Skip to comments.AND THE WINNER OF THE THIRD PARTY COMPETITION WAS ...
Posted on 11/04/2004 8:54:19 AM PST by NotchJohnson
AND THE WINNER OF THE THIRD PARTY COMPETITION WAS ...
The Libertarian Party.
Throughout the election the media fed us information about Ralph Nader. Ralph this. Ralph that. You hardly knew that the Libertarians were in the race. The results now show that the Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, received more votes than Nader.
I wonder how the Libertarians would have done if their candidate was willing to protect America from Islamic terrorists?
How did Peroutka do? Did he, at least, beat Nader?
The libertarian OPEN BORDERS idea scares me
"You hardly knew that the Libertarians were in the race."
That was all we really needed to read.
No third party got enough support to move the debate in their direction.
I believe Libertarian position is give me back my tax money and leave the Constitution alone.
Pretty hard to fund military or defend the Patiot act in that light. But maybe I don't know what they really stand for
Probably quite a bit better. Up here (VT) since I don't vote Dem my vote is always just a "protest vote", so I sometimes vote Libertarian as that's how I lean (though I don't agree with some of their platform). But this time I voted Bush because of the terrorism issue.
It bothers me too, but if welfare, and "free" education and health care went away, as the libertarians propose, essentially all of the illegals would stop coming. And many who are here might leave.
Boortz has got to be depressed this week.
Libertarian beliefs were rejected all over the nation on Tuesday.
Gay Marriage shot down in 11 states and the rest of the country overwhelmingly voting not just on the war or economic beliefs, but social conservative.
I saw about 3 ads for the Libertarian candidate here in West Virginia. I wasn't following him too closely as I had made my mind up to vote for Bush.
The Libertarians make sense on economic issues and most social issues. I cannot vote for a party which seems to be as gutless as the Dems when it comes to war and terror.
This libertarian is thrilled by the pro-gun consequences of the election.
Not if we get rid of unconstitutional social programs, like the various quasi-military "wars" that the Fedgov wages
on behalf of against the American people (poverty, drugs, etc.).
Hell, we can dream, can't we?
Even Boortz supported Dubya from what I heard.
You don't see Republicans going to court to keep these candidates off all the state ballots, or smearing them and calling them traitors. What a difference. How would the Dems have handled someone like Perot...pulling in 19%!!
I often consider myself a libertarian on some issues, like taxation, states rights, and size of government. But it usually ends there.
I wouldn't say that a ban on gay marriage was a defeat of Libertarianism. Many libertarians (at least myself), believe partial birth abortion is wrong because a baby has rights. I would say that gay marriage is just as well defeated since it opposes one of the cultural norms that is set in concrete and defined by civiliations throughout the centuries. Now if there was a ban on 7 people living together, that would be stupid.
I hope Bush will actually CUT government.
The margin of victory between Hoeffel and Specter was almost the same number as Constitution party Jim Clymer's and much smaller LP candidate votes. IF Toomey had been selected, PA might have delivered for Bush. Instead Specter ran "Kerry and Specter for Working Families" lawn signs.
> I hope Bush will actually CUT government
Never gonna happen. Both sides want big gov't right now. The left for social programs, the right to defend America.
Pretty hard to fund military or defend the Patiot act in that light.
The military still gets funded if you leave the Constitution alone, because national defense is a Constitutional mandate. As for defending the Patriot Act, the Libertarians excoriate it, as Republicans should, too.
Yea for us Pro-gun people!!!!!
I was just tickled to death about this. Without the gun issue, I am guessing that Kerry would have won.
There are no prizes for second place.
That military funding part was referring to taxes.
As for the Patriot act, I'm torn. Is it okay modify the 4th Ammendment because 9/11 changed everything? Or is it the same kind of attack on the Constitution represented by gun control? It is hard to articulate my personal beliefs on this one
Libertarians aren't opposed to all taxes in principle. Even a minimal government must be funded somehow. They're opposed to taxes for activities that are outside of the government's narrow Constitutional mandate.
As for the Patriot act, I'm torn. Is it okay modify the 4th Ammendment because 9/11 changed everything?
9/11 didn't change the fact that we have rights.
(For the record, I'm not a Libertarian party member, but I do wish that the Republican party would adopt some of their principles.)
The Libertarian Party recognizes the Military as one of the few functions of the federal government.
The LP got 376,000 votes, or about .3 per cent. In 2000 they got about .5 per cent. The trend is clear, and should evoke laughter.
Boortz was a huge Bush supporter and went on the campaign trail with Hannity and others to get out the vote.
Please tell me specifically how the Patriot Act modified the 4th amendment.
I think that this means that those that voted for Bad are idiots.
I'll freely admit that I'm not fully informed on this issue, but I will also say I want to change that. Yesterday you gave me a very informative piece of information on the conservative agenda.
Perhaps there are some similar pieces describing the conservative stance related to any search/seisure modifications in the Patriot act?
As far as I understand it, there has been NO change to the requirement for a search warrant. Best I can tell is that the feds do NOT have to notify you that one has been granted and executed.
For some reason a lot of people are under the impression that the PA allows the government to secretly search your stuff WITHOUT a warrant. That is NOT true.
Are their flaws in the PA? Do changes need to be made? Find me a single piece of legislation you can't say that about.
Interesting that the MSM will show Nader and not at least the LP. They validate the no-chance candidacy of Nader, but not that of one of the candidates that wants to radically cut back government power.
Do you have a source? Nader got about 394k.
Anyone who supports open borders poses a danger to this country.
You are drunk if you think Toomey would have turned out 100,000 people that didn't vote.
Toomey on the ticket wouldn't have driven out 5,000 more people who were going to vote.
PA was a battleground state. Less than 100 Republicans
(if any at all) stayed home because Toomey got stiffed back in April.
Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/local/psa/home/vhosts/peroutka2004.com/httpdocs/schedule/includes/db.inc on line 3 Unable to connect to the database server
c'est la vie....
I am confused. Results show Nader with 394k and Badnarik with 360k.
Please check Bush's disagreements with Tom Tancredo and get back to us.
I think this guy has been smoking something.
I got it from the lp.org web site.
Yes. I finally got it from B's site. He only pulled 0.4% and also less than Nader in Nevada.
His goal was to kill Nevada and New Mexico for Bush and he failed.
Funniest post of the day!
The LP got nearly 400,000 votes...not enough to put a dent in the Bush/Kerry margin, but still more than every other third party combined.
Nice to know we have so many liberty-minded people in America.
Ah, but the losertarians may still have another victory under their belt. In Washington state it looks like the liberels bests friends in the voting both are going to succeed in throwing the race for governor to an extreme liberal. It's kind of a shame, the Republican candidate was an outstanding lower tax Conservative, Christian, family man. But he's an evil Republican so the LP'ers voted against him in protest. For them the thought of actually having a lower taxes Conservative, Christian family man running the state is too terrible to accept.
Try 379K. LESS than Nader's 394K. And Nader was not on 22 states including CA. Nader ran 3:1 ahead of Badnarik face to face, even in Liberty-minded Nevada.
First, they have to get elected to office.
Pretty hard to fund military or defend the Patiot act in that light. But maybe I don't know what they really stand for.
First, they have to get elected to office.