Libertarian Badnarik May Cost Bush Support, Poll Finds

Los Angeles Times ^ | July 21, 2004 | Peter Wallsten

[Commie Basher]

Democratic strategists have long fretted that Ralph Nader could draw votes from their presidential candidate. But a new survey suggests that President Bush faces a potential threat of his own from a more obscure spoiler: Michael Badnarik.

[Trteamer]

And just how would a Libertarian government have dealt with the post 9/11 islamic-terroristic world?

By opening up the borders completely.

[lt.america]

The difference between the way the Republicans and Democrats handle third party opposition shows how disjointed the Democrats are.

Democrats: Mass protesting, legal maneuvers to keep him off the ballot, and belittling his supporters.

Republicans: He has the right to run (bring it on).

Synopsis: Democrats are giving Nader much more publicity than he could ever had hoped to garner had they just ignored him from the start and have made it inevitable that he will cost them votes. Republicans don't specifically address this third party threat, thereby stirring no controversy that will give this guy free press.

[DugwayDuke]

Can you explain how any vote isn't a vote for the 'lesser of two evils'?

[oblomov]

Yes. Also, he doesn't have a driver's license because he says he is not a "driver". He claims that filing taxes is voluntary, and he doesn't use ZIP codes because using them acknowledges federal sovereignty and might obligate him to pay taxes.

These are typical positions taken by the tax protest/constitutionalist crowd. Judges don't find this legal approach compelling; they find it tendentious and add to the sentences for wasting the court's time.

[Petronski]

...and with the Libertarian the individual can do whatever he wants (including child molestation)...with extra points if done while stoned.

[jmaroneps37]

This is probably true! I'm sure this jerk can get his mother to vote for him.
Seriously this is ratmedia psyops nothing more!

[Mike4Freedom]

...I don't want to take a chance that Kerry might win. So I will be voting for Bush this time..

From one Libertarian to another, you will be disappointed. Bush is not significantly different from Kerry on any important issue. There really is no lesser evil this time. If all the people who are scared of Bush but will vote for him because they are more scared of Kerry, were to vote for Badnarik, we will have real regime change in this nation and the constitution will be restored.

Both of the clowns are big spenders. We get the inflation, no matter what the money is spent on. Both will continue the war and probably spread it to Iran. This will require a draft. They are truly both horrible choices and Badnarik is the one and only hope this year.

[Dane]

So Bush owns my vote by default?

No it seems the pro-gay marriage, pro-drug, and pro-terrorist appeasment Badnarik does.

[hinckley buzzard]

"So what you're saying is you have convictions but when the chips may fall differently, you then have no convictions?"

So what you're saying is, you think you can influence someone's point of view by gratuitously insulting him?

[Captain Kirk]

You are wasting your vote by backing Dubay (which can't make a difference anyhow). Aint' a dime's worth of difference between Dubya (a more big government president than Clinton!!!) and Kerry.

[Dane]

I see that the perpetual cynic is back.

[Cultural Jihad]

Voting 3rd party is only effective in the PRIMARIES, not the GENERAL elections.

Here's how it works: Say in the primaries that 44% of the voters went to the Democrats, 44% went to the Republicans, 6% to the Greens, 3% to the Socialist Workers, 2% to the Communists, and 1% to the Libertarians.

Then, in the GENERAL election, the Democratic candidate can look at the numbers and say: "Gee, 12% of my important constituents feel really strongly about moral-liberal issues, so in this upcoming GENERAL election I will alter my message accordingly."

[arasina]

You are wasting your vote by backing Dubay (which can't make a difference anyhow). Aint' a dime's worth of difference between Dubya (a more big government president than Clinton!!!) and Kerry.

Man, are you ever delusional. There's a HUGE difference between PRESIDENT BUSH and John F'n Kerry. Are we to follow your troll droppings and waste our votes to get Kerry elected via the Purists?

Troll droppings: Always grow in size and end in a pile of o o o o o

[Cultural Jihad]

Aint' a dime's worth of difference between Dubya (a more big government president than Clinton!!!) and Kerry.

The owner of the forum you are squatting on has different ideas.

[Republican Red]

The only liertarian I know of is Neal Boortz and to my amazement he is pushing President Bush to win.

In 2000 he went out of his way to talk up the libertarian candidate.

[massadvj]

I am in Pennsylvania. I am a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000 because this was a battlegound state and I just couldn't fathom Al Gore as President. After four years of Bush and a plethora of liberal policies (nation-building, campaign finance, federal expansionism in education, tariffs, prescription drugs for seniors, record deficits, aids relief for Africa, ad infinitum), I have come to conclude that my only hope for limited government is divided government. In 8 years of Bill Clinton, the federal governmant was nowhere near as successful in developing a progressive agenda, intruding into ever-more areas of my life. And don't tell me about lower taxes. Thanks to runaway federal spending, we're all paying the bill for the tax cuts at the gas pump, grocery store, doctor's office, etc. And all of you "conservatives" know it.

I haven't decided who I will vote for. Maybe I'll just leave that particular race blank, or maybe I'll vote Libertarian or Constitutionalist. But I cannot vote for Bush. I like the guy personally (at least as much as I can tell based on the image I see on the TV screen). But I need more than that. Politicians should be evaluated based on what they DO rather than what they SAY. And George Bush's outright pandering to the left has been outrageous.

Maybe he'll convert enough soccer moms and already-rich seniors looking for more government handouts to make up for my vote. But I cannot vote for 4 more years of this. With Kerry and a Republican Congress, the tide of socialism will at least be restrained by partisan bickering and territorialism. As it is, the Republicans are running roughshod over the constitution and for the most part the party loyal are helping them do it.

Well, I'm a conservative before a Republican. And I remember when this place had more than a few of us. Now it's become a neocon cheering section. But like a lot of cheerleaders, I think not enough of us are asking what we are cheering for.

So if Bush loses because he lost PA by one vote, here is that vote. When they look at the vote maybe they will see a write in "PAT TOOMEY" with a little note scribbled underneath: "I just couldn't hold my nose one more time".

[BnBlFlag]

If I were to vote 3rd party it wouldn't be the Libertarians, it would be the Constitution Party.

[Katya]

"This libertarian is voting for Bush."

So is this one...that said, Republicans and democrats should bitch less about third party candidates drawing votes away from them and target the other half of the country that doesn't vote at all.

[MrJingles]

Don't confuse Libertarians with libertarians, friends. I consider myself one of the latter.

I'm a libertarian, a born-again Christian, and I will be voting for Dubya this fall.

Libertarianism and Anarchism are not synonymous! The goal of anarchism is total freedom, wheras the goal of libertarianism is relative freedom.

The former has no respect for the rights of others: might makes right, if you think you can get away with it, do it, etc.

The latter promotes freeom with respect for the freedom of others. I can't hurt you through force or fraud, and you can't do such things to me, either. The main tenent of libertarianism is: "My body and my property are my own, and I may do with them as I wsh." The same applies to others. Meaning government can only step-in if my actions are directly harming other people without their consent.

Anarchism promotes the absence of geovernment. Libertarianism promotes government that protects it's citizens from invoulantary harm, and ideally does little else.

Under such a principle child molestation would most certainly be illegal (as children cannot, by nature, consent to anything.) Murder, theft, rape, assault, arson and vandalism would all be illegal, as they violate the rights of others. Speed limits on the roads would still exist, as driving too fast directly puts others in danger.

However, injecting black tar herion into one's eyeball would not be illegal, just as breaking your own window would not be illegal. You can't commit a crime against yourself, only against others.

And to answer your question, no, I don't smoke weed and I never have.

[The Libertarian Dude]

Me too. Guess I'm not "French" enough. Damn.