New York Times analysis: [Libertarian] Badnarik's impact could be 'critical'

LP ^ | 10/29/04 | NY Times via LP.org

[FlipWilson]

oh, I didn't say that the MSM would be effective in their efforts. If that were the case, the Republicans would have lost the House and Senate long ago.

As for the early voting results. I have read stuff that goes both ways, i.e. Kerry is ahead, Bush is ahead. Who the hell knows.

By the way, does anyone know where I can make book on what the 60 Minutes story will be. I want to place $100.00 that it is about Bush sleeping with Sheep. Either that, or Bush personally stole every soldiers MRE's before they went to Iraq, or Bush invested heavily in Big Baby Wipes and sent the troops to fight in the desert knowing that Baby Wipes would be at a premium.

[Bob J]

Not insanity, just plain hatred. Libertarians hate pubs because they have the power and they aren't what they want them to be. If the Libertarian Party had one ounce of brain power it would withhold it's criticism of the pubs and then broker a deal prior to the election and get one or two things it wants in exchange for endorsement. This way they could slowly build their base as a party of principle while leveraging whatever strength they have at the polls.

As it is, Badnarik has to endorse Bush to suppress conservative revulsion if Bush loses, and what does he get for it? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What a bunch of asswipes.

[Soul Seeker]

They wish.

[hinckley buzzard]

"I saw the first libertarian commercial of the season today in phoenix"

A libertarian ad has been running in Ohio, seen it several times. It is a pure attack ad against President Bush.

If these infantile, arrogant, anti-American chckens**t punk spoiler bst&rds cost us Ohio, I will definitely lose all respect for them, and my sense of humor as well.

[no dems]

In your dreams New York Times; in your dreams.

[phoenix0468]

...If the Libertarian Party had one ounce of brain power it would withhold it's criticism of the pubs and then broker a deal prior to the election and get one or two things it wants in exchange for endorsement...

I think the Libertarian platform is more condusive to pulling in conservative democrats and possibly even the moderates than being very appealing to even moderate republicns. This is where the party should focus it's attention. Especially after these elections. The Dems will be in upheaval when the smoke clears and they've lost terribly in both the executive and legistative elections. Hey Bidnarick let's go for the smart dem's and put that party in the history books.

[clee1]

Call Vegas - the Binions Horseshoe Casino; they'll take a bet on anything. :)

[freedom44]

Legalize it is about the ONLY thing the Libertarians have right!

[WildTurkey]

If Buchannan wasn't in the race ....

If Nader wasn't in the race ...

If pigs could fly ...

Every libertarian I have seen here would have stayed home if not for the LP so the vote margins would not have changed.

[clee1]

I support alot of the Libertarian platform ideals, however:

1) In order to live up to the ideals, first you have to live.

2) Isolationism has NEVER worked; post 9-11 it could be fatal.

3) I won't vote Libertarian (for President) until the party actually runs a reasonable, rational candidate.

4) They can stay home if they want to, or vote for Badnarik if they choose; won't make a bit of difference.

[KingKongCobra]

I've seen the schedule. 60Lies will do a story Sunday about how the troops in Iraq don't have enough fully armored vehicles.

[HitmanLV]

Who?

[not2worry]

IMHO, the NYT article could very well help Bush.

The coin has two sides. If a Libertarian thinks his vote could help Kerry to beat Bush, one could assume that a Libertarian may very well not waste his vote, especially in light of the 2000 election.

[Ceebass]

Libertarian Badnarik has the potential to "Naderize" Bush by attracting conservative votes, according to Tierney and other analysts.

Hard core libertarians would never vote for any republican or democrat. If a libertarian isn't on the ballot, they'll write in "the US Constitution" or whatever.

If a republican loses in a 3-way race with a libertarian it's their own fault. They were never going to get those votes anyway.

If conservatives vote libertarian, I don't think a republican would ever have got that vote either.

Assuming libertarians draw off GOP votes is hogwash. Blaming libertarians for GOP losses is shirking responsibility.

[willyboyishere]

Are there ANY requirements for being a writer for the New York Times besides having a ballpoint pen and a notebook?

[Hank Rearden]

There are MANY Libertarians in Arkansas - Maybe it is time that the republican party gets back to its roots and quit acting like a bunch of prima-donna democrats with thirsty wallets.

The Republican Party flacks (and FR 'bots) get really pissed off every time it's pointed out what a bunch of big-spending, big-government, budget-busting hacks they've become, once in charge.

[goldstategop]

In the Gray Lady's dreams.

[eyespysomething]

The only person I personally know who is voting for Badnarick I culled off of Kerry's teat.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

This is an absolutely critical election. Maybe the libertarians ought to consider the real-life ramifications of their actions for once, instead of bitching about the only people willing to stand up to terrorists - THE REPUBLICANS.

[Hank Rearden]

So why can't Republicans fight terrorists and do what the hell they've been promising to do for decades? Nobody seems to want to address that question.

Why did the Republican Party simply turn into the other Big Stupid Government, free-spending party once getting control of everything? And why has it ceased even pretending to care about doing anything to rein in government?

Saying "vote for us now, and maybe we'll be good in the future" is getting awfully lame. Now it's come down to "vote for us, or the terrorists will kill you".

That's America?