLY be spoilers.Those are the simple facts, which you fringers keep ignoring.

[monday]

"It is a two party system and nobody will staisfied 100%."

I don't demand to be 100% satisfied. I would gladly vote for any party who simply quit tearing down the constitution. That doesn't apply to the Republicans or Democrats however, who both seem equally determined to grow government to the point where it invades every aspect of our lives.

Reagan said something to the effect that, the difference between the US and the Soviet Union, was that "we were a people who had a government while the Soviet Union was a Government who had a people". The way the US government is growing, and legislating, that difference may no longer be true in the future.

[Dane]

I don't demand to be 100% satisfied. I would gladly vote for any party who simply quit tearing down the constitution.

Uh if you help Kerry with your bitter perpetual purism, there won't be constitution to tear down, it will be shredded by a Chief Justice Mario Cuomo first and then the islamofascists who Kerry will coddle.

[monday]

"And that you have the unmitigated gall to claim that President Bush has done "stupid" things,by someone who neither understand politics,nor REAL LIFE, is hysterically funny."

whatever, jump up and down and clench your fists. Pull you hair out, rant and rave. It doesn't matter to me. What is funny is you trying to convince me to vote for someone I don't believe in. Don't bother. You think I am stupid for standing on principle, I think you are stupid for having no principles.

I'm going to leave it at that. Goodnight.

[sarasmom]

No answer is actually all the answer I need from you in order to accurately evaluate your credibility.
It is none, BTW.